TRANSCRIPT OF CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF
POLLUT1 Of IWTflK IMffiS
LOIR COLUllfl
HI TO CflTHLflrIT, III
September 10-11
, Oregon
-------
CONFERENCE'ON POLLUTION OP : INTERSTATE WATERS
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER
(Below- Bonneville Dam)
Auditorium, Interior'Building
Portland, Oregon
September 10 and 11, 1958.
CHAIRMAN -- MURRAY STEIN, Chief
Interstate Enforcement
Water Supply 'and Water Pollution
Control Program
U. S. Public Health Service
Washington, D.C.
CONFEREES:-
HAROLD E. MILLER)1 Director
Washington Pollution Control Commission
Olympia, Washington
CURTISS M. EVERTS, JR,, Secretary
Oregon State Sanitary Authority
Portland, Oregon
RICHARD F. POSTON, Assistant Regional Engineer
U. S. Public Health Service
Region IX
San Francisco, California.
bOo-
(A list of other attendees is attached as "Appendix A")
-------
...Whereupon, the Conference was convened at 9 o'clock,
a.m., Wednesday, September 10, 1958, by Chairman Stein...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The conference is open.
This conference in the matter of pollution of the inter-
state waters of the lower Columbia River from Bonneville Dam to
its mouth, involving the States of Washington and Oregon, is being
held under the provisions of Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. Under the terms of the Act, the Surgeon General
of the Public Health Service is required to call a conference of
this type when requested to do so by the Governor of any State,
or a State Water Pollution Control agency, or when, on the basis
of reports, surveys and studies, he has reason to believe that
pollution subject to abatement under the Act is occurring.
We have been in receipt of letters from the Governor of
Oregon and the representative of the State Water Pollution Control
agency of Washington, which, we believe, ask for a conference
under Section 8. Evidently, there was some misunderstanding on
the matter, and, if this is not the case, I would like to read
this telegram to me, dated September 9th, into the record. It
says:
"Relative to my letter of May 1, 1958, to the Honorable
Marion B. Polsom, requesting the entrance of the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare into the pollution control problem
on the Columbia River between the States of Oregon and Washington.
I wish to commend you for the hearing you have called for today,
September 10. I would like to make it clear that I sought your
services under Section 2 of Public Law 660 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and not Section 8. I know that Oregon and
Washington jointly are making considerable progress in this matter
and have hopes that your agency might be of assistance to them."
That is signed by Robert D. Holmes, Governor.
Now, there may have been the same intention, I am so in-
formed, on the part of the State of Washington in requesting this
conference. However, under our law there is no procedure for the
calling of a conference under Section 2. In the operation of that
section, which has been in effect since 19^8, numerous comprehen-
sive programs have been developed, but conferences have not been
called. The only time that "conference" is mentioned in the law
is in connection with Section 8, dealing with enforcement measures
on pollution. In that way, I assume this misunderstanding arose.
-------
However, under the law, the Surgeon General may also
call this conference when, on the basis of reports, surveys and
studies, he has reason to believe that pollution subject to abate-
ment under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is occurring.
The Public Health Service has kept this area, as well as
other interstate areas, under surveillance, and it has collected
reports, analyzed reports, surveys and studies in these areas. On
the basis of this information, the Surgeon General has reason to
believe that pollution in the interstate waters of the Columbia
River is occurring, and he called the conference under that sec-
tion of the law too. So, I think this conference was called under
both sections of the law, and, in response to the directive of the
Surgeon General, we will proceed on the basis that this conference
was called under Section 8 of the Water Pollution Control Act.
The purpose of the conference, and here we fully agree
with the sentiments expressed by the Governor of Oregon in his
telegram, is to bring together State and local water pollution
control agencies, and the Public Health Service, and other inter-
ested parties, to review the existing situation, the progress
which has been made, and to lay a basis for future, action.by..all
parties conferring, and to give the States, localities and indus-
tries an opportunity to take any remedial action which may be in-
dicated under State and local law.
The conference technique is rather an old one. As a
matter of fact, it is used by many State agencies informally in
the normal conduct of their business in the field of water pollu-
tion control. The notion of a conference was proposed by the Unit
States Supreme Court in the famous case of New York and New Jersey
involving interstate pollution. The court said, as far back as
1921, and I quote:
"We can not withhold the suggestions inspired by the
consideration of this case that the grave problem of sewage dis-
posal presented by the large and growing populations living on
the shores of New York Bay is one more likely to be wisely solved
by cooperative study and by conference and mutual concession on
the part of representatives of the states so vitally interested
in it than by proceedings in any court, however constituted."
This, we think, is particularly applicable to the rela-
tively complex situation such as we have in the lower Columbia
River.
Under -Section 8 of the Federal Act/ the .Surgeon General
has notified the official State water pollution control agencies
of this conference. These agencies are the Washington State
-------
Pollution Control Commission and the Oregon State Board of Health.
Under the law, this is a conference between these'official agencies
and the Public Health Service. The official agencies'are privi-
leged to bring whomever they, wish to the conference and have them
participate in the conference.
The conferees have been designated by these official
agencies. For -Washington, the conferee is Harold.E. Miller,
Director of the State Pollution Control Commission. For Oregon,
the conferee is Curtiss M. Everts, Jr., Director of Division of
Sanitation Engineering of the State Board of Health; for the Public
Health Service,--.Mr. Richard F. Poston, Assistant Regional Director,
Region IX, with headquarters in San Francisco. My name is Murray
Stein. I'm from headquarters. Public Health Service, Washington,
D.C.
Both the States and the Federal Government have responsi-
bilities in dealing with interstate pollution control problems.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares that the States
have primary rights and responsibilities in taking action to abate
and control interstate pollution. It has always been the policy
of the Public- Health Service to recognize this traditional role of
the States. The function of the Public Health Service is to en-
courage the States in these activities. However, the Public Health
Service is charged by the law with .specific responsibility in conn-
ection with interstate pollution problems.
The Fe-deral Water Pollution Control Act provides that
pollution of interstate waters, which endangers the health or wel-
fare of persons in the State other than that in which the pollution
originates, is subject to abatement.
The conference will be useful in providing a clear record
delineating the progress which has already been accomplished, and
indicating what still needs to be done in correcting any interstate
pollution problem which may exist.
Under the Federal law, the Surgeon General is required at
the conclusion of the conference to prepare a summary of the con-
ference, which will be sent to all the conferees. The summary,
according to law, must include the following:
(l) Occurrence of pollution of interstate waters subject
to .abatement under the-Federal Act.
(2) The adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of
pollution; and
-------
(3) The nature of delays, if any, being encountered in
the abatement of pollution.
It is suggested that the conference discussions be
directed, toward these points so that we may prepare a serviceable
summary at-its conclusion. In addition,. the; law requires the
Surgeon:-General to determine at the conclusion of the conference
whether effective-progress toward abatement of pollution, if such
pollution exists, is being made.
r '
.-
To aid the Surgeon General in this determination, the
conference material and reports, I am sure, will be most useful.
.; ;' Now, very often, conferences have taken two courses, and
this assumes, of course, that the basic assumption is that a deter-
mination is made that pollution subject to abatement under the
Federal Act exists, and that the Federal Government has jurisdic-
tion in the case. If that is so, generally the conferees have
come up with two solutions. One is,when considerable progress and'
consultation has been already .taken in the area, pretty definitive
conclusions are reached at the conference, and, in almost all
cases, a time schedule for remedial action is agreed on by the
conferees.
When such is not the case, the conferees sometimes de-
clare a session of the-conference, such as this, to be the first
session of the rconference,'and then at a future date decide-to
hold,.a second session of the conference where more definitive con-
clusions may be reached. In the interim between the first and
secpnd sessions of the conference, of course, appropriate work can
be done by the State agencies and the Federal Government to come
to conclusions or gather information which will be helpful in
arriving at the definitive determination. At'the present stage,
of course, we can't know how this conference will come out.. '
Now, a word about the procedures -governing the conduct
of the conference.. Mr. Montgomery-is making a stenographic report
of these proceedings for the purpose of aiding us in preparing a
summary and also providing a record of-what is said and done here.
We- will make copies of the summa-r.y- and of the conference and this
transcript available to the. conferees. Other people desiring to
receive copies of the transcript, and the summary'should get in
touch with-their.; official-'State -water pollution control agencies,
who .are represented .at..the conference, here, and .request such copy.
An agenda has been provided for the conference. The. .
agenda is to^ aid us in directing our discussions toward the points
required to be. jcovered by law. However, the-, agenda can be adjusted
-------
to meet particular situations as they arise.
All the conferees will be called upon to make state-
ments. The conferees, in addition, may call upon the participants
they have invited to the conference to make statements. At the
conclusion of such statements, the conferees will be given an
opportunity'to comment or ask questions, and, at the conclusion
of the conferees comments and questions, I may ask some questions
too. This procedure has proved effective in developing a clear
statement of the problems and of reaching solutions, reaching
agreements on equitable solutions where such solutions were called
for.
Now, I would like to call upon Mr. Poston of the Public
Health Service to give a statement on the general aspects of
pollution in the lower Columbia River. Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: Mr. Stein, fellow conferees. Water has
often been described as the life blood of our community and one
of our most important resources. Domestic water delivered to the
home is the cheapest commercial commodity known. Without abundant
water, we have deserts in place of prosperous agriculture. With-
out abundant water- the basic industries, which make our country
great, would not be possible.
As the people in the Pacific northwest well know, water
provides cheap hydro power and superlative recreational facilities.
These facts are well known. Another fact, equally important and
often overlooked, is that quality of water may be as important as
quantity. High quality water has universal uses. Lower quality
water has more limited uses.
Because of the national importance of water quality and
the responsibility imposed by the Congress on the Public Health
Service, we have a direct concern in the condition of the nation's
interstate waters, and we keep surveillance thereon. The lower
Columbia is just one of the interstate situations.
Our knowledge of interstate pollution has been gained
through the gradual compilation and analysis of existing informa-
tion. This information comes from a variety of sources, surveys,
reports, news clippings, personal interviews, and so forth. The
Public Health Service is backstopped by the largest and most diver-
sified, most competent group of water pollution experts, I think.
I'm referring now to the Sanitary Engineering Center of Cincinnati,
Ohio.
In cases, such as the preparation for today's conference,
-------
7
we call upon these experts to evaluate the materials ..that-we .have
collected in detail, to bring our knowledge up to date, to provide
us with objective views. Mr. Francis Kittrell, in charge of
Stream Sanitation of the Sanitary Engineering Center, -has-made-an
evaluation and report on pollution of interstate waters of the
lower Columbia, and I would like now to call .upon Mr. Kittrell to
give us.a summary of his report, which will be the Public Health
Service's contribution to a better understanding of .-the situation
that we face today.
Mr: Kittrell.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Kittrell, may I ask you and the
other parties who are to make statements to come .up to the lec-
tern here and use it to make their statements.
MR. KITTRELL. Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen:
The Columbia River is the second largest stream in our
country. It rises in British Columbia and enters Washington near
the northeastern corner of the State. The river flows in a gener-
ally southerly direction across Washington to Oregon. Here it
turns west and serves as the boundary between Washington and Ore-
gon as it flows to the. Pacific Ocean. The total distance traveled
is 1,200 miles through a drainage area of 2J59>000 square miles.
Prom this large area., the river at its mouth discharges an annual
average of nearly 200,000 cubic feet per second.
This statement deals with a 104 mile section of the
lower Columbia River between Bonneville Dam and Cathlamet, Wash-
ington. The facts used here are taken from a "Report on Pollution
of Interstate Waters of the Lower Columbia River, Bonneville Dam
to Cathlamet, Washington", published by the United States Public
Health Service in August, 1958. At this point, I wish to place a
copy of that report in the record of this conference.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That will be marked Government's Exhibit
No. 1.
...Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Govern-
ment's Exhibit No. 1, and such document.accompanies the original
transcript of the conference...
MR. KITTRELL: The reach of riVer involved is the most
highly developed section of the entire main river,, wi.th nearly a
half million persons living along its banks. Of these, 436,000
live in the three major cities on the river, Portland, Vancouver,
-------
8
and Longview. Portland is by far the largest center of population,
with 374,000 persons.
Numerous industries are situated on or near the banks
of this section of the river. The principal production of these
industries are electrometallurgical products, processed foods,
and wood products, including pulp and paper.
The lower Columbia River is used for nearly every pur-
pose that a river can serve.
At Bonneville Dam, the river produces power through ten
Kaplan turbine-generator units, having a total rated capacity of
approximately 518,400 kilowatts. These units furnish an important
portion of the total hydro power produced in the Columbia River
Basin. The dam is equipped with a navigation lock having a mini-
mum 27 foot depth. Facilities are provided which permit anadro-
mous fishes to pass upstream to spawn and flngerlings to pass down-
stream to the sea.
At Longview, Washington, the river serves as the source
of water supply for the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company pulp and paper
plant. A portion of this 85 million gallon per day industrial
supply is used for domestic purposes by the plant's 1,000 em-
ployees.
The Longview Fibre Company pulp and paper mill, also at
Longview, uses 35 million gallons of river water daily. The water
is taken from the Cowlitz River near its mouth, but, under certain
tidal conditions, Columbia River water enters the plant intake.
A few other small industrial water supplies are taken
from the Columbia.
The river provides many forms of recreation for many
persons. The scenic beauty of the river and bordering areas
attracts many tourists to its banks.
Numerous boat moorages along both sides of the Columbia
River from Camas to Longview attest to the popularity of the river
for pleasure boating. There are about 2,500 licensed boats of 16
feet or longer on the lower Columbia. The Coast Guard estimates
that there are at least 10,000 unlicensed smaller boats on the
river. Some of the estimated 12,500 craft are commercial, but
pleasure boats constitute the majority. Many of the pleasure
boats are used in connection with the increasingly popular sport
of water skiing.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER
(Bonneville Dam to Mouth)
OREGON AND WASHINGTON
-------
9
Most of the organized swimming on the river is at
Reeder Beach on Sauvie Island/ at Jantzen Beach on Hayden Island,
and from the Portland-Vancouver area upstream to Government Is-
land. In addition, there is unorganized swimming by individuals
and small groups at various points throughout the entire reach of
the Columbia under consideration.
Sport fishing is extremely popular on the lower Columbia.
The salmon and steelhead trout of the river are highly prized by
anglers. A cooperative creel census by Washington and Oregon fish-
eries representatives indicated that over 54,000 salmon, weighing
about 700,000 pounds, were taken from the lower river by sport
fishermen between July 15 and September 2, 1957. It is estimated
that the fishermen spent about $2,000,000 for this sport.
A creel census was taken at one of 25 to 30 favorite
steelhead fishing spots during a recent summer season. About
2,800 steelhead trout were taken at the one spot during the season.
If the steelhead catches were similar at the other spots, it would
indicate a total catch of about 75,000 trout for the season. Data
on cost of the catch to the sportsmen are not available, but pound
for pound the sports fisherman spends about 50 per cent more for
steelhead trout, than for salmon.
Duck hunting is popular on the lower Columbia River. '
Use of boats is an important feature of this sport. Available
data do not permit an exact definition of the value of this activ-
ity. The data that are available indicate that about 10,000
hunters bagged about 90,000 ducks at a cost of over $400,000
during the 1956-1957 season.
There is a small amount of trapping on the lower Colum-
bia. Available data indicate that something like 7^500 muskrat
pelts, worth more than $B,500, were taken during the 1956-1957
season. The small total income from this use of the river indic-
ates' that the trapping probably is more of a recreational hobby
than a commercial venture.
Although Portland is over 100 miles from the ocean, the
Columbia makes it one of the important ports of the Pacific Coast.
Both ocean-going liners and naval warships dock at Portland. Dur-
ing 1956, nearly 22,400,000 tons of cargo, equivalent to nearly
1.5 billion ton miles of haulage, moved between the Portland -
Vancouver area and the mouth of the Columbia.
Large numbers of log rafts are transported on the river
to supply the lumber and pulp and paper plants in this area. While
awaiting use, the logs are stored in quiet areas along the river
banks and in sloughs on both sides of the river.
-------
10
The lower Columbia River is used for a small amount of
irrigation. Water is pumped from the river for this purpose at
25 to 30 points between Bonneville Dam and Cathlamet. The water
is used principally on vegetable produce, such as celery, straw-
berries and beans.
The Columbia River commercial fishery has been estimated
to yield an annual return of $20,000,000 in recent years.
The importance of the fishery is indicated by the estim-
ated $50,000,000 spent for its protection by State and Federal
agencies during the past ten years.
Not all of the $20,000,000 annual return accrues to the
lower Columbia, but an important portion does. In 1957, about
800 gill net fishermen earned an estimated $4,000,000 on the lower
Columbia River. More than 6,000,000 pounds of salmon and steel-
head were canned, and nearly 3,000,000 pounds were processed as
frozen fish. The total value of the canned and frozen fish was
about $8,000,000.
The commercial fishermen are estimated to have nearly
$3,000,000 invested in boats, gear, and other equipment. They
spend about $6,600 per year for maintenance of the 78 fishing
drifts between Bonneville Dam and Cathlamet.
Finally, the river receives and carries away the sewage
and industrial wastes from the municipalities and industries along
its banks. This use of the river, unfortunately, results in pollu-
tion of these interstate waters that endangers the health and wel-
fare of some of the inhabitants of both States.
The constituents of wastes that cause pollution of the
lower Columbia River may be divided into two general categories.
One includes the bacteria and other microorganisms from sewage
which cause hazards to health. The other category includes those
organic compounds from both sewage and certain industrial wastes
that act as nutrients which support excessive growths of non-
pathogenic bacterial slimes. These slimes lower water quality in
the lower Columbia and interfere with fishing. The dominant slimee
have been identified as jSphaerotilus,
There are 21 sewerage systems in communities and indus-
trial plants which discharge sewage to the Columbia River between
Bonneville Dam and Cathlamet. Of these, the towns of Rainier and
St. Helens, Oregon, and Cathlamet, Washington, provide no sewage
treatment. These towns have a total population of about 6,400
connected to their sewerage systems. In addition, the sewage from
about 700 persons in Vancouver, Washington, receives no treatment.
-------
11
The other 18 sewerage systems include a minimum of primary treat-
ment. Of these, all on the Washington side include chlorination
in addition to primary treatment. On the Oregon side, two systems
include primary treatment followed by chlorination, one has.inter-
mediate treatment and chlorination, and one has secondary treat-
ment. Only one town, Portland, and one industrial plant, Reynolds
Aluminum Company, provide primary treatment only.
The combined effect of sewage treatment at all Washing-
ton sources is to reduce the coliform organisms, or sewage bac-
teria, contained in the raw sewage by an estimated 88.5 per cent
before discharge to the Columbia River. The comparable overall
reduction at all Oregon sources is estimated to be only 50.1 per
cent.
It is estimated that the coliform organism content of
the sewage discharged to the lower Columbia from all sources is
equivalent to the coliform organism content of raw sewage from a
sewered population of about 156,000 persons. This represents a.
combined reduction of nearly 59 per cent of the coliform organisms
in the raw sewage, from the total sewered population of about
377,800 people.
...Whereupon, Chart 1 was displayed...
MR. KITTRELL: Chart 1 shows the principal sources of
bacterial contamination discharged to the lower Columbia River,
and the relative proportions of contamination from these sources.
Nearly 9^ per cent of the total contamination is dis-
charged from the Oregon side, and a little over 6 per cent from
the Washington side. Of the total, Portland alone contributes an
estimated 89.6 per cent, and Portland and Vancouver together con-
tribute a combined 92.6 per cent. It is obvious that the Portland-
Vancouver area is the focal point of bacterial contamination of
the lower river, with Portland contributing nearly 9^ per cent of
the total from this one area.
...Whereupon, Chart 2 was displayed...
MR. KITTRELL: Chart 2 shows the results of the bac-
terial contamination in the river during the August through Novem-
ber periods of 1953-1957. The large circles indicate the concen-
trations of coliform organisms in the river water. These concen-
trations are based on data obtained by the Portland Sewage Treat-
ment Plant for the river just above the Portland-Vancouver area
and for a distance of 5 miles downstream from the point at which
the Portland sewage is discharged, and on projection of 'these
observed data downstream to Ca,thlamet on the basis of theoretical
-------
12
considerations.
The chart includes, for comparison, circles indicating
bacterial water quality objectives for several uses of water.
These objectives were adopted for the protection of the health of
water users by the Pollution Control Council of the Pacific North-
west Area. The Council includes representatives of the pollution
control and public health agencies of British Columbia, Alaska,
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, and of the Canadian De-
partment of National Health and Welfare, and of the U. S, Public
Health Service. These objectives state, in effect, that: water
used as a source of .domestic water supply should not contain, on
the average, more than 2,000 coliform organisms per 100 milli-
liters of water; water used for boating and fishing should not
contain, on the average, more than 1,000 coliform organisms per
100 milliliters; and water used for swimming should not contain,
on an average, more than 240 coliform organisms per 100 milli-
liters. A fourth objective states that the minimum treatment re-
quired for sewage discharged into water used for water supply for
drinking, and for bathing, swimming, and recreation, is sedimenta-
tion (all primary treatment) and effective disinfection.
The bacterial quality of the water leaving Bonneville
Dam is excellent, averaging only 51 coliform organisms per 100
milliliters from January through July, 1958. I doubt if you can
even see this circle (indicating on chart) up at Bonneville, it
is so small, but it is very good quality water. Sewage discharged
above the Portland-Vancouver area increases the coliform organism
content to about 1,200 per 100 milliliters, which fails to meet
the objectives for water used for swimming and for boating and
fishing.
Sewage discharged from the Portland-Vancouver area in-
creases the average, coliform organism concentration to more than
23,000 per 100 milliliters, which is 97 times the objective for
swimming, and 23 times the objective for boating and fishing,-
The bacteria die off as the river flows downstream, but at Cath-
lamet the average coliform organism concentration is still estim-
ated to be 11 times the objective for swimming and 3 times the
objective for boating and fishing.
At Longview, where the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company water
plant intake is located, the coliform concentration from upstream
contamination is estimated to be twice the objective for a source
of domestic water supply. Local contamination from Longview in-
creases the contamination at the intake to at least 4 times the
objective.
These data indicate that the Columbia River from the
-------
WASHINGTON
OREGON
CHART I
CATHLAMET
LONGVIEW-KELSO
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SOURCES OF
BACTERIAL
CONTAMINATION
KALAMA- WOODLAND
COLUMBIA
ST. HELENS -
RAINIER-
CLATSKANIE
SAUVIE
IS.
VANCOUVER
.CAMAS
PORTLAND
GRESHAM
AND
VICINITY
BONNEVILLE
DAM
10,000 B.RE.
-------
CHART 2
CATHLAMET
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
BACTERIAL
CONTAMINATION
OF RIVER
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA
Legend'.
* SWIMMING OBJECTIVE
BOATING OBJECTIVE
It WATER SUPPLY OBJECTIVE
BACTERIAL CONTENT
PORTLAND
BONNEVILLE
DAM
OREGON
-------
13
Portland-Vancouver area to Cathlamet fails to meet the established
bacterial water quality,objectives for any of the uses of this
reach of the river. There is a .hazard to health to those using
the river as a source of.domestic water supply, to those who fish
and who use boats for pleasure, for hunting and trapping, and for
navigation, and to those who swim and water ski. With the excep-
tion of the use of the river as a source of domestic water supply,
the same conclusions apply to uses of the river above the Portland-
Vancouver area for .an undetermined distance upstream, possibly as
far as Camas, Washington.
Both sewage and many industrial wastes contain organic
wastes that may serve as nutrients for bacterial slimes in the re-
ceiving waters.
The Columbia River reaches Bonneville Dam with a rela-
tively low organic content, as reflected by an average biochemical
oxygen demand of 1.14 parts per million for January through June,
1958. The good sanitary quality of the water at this point is
shown also by the dissolved oxygen saturation, which ranged from
92.9 to 115 per cent. Organic pollution from sources above Bonne-
ville Dam has no adverse effect on the river at the dam.
...Whereupon, Chart 3 was displayed...
MR. KITTRELL: Chart 3 shows the principal sources of
organic wastes entering the Columbia between Bonneville Darn and
Cathlamet. The diameters of the circles are in proportion to the
population equivalents, based on oxygen demand, of combined sewage
and industrial wastes from the several areas involved.
The combined wastes from Washington sources account for
nearly 85 per cent of the total 3,200,000 population equivalents
from all sources. Oregon sources contribute a little more than
15 per cent of the total.
Of the total from all sources, sewage from both Washing-
ton and Oregon accounts for 9 per cent, compared to 91 per cent
for industrial wastes. Pulp and paper mills contribute 87 per
cent of the total. One plant alone, the Crown Zellerbach Corpora-
tion at Camas, accounts for nearly 47 per cent of the total. This
company also has a pulp and paper mill at St. Helens. The two
plants combined contribute 51-3 per cent, or a little more than
one-half, of the total population equivalents from all sources in
the area. The contributions of the Columbia River Paper Mills at
Vancouver and the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company at Longview are very
nearly the same, with 13.4 per cent and 12.7 per cent, respectively,
The Longview Fibre Company accounts for 6.7 per cent, and the
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Incorporated, for 3.1 per cent.
-------
14
The foregoing data do not include one waste that enters
the Columbia under unusual, circumstances. This is the digester
liquor from the Publishers Paper Company pulp and paper mill at
Oregon City, which Is barged to the Columbia River and discharged
below the mouth of the Willamette River. This method of disposal
is used only when stream flow in the Willamette is low, usually
during the months of July through October. This practice in-
creases the population equivalent of wastes discharged to the
river by 400,000, or 12.5 per cent, to a total of 3,600,000. It
increases the combined population equivalent of the pulp and paper
mill wastes to nearly 90 per cent of the total from all sources.
It is obvious that pulp and paper mill wastes dominate
the organic pollution of the lower Columbia River.
For at least 20 years, excessive growths of bacterial
slimes have occurred intermittently in the Columbia from Camas to
below Longview.
During 1940-1942, the Oregon State Sanitary Authority
and the Washington State Pollution Commission cooperated in a
study of the slime problem. The results of the study we're pub-
lished in 1943 as a "Report on Investigation of Pollution in Lower
Columbia River". As a result of both observations in the river
and controlled flowing trough experiments with various types and
concentrations of wastes, it was concluded that the slime was
Sphaerotilus and that organic constituents of pulp and paper mill
wastes were the principal causes of the excessive growths in the
river. It was concluded, further, that waste sulfite and sulfate
digester liquors contained most of the organic nutrients respons-
ible for the growths.
Observations of the slime growths in the river revealed
that they grew attached to submerged stable surfaces, such as
rocks, gravel, pilings, docks, and log rafts. Growth areas ex-
tended variable distances downstream from points at which pulp
and paper mill wastes were discharged along the Washington bank.
The attached Sphaerotilus grows as chains, or filaments,
of bacteria surrounded by a sheath. The filaments are encased in
gelatinous capsular material. Colonies of the filaments develop
into either tufts or plumes. The plumes may be an inch or more
in diameter and several inches long. The tufts and plumes break
off when they die or when they are affected by increased current
velocity or other disturbances. V/hen detached, they float down-
stream so long as the current is adequate to support them. In
quiet areas, away from the current, they settle to form decaying
sludge deposits. The floating slimes have a marked tendency to
wrap around and adhere tenaciously to any small object that they
-------
CHART 3
WASHINGTON
CATHLAMET
LONGVIEW
OREGON
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SOURCES OF
ORGANIC
WASTES
100,000 P.E.
ST. HELENS
VANCOUVER
SAUVIE
IS.
BONNEVILLE
DAM
PORTLAND
-------
15
encounter. During the 1940-1942 study, the drifting slimes
caught on fishermen's nets and inhibited fishing from Camas to
the mouth of the Columbia.
Subsequent studies of .the lower Columbia' River, unpub-
lished observations by qualified persons, continuing complaints
by fishermen, and experiences elsewhere have confirmed the conclu-
sions quoted from the 1943 report.. All recent -.evidence shows that
the intermittent interference with fishing by slimes continues,
despite commendable attempts in the early 1950's by several of
the Washington pulp and paper mills to control the problem, either
by changes in plant processes, or by improved dilution of the
wastes in the river.
The Pollution Control Council, Pacific Northwest Area,
adopted objectives to prevent interferences with water uses which
would endanger the- welfare of the public. The applicable object-
ive in this case states that there shall be no floating, suspended
or settleable solids, or sludge deposits attributable to sewage,
industrial wastes or other wastes, or which after reasonable
dilution and mixture with receiving waters interferes with the
best use of these waters.
Many of the studies of pulp and paper mill.pollution
of the Columbia and elsewhere have included use of the waste sul-
fite digester liquor determination as an index of concentration
of pulp and paper mill waste in the streams. It is useful to
estimate the probable contributions to the Columbia River of sul-
fite waste liquor, or its equivalent, from the plants involved.
For this purpose, it is assumed^that an average of 2,200 gallons
of waste sulfite liquor, containing 10 per cent solids, is dis-
charged to the river for each ton of ammonium or calcium base sul-
fite pulp produced. For magnesium base sulfite pulp, and for
sulfate and semichemical pulp, it is assumed that waste digester
liquor equivalent to 330 gallons of waste sulfite liquor, 10 per
cent solids, is discharged for each ton of pulp produced.
For this evaluation, it is further assumed that pulp
production of the chemical pulp and paper mills involved is the
same as their designed pulping capacities reported in the latest
Lockwood's Directory of the Pulp and Paper Industry. The actual
pulp production of the mills may not equal their designed capacity
at any given time. However, it is believed that, over a prolonged
period of time, actual production is more apt to approach .designed
capacity than some ;higher or lower.production which may occur
during a limited period.
An excep.tion:.to the above assumptions-is. the data for
waste digester liquor, barged to the Columbia River,-by the .
-------
16
Publishers Paper Company. In this case, actual data on volumes
and strength of waste digester liquor discharged to the river are
used.
On the basis of the foregoing assumptions, Chart 4 has
been prepared.
...Whereupon, Chart 4 was displayed...
MR. KITTRELL: It is estimated that the 6 chemical pulp
mills involved discharge 2,137,000 gallons per day of equivalent
waste sulfite liquor to the Columbia. The circles indicate the
relative percentages of this total discharged by the individual
mills. The Crown Zellerbach Corporation mill at Camas accounts
for 46.3 per cent of the total. Inclusion of the plant at St.
Helens brings this company's combined contribution to 52.1 per
cent. The contributions of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company and
the Longview Fibre Company at Longview, the Columbia River Paper
Mills at Vancouver^ and the Publishers Paper Company at Oregon
City are relatively close together, all falling in the range of
10.6 to 13.5 per cent of the total.
The estimated total equivalent waste sulfite liquor from
all plants would give a waste sulfite liquor concentration of 4l
parts per million if mixed completely with the reasonable daily
minimum of 80,000 cubic feet per second of flow in the Columbia.
When flow of the Columbia drops below 135,000 cubic feet per sec-
ond, the Bonneville Dam power plant is placed on a peaking sched-
ule. During such periods, flow may be as low as 30,000 to 40,000
cubic feet per second for several hours each night. In 35*000
cubic feet per second of river flow, the combined equivalent sul-
fite waste liquor would give a concentration of 94 parts per
million in the river. At such times, the wastes of the Crown
Zellerbach plant at Camas alone could produce 44 parts per million
in the river.
Chart 4 also indicates the approximate areas where
attached, growing slimes have been observed. It will be noted
that growth has been observed along the river bank below the three
locations of pulp and paper mills at Camas, Vancouver, and Long-
view, Washington. In addition, growth has been observed at two
areas several miles downstream from Vancouver and at one area many
miles downstream from Longview. The reason for these isolated
areas of growth is not clear. It is probable1 that concentrations
of nutrients, adequate to support growth, from upstream sources
are carried downstream to those areas where suitable combinations
of surface area, currents, and water velocities coincide to en-
courage the growths.
-------
CHART 4
WASHINGTON
WEYERHAEUSER
CATHLAMET
LONGVIEW
FIBRE
COLUMBIA
CROWN
ZELLERBACH
CROWN
ZELLERBACH
COLUMBIA
RIVER
PAPER
SAUVIE
IS.
PORTLAND
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
EQUIVALENT
SULFITE WASTE
LIQUOR
AND
AREAS OF
SLIME GROWTH
PUBLISHERS r^
PAPER ^
BONNEVILLE
DAM
100,000 GALS. PER DAY
GROWTH AREA
OREGON
-------
17
No growth of slimes along the Oregon side of the river
has been reported. Observations have shown that floating slimes
occasionally are flushed from the Willamette River into the Colum-
bia during freshets on the Willamette. There are insufficient
data to permit evaluation of the relative importance of this
source of floating slimes in the overall problem on the Columbia.
The floating slimes interfere seriously, with commercial
fishing from Camas to the mouth of the Columbia.
Gill net fishermen commonly use a sinker net that is
delicately balanced by floats and weights so that it just touches
the bottom of the river as it floats downstream, and the bottom of
the net conforms to the irregular bottom of the stream. Efficiency
of the net in trapping fish that come in contact with it depends
partly on the flexibility of the net. When the net is properly
balanced and its twine is springy and flexible, it acts almost
like a live thing in seizing and entangling the fish.
Moderate amounts of slime attached to a net reduce its
flexibility. This reduced liveliness reduces the probability that
the strands of the net will entangle the fish. The added resist-
ance of the net to the water also affords the partially trapped
fish a better chance to pull out of the net and escape.
Large amounts of slime attached to a net destroy its
delicate balance. Instead of drifting in a nearly vertical posi-
tion, the top of the net leans farther and farther forward, or
downstream, as the weight of the fouled net increases. The net
may become sufficiently weighted to lie almost flat on the bottom
of the river. The lower the top of the net, the greater is the
chance that the fish will swim over it and escape.
When the accumulation of slime renders a net unusable,
it must be cleaned. Several mechanical methods have been tried,
but no method other than picking off the slime by hand has been
found to be successful. An average single section of a net is
about 6 to 8 feet wide and 1,200 feet long. It may have more than
100,000 knots, around which the slime has an especial tendency to
cling. Two or more of these sections may be joined either top to
bottom, or end to end, to form a single net.
It is understandable that even partially cleaning a badly
fouled net by hand is a formidable and time-consuming task.
The commercial fisherman normally makes about four drifts
with his net in a day. Cleaning slime from his net may require so
touch time that he can make only one drift per day. This causes a
serious financial loss.
-------
18
When :B limes are worst, fishermen on-some drifts are un-
able to fish successfully and they may abandon these .drifts for as
much as a. month at a time. Since the open season for commercial
fishing is only 131 days per year, this can re.duce the. annual
fishing time of those so affected by nearly 25 per cent.
It is almost impossible to remove all slime from the
knots of a net. The small residual balls of slime around the
knots keep them moist, and apparently permit some unidentified
type of microorganism to attack the twine at the knots. The net
becomes weak at the knots and tends to break. The normal three ,
year life of even a well kept nylon net may be reduced 'as much as
a- year by this rotting. This reduction of one-third in the life ..
of "a $1,500 to $2,000 nylon net represents another financial loss
to the fisherman. Linen nets are cheaper, but may las.t only a
year -when subjected to the rotting action. For ..this 'reason, .the
fishermen prefer nylon nets, even though they cost about 3 times
as much as linen.
.'Normally, a net should be cleaned in .a solution of a
copper 'compound about once a year. Nets fouled by slimes may
have to be treated once a week when in use.
There can be no doubt that the slimes impose both hard-
ship and financial loss on the commercial fishermen.
Between 19^8 and 1956, there has been a continuing
duct ion in gill net licenses issued to Columbia River commercial
fishermen. This reduction was from 1,102 to 792, for an average
of nearly 40 per year. Since 19^2, there has been a 50 per cent
reduction in the average annual pack of Columbia River salmon when
compared with the 15 year period preceding 19^2. So many factors
are involved in both of these reductions that it is not possible
to assess the part played in either by the slimes. There appears
to be little reason to doubt that the slimes : have been a factor
in these reductions in both numbers of commercial fishermen and
in annual salmon pack.
The sport fishermen also have experienced the effects
of the slimes on this form of recreation.
The experienced sport fisherman claims that his chance
for hooking either salmon or steelhead depends to a considerable
extent on his knowledge of the exact spots where the. fish are most
apt to pass in the river, and on his skill in placing his lure in
those exact, spots.
When slimes are abundant, they can accumulate on the
fisherman's line while it is settling through the water and cause
-------
19
sufficient resistance to the current to deflect his.lure from the
selected spot. Use of.a heavier weight to overcome the current's
drag makes it more difficult for the fisherman to feel a strike,
and also increases the chance that a hooked fish will pull loose
from the more, heavily weighted line.
Even when the, fisherman is successful in placing the
lure in the selected spot, the slime may attach to the lure and
hide it from the fish.
This problem has caused irritation and complaint by
sport fishermen, whose chances of maximum fishing success have
been lessened, and whose pleasure in their sport has been re-
duced.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Kittrell. Are there
any comments or questions from the conferees of Mr. Kittrell?
MR. MILLER: I want to make a comment with respect to
the final paragraph on Page 5. I want to point out that the Wash-
ington. Pollution Control Commission has to date not adopted the
specific standards with reference to the lower Columbia River.
It's scheduled for an early date. They may or may not be in
general agreement with the objectives that are referred to in
your material, Mr. Kittrell.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are there any further comments or
questions? Mr. Poston, do you have any comments or questions?
MR. POSTON: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Everts? . :
MR. EVERTS: No, Mr, Chairman.
^CHAIRMAN STEIN: As to the report you put into the
record, are there going to be more copies available? We've had
several inquiries.
MR. KITTRELL: Yes, we have about 175 on the train some-
where between Cincinnati and here.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: They will be made available to the
State agencies?
MR. KITTRELL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would think; if any.people want a
complete copy of the report, that is, a copy of Mr. Kittrell's
-------
20
summary, they should apply to the appropriate State agency.of
Washington or Oregon in the near future. As soon as'these re-
ports come in, they will make these reports available.
I have a question or two, Mr. Kittrell. Under the
Federal Act, interstate waters means all rivers, lakes and waters
that fall across or form a part of a boundary between two or more
States. I think it's pretty obvious that the. Columbia River^ and
the lower Columbia River here, meets the definition for inter-
state waters within the meaning of the Federal Act.
The Federal Act also provides that pollution of inter-
state waters in or adjacent to any State or States, whether the
matter causing or contributing to such pollution is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge
into a tributary of such waters, which endangers the health or
welfare of persons in the State other than that in which the dis-
charge originates, shall be subject to abatement as herein pro-
vided.
Now, from your analysis of the facts in this report, is
it your opinion that what you have'described is covered in this
section of the Act?
MR. KITTRELL: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Kittrell.
I would like to make one announcement now. For the
folks who have not registered in the back of the room, we would
appreciate it, if on your way out at a convenient time, you do
sign a registration card.
Now, we do have a slight adjustment in the agenda. The
conferees have agreed to call on the State of Oregon first, in-
stead of the State of Washington as indicated in the agenda, and
with that we will call upon Mr. Everts for a statement on water
pollution control in the Columbia River.
Mr. Everts.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of
introducing a man who has spent a great many years in the field
of water pollution control in Oregon. He has served as chairman
of the Oregon State Sanitary Authority since its creation in 1939
I am honored and privileged to introduce to the conferees and to
those present Mr. Harold Wendel, Chairman of the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority, ..who will present a statement on behalf of the
-------
21
Sanitary Authority of the State of'Oregon.
Mr. Wendel, please.
MR. WENDEL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Coe, conferees, members
of the conference:
I am pleased to present to this conference a statement
on behalf of the Sanitary Authority of the State of Oregon rela-
tive to Oregon's program for the prevention and control of water
pollution.
Both the State of Oregon and the State of Washington
have made good progress in water pollution control during the
past ten years. In spite of delays caused by wars, Oregon com-
munities have spent more than $55*000,000 for sewerage facilities
since 1945. Sewage treatment works constructed since the program
began are now serving over 90 per cent of the State's sewered
population, effecting a 5.5 per cent reduction in pollution load-
ings on the basis of the present population. As another indica-
tion of the progress made, more than $8,700,000 in contracts for
sewerage projects in the State have been awarded during the past
two years, and more than $8,500,000 in bonds authorized. Except
for 19^4, when Portland's bond issue was voted, more sewerage
bonds were authorized and sold"in the past two years than in any
other such period in Oregon's history.
Expenditures to prevent pollution on the lower Columbia
River alone have exceeded $20,000,000. A list of these remedial
works for both domestic sewage and industrial wastes, as well as
those under construction, are presented in the Appendix to this
statement.
In addition, the Sanitary Authority has pursued a con-
stant and progressive program to reduce industrial waste loads
on streams. Industry in general has cooperated in the Oregon
pollution control program. Industrial'waste treatment and dis-
posal facilities now in use have reduced present-day loadings
more than 57 per cent during critical stream flow periods. While
no estimates of expenditures by industry for pollution abatement
are available, substantial amounts undoubtedly have been spent
for research, investigation, and remedial works. More work needs
to be done, however, on industrial waste treatment and disposal,
so that ultimate objectives may be accomplished.
Upon instruction from the Sanitary Authority, industries
on the Columbia and Oregon sloughs have spent a substantial amount
of money eliminating pollution by constructing treatment facili-
ties of their own or by connecting to public sewerage facilities.
-------
22
Plans for both municipal and industrial waste treatment
works are approved by the Sanitary Authority on a basis which is
both tentative and conditional, and the Authority always reserves
the right to require additional treatment facilities or changes
in operational procedures whenever public water use so warrants.
If there are additional measures which the Public Health
Service feels should be undertaken to protect the waters of the
lower Columbia River from waste discharges originating in Oregon,
the Sanitary Authority most certainly would appreciate being ad-
vised of it. We are prepared to institute appropriate proceedings
at any time that a problem is brought to our attention which
justifies action, and we are asking for further legislation that
will expedite the bringing about of compliance.
The report of the Public Health Service has referred to
water quality objectives of the Pollution Control Council. It is
our understanding that these objectives were not intended to be
standards, but were developed as guides for long range pollution
control planning and to be applied with judgment, especially with
a view to .future development, but it may be expected that the
citizens., whp have charged us with the responsibility for pollu-
tion control, would normally expect the ultimate objectives to be
high. They also undoubtedly would expect the accomplishments to
be made in an orderly, reasonable and practical manner to conform
with present requirements and needs. In fact, Oregon statutes
stipulate this procedure.
Since the Council's objectives for bacterial quality,
rather than the Public Health Service's "Recommended Sanitary Re-
quirement for Water Treatment System", have been used as stand-
ards in this report, we hope that this matter can be brought into
its proper perspective at this conference. In order to do so,
the Sanitary Authority submits these questions, as a basis for
possible action:
1. Has any communicable disease been reported to the
Public Health Service as a result of recreational use of the
Columbia River?
2. V/ould the Public Health Service now recommend that
the water quality objectives mentioned in the report be
adopted as standards applicable to the Columbia River?
The effect of slime in the lower Columbia River has been
a source of complaint on numerous occasions during the past years.
Details of this problem will undoubtedly be presented by the Wash-
ington Pollution Control Commission, and it has also been men-
tioned prominently in the Public Health Service reports, and the
-------
23
Commissions of the two States are collaborating on the problem.
Studies by Federal and State agencies and by industries, while
producing what appeared to be. satisfactory interim measures, have
not yet resulted in an acceptable solution to the problem. Since
we too,may be faced with problems of equal magnitude on intrastate
streams in Oregon, it is hoped that, as a result of this confer-
ence, the Public Health Service can recommend processes or mea-
sures which industries in Oregon and Washington can- employ to
eliminate this problem.
The Sanitary Authority of the State of Oregon fully
recognizes that the task of pollution control is a continuing one
and particularly that programs, which were planned years ago,
must be constantly revised to meet ever-changing circumstances
involving stream flows and quality and new pressures for water
use. The Oregon Commission is certainly aware of the fact that
constant surveillance of the lower Columbia River and its tribu-
taries should be maintained so that water pollution control pro-
grams can keep abreast of increases in population and industrial
development.that influence water use.
We appreciate greatly the assistant of the Public Health
Service, and we have every confidence that the cooperation of our
two States can bring about and maintain the desired results.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you have any questions or comments,
Mr. Everts?
MR. EVERTS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Wendel.
oOo
...Following is Appendix referred to by .Mr. Wendel...
DOMESTIC SEWAGE
Reynolds Metal Company (Troutdale)
This treatment plant was constructed in 1942 and consists
of an Imhoff tank with facilities for chlorination of the .settled
effluent. It was designed to serve 1,000 people. The treated
effluent discharges into a small lake or lagoon before reaching
the Columbia River., .
-------
24
Gresham - (Population 3,480)
The city of Gresham constructed and placed in operation
a modern, primary sewage treatment plant in 1955. This plant is
designed to serve a population of 10,000 people and has additional
capacity for seasonal industrial v;aste loads. The plant provides
for sedimentation, separate sludge digestion, sludge dewatering,
and chlorlnation of the settled effluent.
Portland Airport
Sewage treatment facilities consist of primary clarifi-
cation, separate sludge digestion, sludge dewatering, and efflu-
ent chlorination sufficient to serve a population of 3;000. This
plant serves both the Portland International Airport and the Air
Force Base.
Portland (Population 4.12,100)
In 1952, Portland completed and placed in operation its
sewage treatment plant designed to serve 500,000 people. The
plant consists of primary clarification and separate sludge diges-
tion. Chlorination of the effluent has not yet been provided.
Disposal of sludge is by discharge into a lagoon.
Associated Meat Company (Portland)
Wastes from this plant are provided with pre-treatment
and are now discharged to the Portland interceptor sewer system.
Pete Wess Hog Farm
This establishment has not been in operation for the
past two years.
St. Helens Pulp & Paper Company (St. Helens)
Wastes from production of wood pulp by the Kraft pro-
cess are discharged without treatment into Multnomah Channel
approximately one mile above the confluence with the Columbia.
Publisher's Paper Co.
Spent sulfite liquor from the production of 105 tons of
sulfite pulp is barged from Oregon City to the main channel of the
Columbia River daily and discharged under controlled conditions.
This method has been considered acceptable as long as diffusion
of wastes from other pulp mills along the Columbia River continues,
Kaiser Gypsum Company (St. Helens)
Wastes from production of insulating board are dis-
charged without treatment into Scappoose Slough, a tributary of
Multnomah Channel. Point of discharge is approximately two miles
from the Columbia River.
The following industries and communities either
-------
25
discharge their wastes onto land or into tributary streams and
not directly into the Columbia River. There appears to be no
evidence that they contribute any pollution to the main Columbia
River.
Alderwood Dairy wastes disposed of on land.
Columbia Pickle Co. -- has lagoon with overflow into drain-
age ditch which eventually discharges into Columbia Slough.
Columbia Wool Scouring -- is connected to old outfall sewer
of City of Portland which discharges into Columbia Slough. City
has been advised to connect this plant to interceptor system.
Swift & Company
Domestic sewage from this industrial plant is treated
by means of septic tanks and effluent chlorination.
St. Helens (Population 5,189)
Sewage treatment facilities are under construction at
St. Helens at the present time. These facilities will consist of
primary clarification, separate sludge digestion, sludge dewater-
ing, and chlorination of the effluent. The treatment plant is
expected to be placed in operation in 1959.
Rainier (Population 1,325)
Bids for the construction of a sewage treatment plant
consisting of primary clarification, separate sludge digestion,
and effluent chlorination will be opened September 10, 1958. If
favorable bids are obtained, construction of the plant will be
undertaken in the immediate future.
Clatskanie (Population 888)
A new sewage treatment plant consisting of primary clari-
fication, sludge digestion, sludge dewatering, high-rate trickling
filter, final settling, and effluent chlorination was placed in
operation in 1958. It has capacity to serve a population of
1,400. It discharges into the Clatskanie River approximately
three miles above the confluence with the Columbia.
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Swift & Company (Portland)
Pre-treatment of industrial wastes is provided and is
considered adequate for the present time.
Portland Union Stockyards (Portland)
Has no treatment facilities at present time but has been
instructed by the Sanitary Authority to provide such facilities
-------
26
for both domestic sewage and industrial wastes.
Electro Metallurgical Co. has treatment for removal of
cyanides with effluent being discharged into Columbia Slough.
Leatherman Oil Co. wastes discharged into a lagoon adjac-
ent to Columbia Slough.
Montag Stove Works has subsurface disposal of.:'domestic
sewage. No industrial wastes.
Pacific Carbide & Alloy Co. effluent discharges into a
lagoon with overflow to Columbia Slough.
Pacific Meat Company has pre-treatment works with efflu-
ent being discharged into Columbia Slough. Injunction proceed-
ings have been filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court by the
Sanitary Authority against this company.
Portland Rendering Co. -- has pre-treatment works with efflu-
ent being discharged into Columbia Slough. Company has been'in-
structed by Sanitary Authority to provide additional facilities.
Bissinger & Co. (Troutdale) -- in 1956 installed sedimenta-
tion facilities which are considered adequate for effluent dis-
charged into Sandy River.
Multnomah County Farm has secondary sewage treatment
(standard rate trickling filter) with effluent chlorination.
Effluent goes to small stream in Sandy Drainage District.
Wood Village has secondary sewage treatment (standard rate
trickling filter) with effluent chlorination. Effluent is dis-
charged into same stream as Multnomah County Farm.
oOo
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, the Fish Commission of the
State of Oregon has indicated that they desire to make a state-
ment before this conference.
Is there a representative of the Fish Commission here,
who is prepared to make that statement?
MR. JAMES: Mr. Everts, I know the Statement was pre-
pared. It apparently has gone astray in some way in transmission,
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Would you identify your name for the
record?
-------
27
MR. JAMES: M. C. James, Research Coordinator of the
Pacific Marine Fishery Commission. I was asked to speak in be-
half of the Pish Commission, although I'm not actually represent-
ing them.
MR. EVERTS: Would you like to make that statement at
this time, or do you want to wait?
MR. JAMES: If the appearance of the Pish Commission
could be postponed until later, their statement will be ready at
that time.
MR. EVERTS: Will that be acceptable, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes, sir.
MR. EVERTS: The State Parks Department has indicated
that they desire to make a statement before this conference. Is
there a representative of the State Parks Department present?
MR. DUNLAP: Mr. Chairman, conferees:
My name is R. C. Dunlap. I'm with the Oregon State
Parks Division. V/e have prepared a statement for the record.
However, we have no oral comments to make.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: V/ould you care to read that statement
for the record, or do you Just want to submit that statement? Do
you want to have it read?
MR. DUNLAP: I don't think it's necessary.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Would you read it?
MR. DUNLAP: If it's the desire of the
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would think for the purpose of the
conference and the folks that have come here that it is desirable
to have the statements, if they're relatively, short, to be read
into the record because the transcript of the conference obviously
will not be available for some time, and the people who are in
attendance would not have the benefit of your position or of what
you are going to say.
MR. DUNLAP: This is a brief statement, so it wouldn't
take long.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I will appreciate your reading it then
Cor the record.
-------
28
MR. DUNLAP: This relates to the recreational use and
values of the lower Columbia River.
The Columbia River is the largest waterway in the North-
we.st where recreation has important economic benefits and is the
third ranking industry in the State of Oregon. It may be assumed
that, as increasing demands are made for water for municipalities,
industry, and irrigation, there will also be greater future de-
mands for use of the water of this river for recreational pur-
poses. All factors point to a continuing increase in outdoor
recreation and, in the past half dozen years, that pertaining to
water has become especially important. Sustained interest in
fishing, the new interest developing in boating and water sports,
and the continued interest in swimming, all point in this direc-
tion.
A good example is the present interest in swimming in
the lower Columbia area around Portland as exemplified by the new
Rooster Rock State Park, located 23 miles east of Portland. The
first year this park was opened to use in 1957, the annual attend-
ance amounted to approximately 350,000 persons. Swimming is the
main interest at this park, drawing most of its visitors, and all
attendance records point so far to increasing use. Up to the end
of July, 1957 > this amounted to about 168,000 persons and for an
equal period in 1956, approximately 290,000, indicating that the
annual usage for 1958 will probably exceed a half a million per-
sons .
With the construction of new dams on the Columbia
equipped with navigation locks, there will come more use by plea-
sure craft and the river will become a safer place for the use of
small boats. A pioneer example of this is the small boat cruise
that took place this year from Clarkston, Washington, to Astoria,
a total distance of 512 miles. Interest in boating is increasing
all along the river. During April, 1958, at: Hermiston, Oregon,
there was formed the McNary Aqua Capers, which is an organization
to promote water sports and water commerce. Membership was drawn
from seven towns in this area, including Pendleton. The yacht
and boat clubs from Portland make extensive use of the river and
island areas, as do other towns along the lower Columbia.
Sports fishing, of course, has always been a great
attraction. Chinook, steelhead, and some silvers are extensively
fisjhed for in the lower Columbia and tributary streams.
When one considers the investment in recreation facil-
ities, boats, .water..sports and- fishing equipment, some idea of
the overall value of the lower Columbia River for recreation pur-
poses is realized. At the present time, the Oregon State Parks
-------
29
Division of the State Highway Commission has five state parks on
the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, in which water interest
is the main attraction. In the case of three of these, it repre-
sents primarily a scenic attraction, such as at Sheridan, Crown
Point, and Bradley State Parks. Although this is also true of
Rooster Rock and Benson, the added interest of swimming and boat-
ing at Rooster Rock is predominant, as well as swimming at Benson
Park. While no figures are readily available as to the total in-
vestment in these parks, it is estimated, for example, that at
the present time, and after only two years in a developed state,
there is a half a million dollar investment in the physical plant
at Rooster Rock, including provisions for access from the Columbia
River Freeway. It may be expected that this investment will con-
tinue to increase in proportion to the use. Metropolitan Port-
land, for example, according to a report by the U. S. News and
World Report, will have a population in 1975 of approximately
1,400,000, as compared to the present day metropolitan population
of over 800,000.
We feel that, if pollution in the lower Columbia River
continues to increase to the extent that it creates a harmful
effect to recreational values, including fishing", 'Swimmirfg, boat-
ing, water sports, and the scenic aspects, there will not only be
a sizeable loss in recreation investments dollar-wise, but also
in the personal welfare benefits that it brings to its users.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Dunlap.
Do any of the conferees have questions or comments to
ask Mr. Dunlap?
MR. EVERTS: I haven't any.
MR. MILLER: No, sir.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, the Columbia River Fisher-
men's Protective Union has indicated that they would like to make
a statement to this conference and would like the privilege of
calling on Mr. Westerholm, or whomever he designates, to make a
statement at this time.
Before the Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union
presents their statement, Mr. Miller has called to my attention
a matter that I overlooked, that this statement is being made in
behalf of not only the State of Oregon, but also as one of the
participants for the Washington State Pollution Control Commis-
sion.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
-------
30
MR. WESTERHOLM: Mr. Stein, conferees:
My statement today will be on the pollution occurrence
in the river from November 1st of last year up until the final
date.
In the first part of November of 1957, pollution occurre<
in the Columbia River at Vancouver, Washington, and when the fish-
ing season closed on November ,28th of that year, pollution was
noticeable all along the river from Vancouver, Washington, to
Harrington Point, Washington, in the lower river. Some fishermen
were unable to fish due to heavy concentration of pollution on
certain drifts.
There was some pollution noticed prior to that time,
but it -was of no hindrance to the fishermen.
The winter fishing season started January 29th, 1958.
The pollution was in heavy concentration in the upper part of the
river, o.cciarring mostly from Vancouver to St. Helens, Oregon,
but due to heavy rains, which made the river rise, it moved on
down the river.
Reports came in from all along the river,. Kalama, Rain-
ier, Clatskanie, Wauna, Skomokawa, Altoona, Astoria, and even
below Astoria on out to the ocean.
When the river started its raise, it started the pollu-
tion moving down the river with heavy concentration in certain
areas, causing fishermen to quit fishing. Due to the fact that
the fishing season was closed in December and all of January, the
pollution must have been present in the river at this time.
The river did clean up fairly well in the last week of
February.
On the 12th of March, E. L. Peterson made a drift in
front of Astoria for smelt and he encountered a net full of pollu-
tion, showing pollution was still in the river.
On snagging operation at St. Helens on the Hewlet Drift,
March 27, 1958, the pollution was very thick, a report made by
Charles Fleming.
The Brickyard Drift, April 14th, some pollution noticed,
Puget Island, pollution very severe, made by snag opera-
tions in that area on April 15th.
-------
31
Pollution not too strong at Kalama, April 8th to 12th,
as reported by snag operations.
Pollution very severe. The pollution is of the old
type, probably been in the river a long time, made at Kalama,
April 21, 1958, during snag operation.
During the May- June and July fishing season, the fisher
men reported no heavy concentration.
On July 29th of this year, a report came in that pollu-
tion wasoccurring at St. Helens and at Vancouver, and pollution
was becoming heavier by the end of the fishing season on August
25th of this year.
It appears that the pollution occurs in the river dur-
jing the low water stage and, according to this, pollution occurs
in the river approximately six months out of each year..
We have a list of signatures of gill netters, who feel
that they have lost part of their earnings on days when they were
unable to fish due to pollution in the river. Our .fishing days,
including all seasons, amount to 130 days, and a day lost means a
great deal.
Reports made by fishermen indicate that during the time
pollution is in the river their hands break out with a rash, and,
if it comes in contact with the eyes, it causes a burning irrita-
tion.
I have a report by Mr. Lawrence Powell, who wasnt able
to be here. May I submit his report to the conferees?
MR. EVERTS: If you would please.
MR. WESTERHOLM: Also, a list of fishermen that have
signed this petition.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: May we designate those as Oregon Ex-
hibits Nos. 1 and 2.
...Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked
Oregon Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, and such documents
accompany the original transcript of the conference...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Is that all?
MR. WESTERHOLM: And I also have pictures of pollution
in nets on the Columbia River.
-------
32
CHAIRMAN STEIN: How many pictures do you have?
MR. WESTERHOLM: Well, there are only four, I think.
CHAIRMAN. STEIN: May we designate those as Oregon Ex-
hibit 3-A, 3-B, 3-c and 3-D.
...Whereupon, the photographs referred to were marked
Oregon Exhibits Nos. 3-A, 3-B, 3-C and 3-d, and such pictures
accompany the original transcript of the conference...
MR. WESTERHOLM: Another thing, I have some solutions
of water samples that were taken offshore at low tide directly
across the Union Pish Co-op at Rainier, Oregon. The pollution is
a brown type of pollution. . It doesn't seem like the regular type
that's in the water.' That was a surface test.
...A water sample was displayed...
MR. WESTERHOLM: This test here was a bottom test at
the same time. You can drink that water, and that was taken July
13, 1958. -
...A second water sample was displayed...
MR. WESTERHOLM: This test was taken from a floater net
on the Hewlet Drift at St. Helens, Oregon, August 25th, 1958.
...A third water sample was displayed...
MR. WESTERHOLM: I thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do we have some questions or comments
from the conferees?
MR. EVERTS: I have none.
MR. MILLER: No questions.
MR. POSTON: I'd like to ask Mr. Westerholm a question.
You spoke here on pollution. Would you give us a description of
what you mean by pollution?
MR. WESTERHOLM: Well, pollution would be industrial
waste or -- that's mostly what we know about it it's that
slime that gets in our nets.
MR. POSTON: In other words, you're, referring to this
sphaerotilus?
-------
coliform?
33
MR. WESTERHOLM: Sphaerotilus.
MR. POSTON: And the other type fungus organisms as
MR. WESTERHOLM: That's right. It's this type of pollu-
tion -- I don't know what it is -- this brown stuff. It's dumped
at night,-not during the day, and it causes a brown effect on the
water, and it does drift along well, on tidal effect. If the .
tide is at high water, this stuff will accumulate in one certain
area, and you can see it very much at night.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Westerholm, what you referred to
as .pollution is this slime getting on your nets?
MR. WESTERHOLM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Would you say in your opinion that that
interferes with commercial fishing in the area?
MR. WESTERHOLM: Yes, very much. This other statement
by Lawrence Powell of Puget Island shows the effect on diver net
and floater fishing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, that brown material you spoke of,
aside from observing it and seeing it, does that cause any diffi-
culty.
MR. WESTERHOLM: I've talked to fishermen on this deal
and, when they took this sample, they were fishing for blueback
at this time. They caught blueback on the upper side of that,
which shows the blueback were going back out to sea, while they
were in it.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, in other words, are you saying
that the fish come across that material, and then that provides
an impediment to the fish and blocks them, so they won't go up
there, or what effect does that have?
MR. WESTERHOLM: That's what it does. The blueback fish
is a fast-swimming fish, and it's on its way to its spawning
ground, and some of the fishermen have noticed that, when their
nets are in half of this and half in clear water, they catch the
blueback on the lower side of the net in the clear water, and the
other side is empty.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I didn't quite understand. Let's see
if we can get that, as to what-that does to the fish. What would
happen if a blueback fish comes across that brown material? What
-------
would the fish do? Would it swim through that?
MR. WESTERHOLM: Well, they have caught blueback in
this brown stuff, but they have caught it on the back side of
the net, which shows that they're moving downstream to get out
of it. See what I mean?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes. Now, have any of the fishermen,
who have reported outbreaks on their hands or irritation of their
eyes, gone to physicians to get medical attention?
MR. WESTERHOLM: There's a few. There's one doctor
that I -- I don't know where he moved to -- he used to treat them,
treat a lot of fishermen for this rash, and what it was called,
I don't know. On irritation in eyes, I've had it in my eyes.
You don't get rid of it for three days or so.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, you didn't cover in there a fact
which Mr. Kittrell alluded to in his statement, and that is the
effects on your nets. Do the slimes have an effect on your nets
when fishing, in the maintenance of them?
j
MR, WESTERHOLM: Oh, yes. Our next speaker probably
will take that one up.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. I have no further ques-
tions. Thank you, Mr. Westerholm.
MR. EVERTS: In Mr. Westerholm's letter of August 22nd,
he asks if it would be possible to have two people represent the
Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union. I replied to that
letter, Mr. Chairman, that they would be most cordially invited
to have two speakers if they desired.
Do you have another speaker, Mr. Westerholm?
MR. WESTERHOLM: Yes, sir, Mr. William Puustinen, and
he is our Conservation and Legislative Chairman.
MR. PUUSTINEN: Mr. Chairman and conferees, ladies and
gentlemen. I am William Puustinen, Legislative and Conservation
Chairman of the Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union, with
offices at Astoria, Oregon, and I have a statement here that I
suppose you would like to have me read. It is a bit lengthy,
but I would like to bring up all of the points that we have here.
They are of an overall nature, above and beyond the remarks that
were made by our Secretary, Mr. Westerholm, and I would like to
read it and then comment on some of the points afterwards. I
have some comments I would like to make myself, and I would also
-------
35
like to be available for questions on the statement.
'CHAIRMAN'STE-IN: Go ahead.
MR. PUUSTINEN: Statement of the Columbia River Fisher-
men's Protective Union to the joint meeting of Oregon, Washington
and United States river pollution control authorities studying
the problem of Columbia River mainstem pollution, September 10
and 11, 1958, at the Lloyd Center, Portland, Oregon.
The commercial fishermen of the Columbia have the same
heavy responsibility for maintaining the Columbia's once abundant
salmon resource as the lumbermen have for maintaining the forests
and the farmers have for maintaining our agriculture.
Farming and fishing produce our organic food materials
and are, therefore, most important in determining whether we live
or die. Both operations need abundant water In healthful condi-
tion. Clean water is necessary for our personal use.- Clean
water is truly the basic necessity to all life blood.
The salmon resource of the Columbia is today valued
ranging from $15,000,000 to $25,000,000 annually. We have de-
stroyed over 75 per cent of the Columbia's original habitat area
for spawning and rearing salmon, and the remaining habitat area
is badly shot by pollution, denudation of protective green forest
cover over the watersheds, overdrainage of waters, and by other
factors.
Had we maintained our original Columbia salmon habitat
area in its healthful condition up to date, we obviously should
have today a fisheries income in modern values ranging from
$100,000,000 upward, annually.
Add to this figure our positive gains from artificial
aids to the salmon resource, such as hatchery operations, artifi-
cial rearing of young fish, opening up of never before utilitzed
spawning and rearing areas, increasing knowledge in disease con-
trol, feeding and :p'redation control, and this "annual total produc-
tion on the original habitat should truly be tremendous indeed.
It is a shame on everyone responsible for this present depleted
state of our Columbia salmon resource.
Today, we have many'corrective works going on, trying
to restore the Columbia salmon. 'Among'these projects is our
effort to abate the pollution of the Columbia'. Pollution of the
Columbia mainstem can nullify all restoration work on all the
many branch streams. The Columbia River fishermen have plenty
of evidence:of-pollution in the heavy masses of slime and sludge
-------
36
caught in their nets during fishing operations.
This slime and sludge definitely hinders commercial
operation of nets \>y fouling the web to the point that webbing
cannot enmesh the fish that strike the net. Extra heavy slime
actually sinks the net to the bottom to be buried beneath the
refuse there.
Today we find this pollution destroying even our nylon
nets which we hoped would stand the chemicals in today's pollu-
tion. We do not know exactly what chemicals are involved in this
nylon net deterioration. We know only that our nets break down
soonest in those places in the river where the present pollution
conditions are the heaviest.
We have seen dead and dying young salmon at various
times and at different places along the Columbia. We have seen
great quantities of polluting material poured and dumped into the
river- Although much has already been done by both Oregon and
Washington in studying the various sources of river pollution
and in trying to bring about reasonable abatement, there is
obviously a vast unknown field remaining for research, for. the
whole field of Columbia River pollution control is mixed up in
too much controversy for good progress in abatement.
It is not the intent of the Columbia river commercial
fishermen to bring in more controversy to this picture, nor is it
the desire to escape any blame for the depletion of our salmon
runs we may be responsible for individually or collectively as
commercial fishermen. We are moved only by the desire to do
everything possible to restore and maintain our salmon resource
at as high a level of production as is possible and practical,
but we do recognize the fact that our present Columbia River
pollution is hindering our actual fishing operation. We do know
that it is unnecessarily destructive of our gear and equipment,
costing us unnecessarily heavily thereby.
We do know that salmon are killed by toxic agents found
in the Columbia. We do know that aquatic organisms, that form
food for salmon and trout, are equally killed by toxic poisons.
We honestly suspect a great number of situations, but have no
laboratory tests as yet to support or refute our suspicions. We
do know that with all the aid to the salmon resource we do give
today we still do not have the proportional returns in mature
salmon coming back to the river we should have. Pollution may
be killing off far more salmon, directly or indirectly, than any
of us really know yet.
In order to bring our fishermen's thoughts into clearer
-------
37
focus for all of us to consider and work on, we wish to outline
roughly our position as follows:
An appreciable beginning to the solution of Columbia
River pollution has-been initiated by authorities of Oregon and
of Washington, and by certain industries and municipalities.
This is a particularly meritorious record so far when we recog-
nize that almost all of this work on the Columbia had to be done
with little or no local precedent or fore-knowledge to guide us.
After 1935, in particular, when the Cqlumbia River
fishermen attempted through direct court action to obtain a legal
opinion on responsibility for Columbia River pollution, we have
seen our legal position clarified by court and by legislative
action in both Oregon and Washington. We now have some precedent
of our own.
We now have State authorities with expanded powers,
greater facilities and an increasing public conscience backing
our authorities in their work of pollution abatement.
We also find many industries now looking seriously into
their,.own futures, -deciding to cooperate with this cleanup move-
ment and no longer resist the growing pressure for cleanup.
Civic-minded citizens from all walks of life are join-
ing in greater and greater numbers to work for- ciean waters
everywhere. So, we do have a real beginning to our Columbia
pollution control job.
The Columbia River pollution picture is too controver-
sial and misunderstood yet for efficient progress. This is a
point we honestly feel must be faced by all of us interested in
the ultimate solution.
Under this point, it is only necessary to point out
that the Columbia is truly an interstate stream. It actually
forms the legal boundary between the greater part of the division
between Oregon and Washington. Neither State has legal rights
to move into the waters of the other for pollution control de-
tails or research, projec.t planning and construction, or for en-
forcement. Yet, the waters of the Columbia eddy and churn from
shore to shore, and are split ..by islands and in general mix up
the water-borne problems of pollution from upriver points so that
down river parties in either State, have very real difficulty in
assessing the pollution damage.directly to the, responsible
parties and in enforcing even present regulations, and present
regulations are not. identical i-n the two States, nor are the
compositions of the State pollution control authorities the same.
-------
38
Under this situation, many fair-minded Washingtonians
feel that it is the Willamette River community of Oregon with its
extensive developments that contributes most to this present Col-
umbia pollution. Equally, many Oregonians point to their local
Willamette Valley pollution control projects and say that Camas,
Washington, Vancouver and Longview are bad polluters of the lower
Columbia.
To further confound this picture, Idaho has paper mills,
sugar mills, vegetable and fruit canneries, mining operations,
and lumbering operations, whose sewers lead to the Columbia there.
The Federal Government itself now has property and installations
with sewers flowing into the Columbia.
Even Canada may soon become an industrial polluter
directly, or an agent interfering with efficient pollution con-
trol in the lower Columbia, merely by withholding Columbia flows
in Canada at critical river stages of the lower mainstem.
Thus, it is evident that for legal clarification alone
and for legal facility in research, project planning, and in
regulation, we need today a legal organization including the
States of the Columbia Basin and the Federal Government. Only
under the directions from such an organization can we expect re-
search crews to feel free to study any Columbia pollution problem
in their special line of work, regardless of what State it may
originate in. Only under such an organization can proper pollu-
tion control projects be set up most efficiently for an overall
result. Federal aid funds too can then readily be utilized to
aid the States and local workers.
With the Federal tie-in, such an organization can more
forcefully present to Congress such items as may need Congressional
0. K.'s for funds. It can also deal sooner with Canadian-United
States pollution control features of the eventual Columbia River
plans.
The success of the present Oregon-Washington Columbia
Fisheries Compact shows us how we can work on our interstate
pollution problem of the Columbia under a similar compact, but
this does take much work and time in each State and in Congress.
However, under the provisions of Public Law 660, we
hope that these same ends might be met without going to the de-
lays and hardships of trying to set up an interstate pollution
control compact. This meeting today of the authorities of Oregon
and Washington and of the United States Health Service is very
heartening indeed to the commercial fishermen. This meeting
represents to us the sincere spirit of cooperation needed to get
-------
39
a working solution of .our present Columbia pollution in time to
save this present remnant salmon resource arid to pave the way for
eventually building this resource up to its maximum potentials
for .both-commercial and-.recreational uses.
As a second part under point 2 of our outline, we wish
to point out several points of misunderstanding in the actual
field work so far.;! -.For instance, it is often cited that experi-
mental batches of .;f.ingerlings salmon have been successfully im- .
mersed in pollution effluents. Most often, these citations come
from the ambitious folks from the polluting concerns or groups-.
It is further cited that the oxygen content of said effluents
was up to or even above the minimum oxygen requirements for sal-
mon, and, therefore, the inferred conclusion is that such efflu-
ent is in no way damaging our.;-.salmon fishery.
We. also see two page advertisements in magazines of
national circulation purporti-ng to-show..how industry solved the
sewage problem in a large western salmon -stream by installing a
giant Goodrich Rubber Company's pipeline and valve system along
the bottom of the river with myriads of mature salmon swimming
happily do.wnstream to spawn in the ocean, we presume. Yet,
millions of people over the United States read such'ads and are
thoroughly confused from realistic pollution control -to thinking .
that pollution along the bottom of /the river is no problem at all.
Pollution on the bottom not only loads our nets but
covers the bottom with its poisonous wastes, thus, barrenizing
what is normally the area in. which an abundance of, aquatic organ-
isms exist or begin their existence. Most of these organisms
form food for young salmon and trout and must be preserved just
as carefully and cultivated just as methodically as the grasses
of our beef pastures.
Pingerling salmon can indeed swim in certain-effluents
for a'While seemingly without dying immediately, but, if the
effluent-contains longer-acting, toxic.poisons to the fingerlings
themselves, or poisons toxic tp any large group of fish-food
organisms, or contains even dead sludge- enough to coat the bottom
organisms under a.suffocating blanket, then eventually our- salmon-
will have to die just as certainly, as if they were killed outright
at the instant of immersion in the effluent, and, certainly,
pouring heavy effluent along the'bottom of a salmon river is an
absurdly naive way of trying to solve our Columbia River pollu-
tion.
There is quite a misunderstanding seemingly existing
even among higgler pollution .Control workers in that some of these
workers seemingly treat the-river'.a-s if it werer.a lake or some
-------
40
currentless and immobile body of water. Zones of oxygen occur-
rence are cited sometimes from actual lake or pond references
and used in discussing our river pollution. This is really a
grave error and certainly is not intentional, but does lead to
all kinds of confusion when we realize that in the moving, eddy-
ing and boiling river we can have pollution effluents, aquatic
organisms and fish moving at times in any depth and in any por-
tion of the river. An eddying boil of upwelling toxic poisons
from an underwater sewer can form the killing flame that destroys
all fish and aquatic organisms coming in contact with it. Pish
may have come hundreds of miles from their beautiful Salmon River
natural spawning grounds of Idaho only to be killed by the poison
flows out of the Longview sewers.
There are temporary dead pockets in back waters and
slow eddies where the normal river readings for temperature,
oxygen or toxic chemicals just do not hold. Effluents moving
through the same areas can compound normally adverse river condi-
tions to explosively poisonous conditions.
Under point 3* we would like to suggest some newer
fields of study we feel are contributing also to the presently
known industrial and domestic effluents entering the Columbia.
Log rafts with bark intact on the logs lying for long periods of
time in any river moorage, or a heavy accumulation of logs any-
where, we feel should be studied and measured for the leeching
out of tannic acid, wood sugars, and so forth, into the streams.
Log rafting and long-time accumulations of sunken bark, we feel,
has been the destroyer of the shad and chum salmon runs in many
Oregon and V/ashington tributaries and sloughs of the Columbia as
in Youngs River, Lewis and Clark River, Burnside and Svensen
Slough, Knappa Slough on the Oregon side, and Gray's River,
Elochomin and Cold Creek on the Washington side.
Heavy logging preceded the disappearance of shad and
chums at these locations, and we feel that the logs and bark were
the contributing factors that wiped out the once heavy shad and
chum populations at these places. It is our theory that the shad
and the chums, moving to the sea at very early stages after hatch-
ing, were thus more susceptible to the logging poisons than were
the silverside salmon and the steelhead trout.
We would also like to see a scientific study made of
the pollution effect of heavy logging debris left to rot after
clear-cut logging, as compared to burned-over logging residue as
further compared with just normal residue of an unlogged or even
a long-term selective logging show. We feel that here may be one
factor which so suddenly shoots our pollution picture far out of
line with the known polluters of mills and municipalities.
-------
41
We also urge a most accurate. :study of the effects of
modern insecticides and herbicides on fish and aquatic life when-
ever and wherever th&se materials .can escape into fisheries
waters through careless use or through the.natural action of rain
washing arid floods.
We suggest a critical study of modern detergents and
such cleaning agents and of excessive chlorination in their.
effects on fisheries waters and fish and fish-food organisms.
Very small amounts may be destructive to salmon and trout:.
We hope that our suggestions and thoughts can be con-
structive to the considerations of this meeting. 'We feel that
we are reaching an important new milestone in our pollution con-
trol work of the Columbia when the two,States of Oregon and Wash-
ington can sit down with the Federal Health authorities to try
to work out a plan helpful to all parties concerned. Success
here will automatically mean eventual success likewise with all
other States in the Columbia Basin.
Now, a moment ago, gentlemen, the point of pollution
effect on migrating fish was brought up by Mr. Westerholm and
some questions were asked. Now, I feel that there is a further
explanation necessary there to understand how the fish act when
they -- how the ascending fish in the Columbia River or any sal-
mon stream react to offensive water, whether it be polluted water,
excessively acidic water, or excessively high temperature, or
any other factor that salmon don't like.
They react to this just as last February when they
showed their reaction to the pollution and started to come out
after the first fall rains hit the Willamette and the lower Colum-
bia tributaries. Our commercial season opened on January 29th
and extended through the month of February. I was out personally
myself on the first day of the season, and there were a few nice
Chinook in the lower Columbia. The water was fairly clear-looking
on the surface, and it wasn't too bad on the first drifts or so
that I made.
About the second or third day, we began to hit the
first outgoing movement of pollution. This was mostly broken
down sphaerotilus residue. It wasn't the sphaerotilus itself,
but it was a residue of the s.phaerotilus that was showing up in
ray nets as far as I could tell at that time mostly. There was
also quite a lot-of slime.
Now, the interesting point I want to point out there
Is-that, as soon as this movement came down, with the bulk of the
Willamette and Cbwlitz and local rivers expanding under the floods
-------
42
at that time, the fish turned immediately around and went right
straight back out to sea, and, for approximately a week, we never
got a single fish again. In about another week, almost to the
day, there was enough cleaning up of the river, and the rain flows
had sort of leveled off, the river settled a bit, and the fish
slowly started to come back again, but not to any great extent.
There was still quite a lot of motion on the bottom of the river,
but I was fishing on the surface and I did not get quite as badly
a load of it in our nets as Mr. Westerholm and his men did who
were fishing along the bottom, but I got enough to follow it along
pretty well percentage-wise.
In about another week, I had thought that we would be
fishing and operating normally. Lo and behold, here comes another
burst of rainy weather that we had just had, and its effects hit
the lower river about that time. Out went the fish again. They
went out three times definitely and successively in February, and
right at the end, the last five days, we had a few fish coming in
over the remnant area of the pollution still flowing out, and
that is the only fishing we had commercially to speak of in Feb-
ruary last year or this year.
Then also the same thing happened in May, but not over
the pollution that we were considering in February. We think
that was mostly due to the industrial and municipal and local
human-caused type of pollution. But, in the month of May, the
salmon that had been coming in since the February closure of com-
mercial fishing through March and April had been progressing up
the river we don't know exactly how far but they had been
progressing quite a ways up the Columbia until they hit a natural
pollution condition. This was a pollution condition due to the
excessive heavy rainfall and snow melt in the area of Pendleton
and Umatilla and that part of Oregon, where there are heavy soil
deposits of Alkali. We'have known for most of the 40 years I have
spent with the fisheries that every time that we have a heavy
alkali flow breaking into the river, that has exactly the same
effect on salmon, and, no matter where the fish are, they will
just turn right around and go back down to sea, and, just as Mr.
Westerholm said, what fish you'd catch, you caught on the upper
side of the net. They just high-tailed around to the ocean for
the protection of the seemingly cleaner and clearer water in the
ocean for the time being.
Then they come back up the river again. That is natural,
the instinct of the fish. If they cannot stand the water condi-
tion of the river, whether it be pollution from human sources,
whether it be natural pollution, or whether it be excessive tem-
perature, or any other reason, the fish will recede back toward
-------
43
the ocean again, or as far back as they can stand the condition
or the effect of the water.
Now, that may help some of you folks to understand the
peculiarities .-you run into this pollution study of the Columbia.
Now, we "would like to see these problems, that we suggested,
studied under the Columbia situation and under the factors that
prevail here, and we would like to have a solution to the saving
of the salmon made as sooh as possible because today most people
take it for granted that the Columbia has 10, 15, 20 or "25'million
dollars -worth of salmon a year, and'that's it. We're not satis-
fied with "that at all. I have-lived long enough to know, and I
have seen local salmon large enough, that I absolutely feel,
without any bragging or'any exces's 'talking at all, that there is
a potential on the Columbia River where we can see yet, in spite
of the developments that are put up against the salmon, that, if
we correct some'of the features v/e now have 'destroying the. sal-
mon, we have a potential that probably will be somewhere between
100 million -or 150 million for overall salmon production, origin-
ating in the Columbia system. That would be recreational and
commercial fishing-, ocean fishery, and all other fishery com-
bined.
Certainly, if there is a potential of that nature,
while I can11: say-for sure that there is but yes, I can pro-
ject over known facts that we have to work on --' but, certainly,
we have that sort of an annual income that we're destroying by
not taking care of our resource.
It certainly behooves us to go ahead and work toward
that, and that's why we, as commercial fishermen, feel so intensely
interested in this subject. We feel that, as the report cites,
that salmon coming from any amount of artificial water or natural
propagation areas in the upper river can suddenly be in great
blocks wiped out by pollution. Blocks in the lower river area
may be temporary for only several hours.
You have the great amounts of effluents coming out of
Vancouver, out of Longview, out of the Willamette Valley. Sup-
pose now well, first, the way that the tide affects the river
here now, you have another compounding factor, that the pollution
will be flowing more or less normally in a normal stream down
along the sides that they originate on, but you have the tide of
the ocean coming back and blocking the current and tending to
force the current back upriver again. Now, as the tide hits the
islands and the sand banks and different physical features of the
river, it has to eddy and boil in conformance with those obstruc-
tions. Naturally, that will break up the normal channel flow of
the water from the upriver points and even swing it clear back on
-------
44
the other side of the river. So, you do get trapping pockets of
the river-polluting effluents to come into being where they do
actually entrap and encircle great quantities of fish.
You see, in the first place, the fish will tend to
evade the feeling of poison or polluted water. They will back
up and away, but your tidal action can actually encircle them
and kill them, and I think that is the reason we have sometimes
had such heavy showings of dead fish. Again, in the next day or
so, the tide is different, the wind is different, and we may not
have that.
As to the effect of the polluted Water on human skin,
I can suggest this much personally, that in a personal experience
up on the McKenzie River at the head of the Willamette, a few
years ago, when the heavy pulp industry began its operation
there on the McKenzie and there was no particular concern of the
pollution effluent, I had occasion to work on a bypass canal, a
cutting job in that area a mile below the Umpqua, and my hands
burned from the sulphur liquors to the extent that my hands were
pretty badly peeling and checking after days of working in that
discolored and heavily polluted water.
Today that has been corrected, and I don't know that
you would suffer that any more, and those people, those indust-
ries have done and are doing a very fine work in that locality
in cleaning up that pollution, but the same effect I noticed in
the water while fishing in February, so that I presumed that the
same toxic agent that caused the burning on my hands below the
Weyerhaeuser mill at Springfield were and are at work today on
the lower Columbia. Now, this I want to make as a tie-in
possibility there.
I have no laboratory test to prove my point, but I sus-
pect again here that, if the Weyerhaeuser pollution four years
ago was able to dissolve the scales off the salmon and trout and
killed off numbers of fish, even bullfrogs, that we found lying
dead on the beach, certainly that same toxic poison, now coming
from the other mills on the lower Columbia, must be killing off
those live organisms and young salmon and even large salmon, be-
cause you know the gill structure is very delicate and it doesn't
take very much to burn the gill tissues, and the fish dies.
Now, gentlemen, that is my statement. I'm sorry I made
it so lengthy. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I have a few questions, Do any of the
conferees have questions or Comments?
-------
45
MR. MILLER: I have none.
MR. EVERTS: No questions.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Puus.tinen, as I understand, you
directed your remarks to damages; one, if corroborated, the re-
ported effect by Mr. Westerholm of the skin irritation, and, two,
you talked about the fouling of nets and lines with slimes and
spha'erotilus. Then besides that, you've talked about toxic sub-
stances injuring fish or injuring fish-food.
Now, that is the part that I am a little unclear on.
I might go back. You talked too about concentrations of pollu-
tions which creates conditions which cause salmon and other fish
to go back to sea, and that you've observed.
Now, as far as the toxic conditions, one time a flat
statement was made that fish are killed, by these toxic poisonings.
Another time, you pointed out that ..there was no laboratory evid-
ence,, and then you made some statements relating to the killing
of bottom organisms and the problem of fish and fish-food.
Now, what I would like to get from you is, whether these
are recommendations'1 from you for appropriate study, .or whether
by observation or other information you know that these materials
actually did kill fish or did kill organisms that fish" .'feed on,
if they did coat the bottom of the stream. .:'
MR. PUUSTINEN: I wish to make it clear, in the first
place, that I assume no status of an expert or anyone with due
precision to speak as I may sometimes seem to speak. I am a lay-
man and a commercial fisherman and only acting in that capacity,
but the things that we first, 'when I say that we do .not have
laboratory tests of the materials, I meant the commercial fisher-
men them?elves. We don't have the facilities nor the finances'to
get laboratory tests nor laboratory work, and that's what I m-:unt.
We may suspect something from our personal views in the
field and the findings in the field. In fact, we may be quite
sure of it personally, but we still for absolute scientific pre-
sentation would have or should have laboratory tests forrthe
measurements you could make the picture of. We do not have that
ourselves.
CHAIRMAN'STEIN: Have you personally or any members of
your organization observed fish kills, substantial fish kills?
MR, PUUST.INEN: We have. There is one now on record
with both the, Oregon Game Commission and the.Oregon Pish Commission
-------
46
as I had occasion to call both authorities to the scene, and
their field man, Chris Jensen, certified here about four years
ago, or it would be five now, and the actual record will show
that it happened below the Springfield section of the Weyer-
haeuser Timber Company's pulp mill, in that area. I use there a
reference more than anything else because of several reasons.
The first is that, when the pollution first came from the mill,
it was very heavy and heavy spots would form, and the fish would
disappear from that side of the stream for quite a ways downriver
I don't know how far, but at least a mile below the outfall on
the property there, and we just couldn't get any fish in there,
but they were in the green water on the opposite side where the
effluent didn't reach them. The strong currents brought it down
without any tidal interference quite normally in the same pattern
day after day.
Now, what did happen when the fish kill occurred there,
there was as high as 40 to 50 specimens lying just within one
man's vision on the beach suddenly of all kinds of fish, and,
when I mentioned toxic poison, Mr. Jensen will confirm that the
scales even off this scrap fish, which are very rough scales, were
completely gone. It wasn't a matter of just losing a few scales
from contact with rubbing on the bottom, or something of that
kind. Every bit of the scale was gone. So, we presume that toxic
agents through the sulphur action dissolved the scales, and that
is the only thing we can say, and we may be wrong. We think you
might again have laboratory facts to back you up on that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Would you care to point that area out
on the map?
MR. PUUSTINEN: (indicating on map) It would be up
farther than you see here.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: U£ the Willamette?
MR, PUUSTINEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: We're dealing here with the mainstem
of the Columbia River, Do you have any information as to any
fish kills on the mainstem of the Columbia River?
MR, PUUSTINEN: We have on the mainstem. At times, we
have practically every year in February at Svensen's Slough, and
that seems to be about the time that the first pollution flows
come out. I suspect that some of those young salmon and the chums
and other fish are killed by the first breakaway of the heavy
pollution concentration, whether they are laying on the bottom and
feeding on the bottom cover and are covered by the sludge, or if a
-------
heavy freshet water breaks them loose, and whether that releases
new polluting toxic concentration, I don't know, but it's some-
thing strange in the river, with fish going back and forth seem-
ingly all right. At least, a lot of them set by.
Then, all of a sudden, you get these fish kills, and
we don't see 'anything wrong, except, as I say, a laboratory test
could probably tell whether they got poisoned, or whether it's
something else.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Could you tell from the basis of your
experience and knowledge as to the frequency, that is, how often
do they have that? Several times a year, or once every several
years?
MR. PUUSTINEN:. Seemingly now, the last two years the
fishermen reported a few young salmon and chum kills, and I've
noticed it two years successively in Svensen's Slough, a number
of dead fish in February and around the first of March. So, that
gives a possibility there. They seem to show up in the slough
outside. -It's mostly young salmon. We don't at this time know
of the larger fish. The larger fish may be heavy enough to-stick
to the bottom and just stay there. It's a hard thing to say for
sure what it is, but we suspect pollution because we don't know
of any other agent we could lay it to at the time.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller would like to ask a ques-
tion.
MR. MILLER: When you notice these fish kills, do you
routinely report these to the Oregon Pish Commission?
MR. PUUSTINEN: Yes, every time I notice them. I know
I've reported everything I personally have noticed, and I've en-
couraged the other fishermen to do likewise. Of course, sports
fishermen are like other humans. They see something like that
and then say "Yes, we have seen the fish." Well, we have lost
many, many fish samples that should have been turned in, but we
have actually had some turned in. I myself turn in every single
one that I can find, whenever I can, in order to call attention
to the authorities to come in and see them actually in the field
before I take them out, which is still better for^the technician
to observe, rather than for me to just turn them over secondhand.
MR. MILLER: I asked that because I just checked with
our people, and, insofar as we can remember, I think probably
they remember that we have no reports of fish kill on file in
the Washington Pollution Control Commission.
PUUSTINEN: On the Washington side?
-------
48
MR. MILLER: I mean, in general, we are not getting
these reports.
MR. PUUSTINEN: We have not made any reports, I don't
believe, to the VJashington Commission because we have made our
reports to Oregon.
MR. MILLER: I was just surprised to hear some of your
statement when we didn't have anything in our record.
MR. PUUSTINEN: May I add just one little bit on that
for this reason, it is a contributing factor only and the refer-
ence went only for this lower river study. I don't want to leave
the impression here that that is a bad situation. Rather, I am
happy to say that personally as a commercial fisherman interested
deeply in the concern of the resource that today the industrial
people there at the Weyerhaeuser plant are doing the most com-
mendable job in cleaning up and have from the year they first
started operating. I have absolutely no aquatic life on the
beach on my property where the effluent strikes, but today I've
seen the gray sludge decrease to a very light skim on the bottom.
I've seen the color of the river water improve to almost a green
color, the normal McKenzie flow. On the other side of the pollu-
tion, the flow would current, and more than anything else that
tickles me is the currents of fresh water shrimp among the green
algae is beginning to show and growing where nothing but the gray
sludge grew for years. So, they are beginning to reach the point
of biological botanical possibilities for solution of the
McKenzie problem.
I didn't want to leave that in your mind as a bad pic-
ture. It was a bad picture.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Puustinen.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. James, are you prepared now to de-
liver the statement for the State Pish Commission?
MR. JAMES: Yes, sir.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce
Mr. Milton James, who will give us a statement on behalf of the
Pish Commission of the State of Oregon.
MR. JAMES: Mr. Chairman and conferees:
Mr. Dean Marriage, who would normally represent the
Oregon Fish Commission in presenting this statement, is in
another conference, which was set up some time ago and one that
-------
49
he could not miss, and he has asked me to act as pinchhitter and
present this prepared statement.
It should be pointed out at'the outset that the Pish
Commission-is primarily a regulatory and management agency. This
State agency is charged by legislative statute'with the duties of
protection, preservation, propagagation; cultivation, development
and promotion of certain fishes, including salmon, steelhead,
striped bass, sturgeon-and other anadrbmous or food or shellfish.
Observations on pollution have been secondary to other duties.
Generally speaking, as pollution problems affecting fish are
noticed by the Commission's field personnel, they are referred to
the Oregon State Sanitary Authority for appropriate action. Cer-
tainly those pollution problems affecting fish and fish life are
every bit as important to the ultimate supply of fish as a material
obstruction in the path of migrating fish, such as a high dam or
an impassable falls, or over-fishing, gravel removal, disease,
and so forth. However, to avoid duplication of effort, pollution
matters, as they are noticed, are referred to the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority for their action.
We feel it is necessary to explain that the future of
the Columbia River anadromous fish runs, as seen today, is seri-
ously threatened. The construction and proposed construction of
dams; above Bonneville across the mainstem of the Columbia, on the
Snake River and other tributaries by various governmental agencies
and private companies threaten to cut off upriver spawning areas
and change the overall ecology of the system. Under the Columbia
River Fishery Development Program, a cooperative effort between
the Federal agencies and the States of V/ashington, Idaho and Ore-
gon, about 15 million dollars have been spent on rehabilitation
of old hatcheries, construction of new fish cultural stations,
removal of stream obstructions, laddering of impassable natural
barriers, and so forth. This was undertaken to offset the impact
of past dam construction on fish. In addition, more than 125
million dollars have been spent on fish facilities at the Columbia
River dams. It can be seen that every effort is being made to
maintain these valuable anadromous fish runs in the Columbia
River system.
It is apparent then that the fishery agencies of the
Pacific northwest are expending every effort to maintain these
valuable runs of anadromous salmonids. Because of the peculiar
life history of the species of salmon and steelhead, which spend
most of the growing part of their life in the ocean and return to
fresh water as adults to spawn, there is not a period .of the year
when one or more species in some stage of development cannot be
found inhabiting the Columbia River. This makes it very important
that water quality suitable for fish and fish life-be maintained
-------
50
the year round.
The Fish Commission recognizes the existence of a
slime problem in the lower Columbia as evidenced by the sliming
of commercial fishermen's gill nets. While there has been no
direct evidence gathered by our staff, it is a well known bio-
logical fact that a reduction of the food supply of fish is
caused by smothering and by reducing light penetration by the
presence of excess suspended matter in waters.
Complaints from commercial fishermen have been received
by this office on the physical interference of large quantities
of slime with the fishing efficiency of gill nets. On one speci-
fic instance, it was reported that a serious slime condition
existed during early February, 1958, in the vicinity of the OK
drift, which is near St. Helens. Fishing reportedly had to be
discontinued because of the quantity of slime present.
We have reviewed the Report on Pollution of Interstate
Waters of the Lower Columbia River, Bonneville Dam to Cathlamet,
Washington, August, 1958, prepared by the U. S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, and gener-
ally concur with the observations reported and conclusions
reached by the Public Health Service in regard to the effect of
pollution on fish and fish life in that area of the Columbia
River under consideration. The fisheries values and statistics
quoted are substantially correct.
In summary, the Columbia River contains very valuable
runs of anadromous fish which the conservation agencies of the
Pacific northwest are endeavoring to maintain and, if possible,
increase. Every management tool known is being employed. The
fact that no major damage to fish and fish life has been demon-
strated in our statement is due to the lack of observations by
this agency. It appears certain that pollution in the quantity
being released into the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, as
witnessed by the magnitude of the slime problem, is having a
detrimental effect on fish and fish life, particularly in food
production. Future uncontrolled releases of pollutents into the
Columbia River should not be allowed.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the prepared statement of
the Oregon Fish Commission.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. JAMES: As representative of Pacific Marine .
Fisheries Commission, I might, with your permission, very briefly
mention one other point which might not be brought up by other
agencies, and that is the point that, whatever the adverse effects
-------
51
of pollution in the area under consideration may be in terms of
fish production in the Columbia River, it will'have an impact, a
very serious impact probably on areas very far removed from this
particular stretch of the river. This is due to the fact that
the chinooks and to a much lesser extent, possibly the silver sal-
mon of Columbia River origin are taken in the commercial ocean
troll fisheries from -- certainly from the coastal area of Oregon
right on up to southeast Alaska and British Columbia, of course,
and would also as a matter of course be taken in whatever sport
fishery is occurring there.
This has been demonstrated by marking and tagging ex-
periments, which have been conducted over a period of years, and
there is very clear-cut evidence, which is being confirmed each
year, that the Columbia River chinooks particularly are a very
significant element of these commercial fisheries as far north
in a'9'56'as the northern extremity of the Gulf of Alaska.
So, there is an economic impact from whatever loss we
incur, way beyond the limits of the area under Consideration.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you> sir. May I-clarify that?
You say that affects ocean.,fishing from Oregon, Washington, and
Alaska?
MR. JAMES: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Not south?
MR. JA"MES: The movement of these Columbia fish ts:
generally northward, but there is some rather scanty evidence
that they may be taken as far south as northern California. We
can-hot confirm that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank- you, sir. Are there other ques-
t'iohs or comment's?
MR. EVERTS: I have nothing.
MR. MILLER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you very much. We just have two
more statements from Oregon participants. After that, we will
recess for lunch. That will probably be the best place to break,
between Oregon's presentation and Washington's presentation. So,
if you will bear with us Just a little longer, Mr. Everts will
call on his other participants.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to call
-------
52
on a representative of the Interstate Committee on Pollution
Abatement to present a statement to this conference.
MR. SCHENCK: I can't get out of this trap. (Laughter)
Mr. Howard E. Nelson, who is Co-Chairman of the Interstate Pollu-
tion Abatement Committee, will present the statement for the
Committee. I will present one for the Columbia River Sportsman's
Council.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Nelson.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Nelson, are you also representing
the Washington side of the picture?
MR. NELSON: Mr. Chairman, the Interstate Pollution
Abatement Committee is composed of persons on both sides of the
river. So, I can fit on either side.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, I think you have also been in-
vited as a participant from Washington.
MR. NELSON: In the initial letter, yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would like the record to show that
you are participating as a representative as an invitee of
both Washington and Oregon. Thank you.
MR. NELSON: Mr. Chairman, I am Howard Nelson, Co-
Chairman of the Interstate Pollution Abatement Committee, a com-
mittee composed of commercial fishermen and sportsmen working
together for pollution abatement on the Columbia River, or any-
where else in the northwest.
The basic rule for the use of public waters.is that
these waters shall not be polluted or spoiled for the use of
others. Danger, damage or inconvenience to others is not com-
patible with this basic rule. Anything added to public waters
to make them unhealthful, unserviceable or harmful to people or
to any useful or interesting animal or plant inhabitant thereof
is contrary to public interest.
The above statement was made by Dr. H. E. McMillin to
Mr. Milo Moore, Director, Washington Department of Fisheries, on
December 16, 1957.
The present polluted condition of the Columbia River
certainly violates this basic rule. It .is a well known fact that
the Columbia River contains a highly detrimental amount of
Sphaerotilus. The causative factors for this slime are also well
-------
53
known.
The point may be argued that Sphaerotilus or some
other pollutents have a direct effect or a secondary effect.on
commercial fishing nets, but the fact remains that the stuff
causes expensive nylon nets to break -and deteriorate very rapidly.
These nets are not cheap. It also gets on nets in such large
quantities that the fishermen cannot keep their nets laid .out be-
cause they do not float properly. The nets have to be brought in
and cleaned, thus causing the fishermen to lose time which they
could otherwise use in fishing.
In addition to these 'expenses, the pollution in the Col-
umbia is so bad that it eats the paint from fishermen's "boats, .and
they have to be repainted and more often than those boats -above
Camas,. Washington.
It is obvious that all these examples of the eff-ects :of.
pollution violate the cited basic rule because they do cause
damage or inconvenience to .others.
Sports fishermen too are affected by Columbia River
pollution. The lines of the fishermen become covered with
Sphaerotilus, and it is almost impossible .to reel in the lines.
Pishing lines become brittle and break when a salmon or a steel-
head is caught. In addition to this condition, the fishing lures
become covered and do not work as they should to' catch fish. As
a consequence, sports fishermen, who spend many thousands of
dollars for fishing gear, gasoline and other items, are prevented
from catching fish because of the actions of others.
The sports fishermen pay other penalties for fishing in
the Columbia. Their boats have to be painted more often than
boat-s in non-polluted areas. The water lines in outboard motors
get plugged up from goop in the river, and the motors are damaged,
and, as a result, the sports fisherman has the added expense of
a repair Job on a damaged motor. The sportsmen also get their
hands, clothes, and inside of their .boats covered with dirty-,
stinking slime and other forms of pollution from the river.
.1 d.o not believe that it could be argued that these
conditions do not violate the basic rule.that was initially quoted,
In a very few years, the City of Vancouver will be
forced to obtain an additional water supply. The most obvious
source of supply is the Columbia Rivert and engineers are seri-
ously considering it. The polluted condition of the river will
force the City of Vancouver and the residents therein to pay
large sums of' money for extensive purification processes, which
-------
would not otherwise be necessary.
The Columbia may not be so polluted as the Pennsylvania
Schuykill River, which was "too thick to navigate, too thin to
cultivate", but, if effective, positive abatement action is not
taken, the Columbia will attain the same dubious distinction.
At the present time, some cities dump sewage directly into the
river. Pulp mills pour their effluent, some using the diffuser
lines. Quite often, these lines are eaten through by pulp mill
chemicals, and any reputed benefits of diffuser lines are lost.
Industries along the Columbia, with rare exceptions, "let her
go" directly, to the river. Pulp mills at Oregon City, restricted
from dumping into the Willamette, barge their goop to the Columbia
and dispose of it.
Being just a layman, I will not go into the chemical
and physical effects of pollution on salmon and steelhead finger-
lings, as this is an area in which the chemists and fish bio-
logists can hassle, but it is doubtful that the fingerlings,
which are observed on the Washington side below pulp mills, float-
ing on their backs dead or gasping, are in this condition because
of any clear water they may have been exposed to. It is recog-
nized that the major factor in the almost complete disappearance
of the Atlantic salmon was pollution.
I have just received word that the Montana Pish and
Game Department have definitely established the fact that the
discharges from the Waldorf Paper Company, in Missoula, Montana,
killed fish in the Clarks Pork of the Columbia. They too com-
plain of Sphaerotilus. Conservationists in Idaho are also having
their pollution problems.
These region-wide like situations point up the fact
that the entire Columbia River drainage should be reviewed for
pollution abatement action. Increasing industrialization of the
northwest, especially along the Columbia and its tributaries,
will bring with it added pollution until the rivers here will
actually attain the same reputation as the Schuykill River.
The Interstate Pollution Abatement Committee has been
advocating Federal intervention by the U. S. Public Health Ser-
vice on the Columbia River. We feel that such action is absolutely
necessary in order to attain the degree of abatement necessary to
restore and to retain water quality. We know too that on this
point battle lines will be drawn that will be essentially the
same as they were when the battle of life or death was fought
over the passage of Public Law 660 and subsequent appropriations
for its continuance. Fortunately for our public waters and the
users thereof, the conservationists won the battle and Public Law
-------
55
660 was. passed and also subsequent appropriations.to keep it
operative.
Mr. Chairman, I .thank'you for the opportunity of appear-
ing at'this meeting.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Will you wait
there Just a moment? .For the sake .of the record, I think we
should point out that the example you have used of the Schuykill
River in Pennsylvania,, while formerly acknowledged a grossly
polluted stream, has through the efforts of an active State pro-
gram, cooperative between the locality and the industries in-
volved, been substantially cleaned up. In the east, I think all
parties, including the conservationists, regard that as one of
the modern miracles of our times.
i
Let's see if we have any more questions.
MR. EVERTS: No questions.
MR. MILLER: I have none.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Schenck, are you ready to file your
statement?.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Schenck, are you representing
both Oregon and Washington too?
MR. SCHENCK: No. I represent the Columbia River
Council, which is an association of some nine clubs on the Oregon
side of the Columbia River, Mr. Chairman. I am C. C. Schenck.
I speak for the Oregon Columbia River Sportsman's
Council, who is interested in eliminating pollution wherever it
may occur.
There are few of our members who are educated in the
science of pollution control or abatement. By observation and
contact, we can all make positive statements that pollution exists
to the detriment of fish life and other water uses. Slime, pulp,
Sphaerotilus, collecting on the bottoms of"our rivers, would cer-
tainly in time eliminate ajuatic life on which our fish feed.
Studies of the pollution in the Columbia River by Lincoln and
Poster in a report issued in 19^3 indicated, a severe condition
due to Sphaerotilus. Fifteen years, and we still study.. Are
conditions any better after fifteen years of study? Will another
fifteen years solve the problem, or will a bad condition become
-------
56
progressively worse?
I would like to quote from a pamphlet published by the
Washington Pollution Control Commission in 1953, in which Cedric
Lindsay, Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries says
on Page 18: "The young salmon may be actually starving to death
because their accustomed feeding areas have been destroyed by
pollution."
Arthur Carhart, of Denver, Colorado, who is Chairman of
the Water Policy Committee of the Outdoor Writers of America, in
a memo report to the association on Pollution Abatement in the
Pacific Northwest in 1957 commented on the general powers of the
Washington Pollution Control Commission:
1. Control and prevention of pollution.
2. Setting rules and regulations and standards and
enforcing them to prevent pollution.
3. Determining what constitutes pollution. "That is
one thing on which we need a reasonably established stand-
ard."
We, as sportsmen, conservationists, and seekers for
clean waters, cannot tell you exactly what causes what and how
detrimental it is to all forms of aquatic life. We can tell you,
however, there is a condition in our rivers where our fishing
lines foul up with a foul smelling slime so bad the odor won't
wash off without warm water and soap. Our brass lures will tar-
nish or discolor in 20 to 30 minutes so they are ineffective.
We know of a case where foreign matter in the river stopped the
water inlet of an outboard motor causing its destruction.
We have a report of a new pulp mill in Valdosta,
Georgia, where water is returned to the stream 98 per cent pure.
We know water of the Willamette below Oregon City was clean
enough to drink some forty years ago. We know the health author-
ities now say it is not safe for swimming. We know certain
crafts, such as tug men and fishermen, who are exposed to the
waters of the Columbia, tend to suffer from a rash, particularly
if abrasions are present.
I have a letter here from a gentleman, a doctor in
Rainier, which indicates that it possibly could come from the
effects of the pollution of the river.
We know in many areas.fish are taken from'the water
and used for food where the condition of the water is far worse
-------
57
than anyvever found,in, a hog pen. We know conditions of pollu-
tion will vary with different flow of the river, at times clean
and no pollution. V/e know the tides change the flow of the river
every day. We know it -is not exactly fair to ask one community
or industry to clean up without compelling all to do so.1
We know the Oregon Sanitary Authority has done a tremen-
dous job in cleaning up bad conditions, and yet industrial growth
and increased population have caused their efforts to slide back
within 13 per cent of what it was before they -started.
We would ask: Why? Is there no way to keep our streams
clear and clean? Can some pollute while others may not?
- Gentlemen, we'look to.'you and your technically trained
men to make the proposals for the return of clean waters. We
will help with1 the continued clamor it seems to take to get any-
thing done.
We are leaving for the record a few of the many com-
plaints we have received, and a copy- of the May Rot.arian with an
article on clean water. You undoubtedly have the 10th annual re-
port of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission as well as the
"Clean Waters and You" of the Washington Pollution Control Commis-
sion. 1C you haven't.;,.! can leave a copy of those.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are you leaving one document for the
record?
MR. SOHENCK: I Ml leave three for you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: ..These will be marked Oregon Exhibits
4, 5 and 6.
.--. .Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked
Oregon Exhibits Nos. 4, 5 and 6, and such documents accompany the
original transcript of the conference...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you have anything more, Mr. Scherick?
MR. SCHENCK: That is all.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Any comments from Washington, or from
Oregon?
MR. MILLER: I -have nothing.
MR. EVERTS: No, nothing.
-------
58
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bresee, Regional Vice
President of the Oregon Wildlife Federation, has a statement
which he' wishes to file with the conference.
MR. BRESEE: Mr. Chairman and conferees, I am Harold
Bresee, President of the Multnomah Anglers & Hunters Club, one of
the oldest clubs in the State of Oregon. I am also the Regional
Vice President of the Oregon Wildlife Federation in the Portland
area.
Recognizing that pollution in our State is a condition
that is getting worse -day by day, the Oregon Wildlife Federation
has made pollution abatement their number one program for the en-
suing year.
We all know that the Willamette is a major contributor
of pollution to the lower Columbia River system. While we grant
that the Oregon Sanitary Authority has done much towards abate-
ment, it is quite evident that they are fighting a losing battle.
We have had water pollution control in Oregon since 1939. Yet,
t>y their own progress report, 1957 was one of the worst years we
have had. In the summer months of 1957, the Willamette River at
Portland and the South Santiam at Lebanon, the dissolved oxygen
content was less than the minimum required to support fish life.
Of the pollution load, 1.8 per cent was raw sewage. 20.5 per cent
was from sewage treatment plants, and 77-7 per cent was from in-
dustrial plants.
It is quite apparent that, while cities have much to do
towards sewage treatment, some progress is being made with the
help of the Federal Government, but industry, which is by far the
major polluter, has not reduced their load in proportion. The
complaints of fouled lines and boats from slime growth in the
river are many, and yet are used by many other than fishermen.
Boating for pleasure and water skiing has had a tremendous in-
crease in the last few years. Swimming is perhaps the only
recreation that has not increased in our rivers.
Mr. Spies of the Oregon State Sanitary Authority, at a
meeting of the Milwaukie Rod and Gun Club, stated that there were
only two places on the mainstem of the Willamette River safe
enough for swimming, one at Corvallis, and the other above Spring-
field. John Borden, Clackamas County Sanitarian, in an article
in the Oregonian, labeled the Willamette as dangerous for swimming.
It is a shame that, in Oregon where we have so much
water, the people must drive a long way to find water clean
-------
59
enough^to go swimmirig.v As much: as we could use another park,
such as Rooster Rock,. it would;still have to be above Camas, Wash-
ington, to be clean enough for recreational use. Many of the
standards of stream purity have been and are being violated. The
Oregon Wildlife Federation will note with interest what trans-
pires at this meeting, along with various other interested groups.
You may be sure that we will continue to press for action to,
clean the waters in our State.
We wish to thank, the Public Health Service for the
opportunity of appearing--before this.-conference., and we wish you
every success.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. Are there any questions?
MR. POSTON: I would like to ask one. It wasn't quite
clear to me whether- you were speaking of the Willamette or the
Columbia, which is under discussion here.
MR. BRESEE: We speak of the Willamette as a contribut-
ing factor to the pollution to the lower Columbia.
MR. PGSTOB:- Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I'd like to make one comment just to
make perfectly cle'ar what the Federal Government' s function and
jurisdiction is. We are only concerned with..interstate pollution,
and that is pollution from one State, which endangers the health.
or welfare of persons in other States.
Water use damages from the. Willamette affecting people
or alleged to be affecting people in Oregon is an intrastate prob-
lem and outside our jurisdiction here. Our function in that case
is to provide technical aid and assistance to the State on re-
quest. However, if the Willamette .does contribute to the pollu-
tion of the mainstem of the Columbia and that will affect the
health or the welfare of people in Washington, then we would be
concerned. I Just wanted to make that very clear so that we under-
stand the ground rules.
Thank you, sir.
MR. EVERTS: Is Mr. Stewart present?
MR. STEWART: Yes, sir.
MR*'EVERTS: Do you ha,ve a statement ..to make: or material
to present?
-------
6o
MR. STEWART: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen, may I say my name is Henry Stewart. I am a,member of
the Interstate Pollution Abatement Committee, the same committee
that Mr. Nelson represented a few moments ago. I am also a
member of the Milwaukie Rod and Gun Club.
I have here a book of clippings, which I would like to
present to the conference. They show the widespread public int-
erest in the clean-up of our streams. There is nothing of a
technical nature here. I present this on behalf of the committee
to show that the interest in the clean water is not confined to
sportsmen or commercial fishermen. It's a matter of concern to
the general public. .
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That may be labeled as Oregon Exhibit
No. 7.
...Whereupon, the book of clippings was marked Oregon
Exhibit No. 7, and such document accompanies the original trans-
script of the conference...
MR. STEWART: Thank you. I would also like to say that
from the standpoint of the Willamette contribution to the Columbia
River pollution, I have sports fished for Chinook salmon in the
Columbia for a number of years. I have found in the last two
years particularly that the sphaerotilus load in the Willamette
River downstream from Willamette Palls, Oregon Citv, is so severe
that it's almost impossible to fish successfully for more than 15
or 20 minutes at a time. Your lines become greatly entangled
with sphaerotilus and other material. I'm sure that that same
material passes on to the Columbia and contributes greatly to the
pollution load in the Columbia.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. Are there any comments
from Washington?
MR. MILLER: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Prom Oregon?
MR. EVERTS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston, do you have anything?
MR. POSTON: Por clarity of the record, I would like
to call Mr. Kittrell back to explain the reason why we are un-
able to evaluate the effect of the Willamette on the lower
-------
61
Columbia.
MR. KITTRELL: As- I brought, but .In my report, we have
a limited amount of data showing that the slimes brought into
the Willamette River tend to settle in the Portland harbor under
normal stream flow conditions. As I also pointed out, at times
of freshets, apparently some of these slimes are picked up from
the bottom of" the 'harbor or slimes from upstream are brought down
and do enter the Columbia.
Our data, 'as:I say, are relatively limited, and, as I
poihted'out, we do not believe they're adequate to;assess the
part played in the overall Columbia River problem by:slimes from
the Willamette.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr- Kittrell:
At this point, I think we would like to recess for
lunch. Now, there may be some other people from Oregon who wish
to be; heard. If. there are such, I would suggest that during the
lunchVpn recess these folks get in touch with Mr Everts, and he
will, calj. bn'them as soon as we reconvene after lunch. -
We now stand recessed until 1:30.
Whereupon, at 12:05 o'clock, p.m., a recess was
taken until 1:30 o'clock, p.m., Of the same day.
oO'o
-------
62
AFTERNOON SESSION
...Whereupon, the Conference was resumed, pursuant to
the taking of the recess, at 1:30 o'clock, p.m
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The conference is reconvened.
Before we start, I would like to make a few announce-
ments. So we won't put everyone into a prolonged stupor,, we will
continue until 4 o'clock, or until the conclusion of the Washing-
ton presentation, whichever comes first, and then take up again
tomorrow morning.
One more point, I think for clarification of the
record, I would like to say that the official water pollution
control agency for Oregon is the OregonSanitary Authority.
Now, there have been several questions raised about, the
effect of participation in the conference by participants, who
have been invited by the States to participate. I should like to
say and let the record be very clear on this, that participation
as an invited participant will not make anyone a party to the
conference. Parties to this conference are the official State
agencies and the Public Health Service. Nor will participation
in the conference by anyone constitute a waiver of any of their
rights relating to the substantive declarations made in the con-
ference as to the jurisdiction of the Public Health Service or
the States, or anyone else, in regard to the matters under con-
sideration by the conference, as to the constitutionality of what
we are doing, or any interpretations of law which may be made,
or any conclusions of fact which may be drawn by the conferees.
I think that with that we can take up again with Mr.
Everts and see if he has any more folks from Oregon to partici-
pate.
Mr. Everts.
MR. EVERTS: Mr» Chairman, I would like to present to
the conferees Mr. Rex Childs of the Milwaukie Rod and Gun Club.
MR. CHILDS: I'm Rex Childs of the Pacific Building
Materials, Dredge Superintendent, and Past President of Milwaukie
Rod and Gun Club.
Mr. Chairman and conferees, I have some exhibits here
I'd like to show. Here is a two months deposit of the sediment
from the paper mill on an island 20 miles above the mouth of the
Columbia. Now, there's acres of this to be seen up there. Now,
-------
63
this is practically all pulp, which is found in swifter water and
doesn't have all of the stuff that the other has, and it all goes
to the'bottom in these big holes that are 'along the river, and it
deposits in there until the warmer water comes, and then"there is
a fermenting and it bulges up and sometimes will jump a f6ot out
of the ground -- out -of the water before it settles, and there is
air in that, and it floats, and then-;it sinks to the bottom in
this form here and goes down and comes- up again some other place,
and down it goes, and that continues all summer.
...Several samples of the material were displayed...
MR. CHILPS: I live right in back of'the-Willamette and
I've seen as much as a half an acre of that stuff oh top of-the '
water at one time in one big boil-up, and that goes at a time
when they're'not dumping in the Willamette, but it was dumped be-
fore -the time that they should take this stuff to'the-mouth-of
the Willamette; where the Publishers do and-that Crown Willamette '
dump inr at a time when the oxygen content is high enough that they
don't have to dump this stuff in their lagoon.
That's about all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you have any questions?
MR. MILLER: Nothing.
MR. POSTON: I have nothing.
MR. EVERTS: No questions.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Childs.
MR.'EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, that is.all of "the people
that I know of from Oregon who have requested time to make state-
ments .
If there is anyone else present who I have overlooked,
I wish you would make yourself known now.
...There was no"response.
MR. EVERTS: If no't, I would like .-the privilege of
introducing into the conference record a letter from the State
Game Commission, which--is addressed to you, Mr. Stein, as Chair-
man, i|/hich reads as follows:
"The Oregon State Game Commission, as a result of its
responsibility for the support of the fishery in the Columbia
-------
64
River, as prosecuted by Oregon license holders, is vitally in-
terested in any measure to maintain waters of purity necessary
to sustain the game fishes of the river. Any pollution, which
through its excessive use of oxygen and consequent killing of
fish, or which may act as a repellarit or deterrent to the move-
ment of the anadromous species of fish, should be controlled.
"We respectfully request careful consideration of those
agencies under whose care the control of pollution is vested."
This is signed by Clark Walsh, Assistant Director of
the Game Commission, and P. W. Schneider, Director.
Before closing, I would like also to place into the
record, Mr. Chairman, the fact that, as conferee for Oregon, we
sent invitations for participation in this conference to some 26
agencies, organizations and groups. I have a list of those names
here. I would like to file that, if I may, along with a copy of
the letter which we addressed to them on this conference, and I
would like to have a duplicate list prepared for you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Without objection, you would like to
have this inserted at this point in .the record, and not referred
to as an exhibit?
MR. EVERTS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Very well, that may be done.
oOo
...Following is the invitation written by Mr. Curtiss M.
Everts, Jr., Secretary, Oregon State Sanitary Authority, Portland,
Oregon, under date of August 8, 1958, to the agencies, organiza-
tions and groups listed immediately after the letter proper...
"Dear
"Pursuant to the provisions of P.L. 660 (84th Congress) the SUP-
geon General, United States Public Health Service, has called a
conference to discuss the matter of interstate water pollution
and water pollution control in the lower Columbia River down-
stream from Bonneville Dam. This conference will be held on
September 10th and llth in the auditorium of the Interior Build-
ing, 1001 N. E. Lloyd.Blvd., Portland, Oregon, beginning at 9:00
a.m.
"You are invited to attend the conference and present any informa-
tion or data which you may wish to offer concerning present and
-------
65
future water uses, occurrence and influences of pollution, or
the present status of pollution control programs related to the
lower Columbia -River.
"For accuracy of-' the conference records, it is requested that any
statement be submitted in triplicate and delivered to the confer-
ence chairman at the time of your appearance. An opportunity
will be afforded for you to. express your views verbally, if you
so desire. Due to the anticipated, number of participants at the
conference, oral statements should be limited to the highlights
of your presentation.
"For the sake of uniformity, presentations should be developed
from any or all of the following:
"A. River uses
B. Significant waste discharges, their effects, .and
existing and planned control measures
C. Research and studies
D. Future requirements
"Related subjects of significance may also be included,
"it will be appreciated if you will advise me at your earliest
convenience, but in no case later than August 25th, whether or
not you desire to present information to the conference so.that
an appropriate time schedule for your appearance can be arranged.
"if you have any quest ions-.about the conference, please feel free
to ask us for any further information you may desire."
.. .Following is .list to whom Invitations "were ,issued
by Mr. Everts to'attend the conference...
Don Lane, Secretary-
Water Resources Board
270 Finance Building
Salem, Oregon
Mr. Isaiah Gellman
P. 0. Box 1264
Port land:.7, Oregon
Charles S. Collins, President
Oregon Wildlife Federation
c/o Douglas County Parks De-
partment
Roseburg, Oregon
R. A. Phair, Past Commodore
St. Helens Yacht Club
Box 463
St. Helens, Oregon
Don Baker, Commodore
Tyee Yacht Club
2929 N. E.'Marine Drive
Portland, Oregon
B. C. Buck, Commodore
Columbia River Yacht Club
7919 N. E. Marine Drive
Portland, Oregon
-------
66
Nathan A. Boody, Commissioner
City of Portland
City Hall
Portland, Oregon
A.J.Kreft, M.D., President
Oregon Division
Izaak Walton League
Pittock Block
Portland, Oregon
C. C. Schenck, Secretary
Interlocking Committee Wash-
ington-Oregon
700 N. E. Broadway
Portland, Oregon
Sam Robinson, President
Publishers' Paper Company
P. 0. Box 551
Oregon City, Oregon
A. A. Dupuis, Manager
Crown-Zellerbach Corpora-
tion
St. Helens, Oregon
Walter Lloyd, Manager
Kaiser Gypsum Company
5931 East Marginal Way
Seattle, Washington
Albert M. Day, Director
State Pish CommissJon
30? State Office Building
Portland, Oregon
Richard A. Bain, Executive
Secretary
Committee on Natural Re-
sources
Capitol Building
Salem, Oregon
Don P. Ross, Commodore
Rose City Yacht Club
7303 N. E. Marine Drive
Portland, Oregon
Alton H. Alexander, Commodore
Portland Yacht Club
1241 N. E. Marine Drive
Portland, Oregon
A. Stanley
State Engineer
State Office Building
Salem, Oregon
C. H. Armstrong, Superintendent
State Parks Division
State Highway Building
Salem, Oregon
William Weatherholm, Executive
Secretary
Columbia River Fishermen's Pro-
tective Union
322 - 10th Street
Astoria, Oregon
James Sellers, President
Columbia River Packers Associa-
tion
Astoria, Oregon
P. W. Schneider, Director
Sta^-e Game Commission
163'* S. w. Alder
Portland, Oregon
Honorable Gordon Swan, Mayor
City of Gresham
Court House
Gresham, Oregon
-------
67
Honorable S. Heinle Heumann, Honorable M. K. Tolleshaug,
Mayor ' Mayor
City of
-------
68
The Governor of Washington strongly endorses this
approach and concurs in the stand of the Governor of Oregon in
this regard.
As our contribution of our agency to the conference,
we have prepared a report which will be presented by two people
on our staff. The first speaker will be Mr. Charles Gibbs, Dis-
trict Engineer of the area that we're talking about here today.
Mr. Gibbs.
MR. GIBBS: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and gentlemen:
Mr. Kittrell has already described the area covered by
this conference. So, I don't think we need to go over this again
except to say that we extended our coverage to the mouth of the
river. The important river uses have been-discussed already and
will be emphasized by participants to follow. So, I don't think
we need to go over this again.
My portion of the statement will commence with that
entitled "Significant Waste Discharges and Existing and Proposed
Control Measures". First, we will discuss municipal waste dis-
charges .
A table prepared for the written statement indicates
the sewered populations, average flow, and treatment provided at
each of the nine communities located on or near the river. The
total sewered population for the nine communities is estimated
to be 71,825 persons, of which 64,875, or 90 per cent, are served
by primary treatment and disinfection facilities. The remaining
wastes are discharged without treatment.
The largest volume of untreated municipal sewage is
discharged from Vancouver through three outfalls. One outfall,
serving 950 persons, is scheduled for interception this year.
The second, serving 2,000 persons, will be intercepted in 1959.
The third and largest source will not be eliminated until new
sewers are constructed to reduce an excessive infiltration load.
Although some work is scheduled for 1959, no time schedule has
been established for complete correction.
The other three sources of untreated sewage are Ridge-
field, Cathlamet and Ilwaco. Ridgefield is planning a bond elec-
tion this year and, should the vote be favorable, this source of
raw sewage will be eliminated in 1959. Cathlamet officials
recognize the necessity for sewage treatment, but, as yet, the
-------
69
project has not progressed beyond the talking stage. Ilwaco has
opened bids for construction of their, primary plant -and, upon
acceptance by the town, of the b'ida> and .approval of the United.
States Public Health Service under Public Law 660, the work will
proceed.
Of major importance when considering the. bacterial con-
tamination of the river:is the. fact that .most, of the municipali-
ties have combined sewer Systems. .During the winter months, all
of the existing plants are overloaded, and/or by-passing, which
results in inadequately treated sewage discharged to the river.
As in all such cases, the separation of storm water is exceed-
ingly costly, which necessitates a lengthy period of correction.
Since the present practice is to prohibit combined sew-
age in new construction and with the .program of eliminating exist-
ing combined systems, it is expected that the problem of bacterial
contamination of the Columbia River from overloaded treatment
plants will be steadily lessened.
Other sources of bacterial contamination are the sani-
tary wastes from the industries bordering the... river. The largest
volume o'f untreated sewage from this source -is the .discharge from..
the industrial area of the Port of Vancouver, where up to 2,500
persons can be employed at one time.
Six other industries employing large numbers of persons
and not connected to a. municipal sewage treatment plant have con-
structed their own. primary .plants and have provided disinfect ion
of 'the effluent. The following is a list of those -industries:
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Washougal
Aluminum Company of America, Vancouver
Longview Fibre . Company, Long Bell Division of the Inter-
national Paper Company, the Lumber and ?ulp Divisipns of the
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, and the Reynolds Metals Company, all.
at Longview.
The , industries concentrated .in the Port of Vancouver
area are engaged in preliminary planning for collection and dis-
posal of their sanitary wastes, which, when completed, will elim-
inate the last, significant discharge of .these wastes from the
industries to the river*
we will consider ndustrial waste discharges.
Another table prepared for t?he written statement lists all of the.
separate industrial .waste.. discharges on, the Cplumbia River be-
tween ponneville and, .the Imouth . Listed for each industry are
waste characteristics , .;f low, treatment, and nutrient content.
-------
70
The nutrient content is listed as pounds per day of
soluble, carbohydrates, or sugars, since it is these sugars that
under proper conditions promote the growth of the bacterial
slime - sphaerotilus.
Six industrial discharges containing nutrient sub-
stances are considered to be of prime importance. These are
Crown Zellerbach in Camas, Columbia River Paper Mills, Washing-
ton Cann.ers, and California Packing Corporation, all in Vancou-
ver, and the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company Pulp Division and the
Longview Fibre Company, both at Longview.
It is important to note that the four pulp mills con-
tribute 90 per cent of- the 251,000 pounds per day of nutrients
discharged by the six industries.
The two Vancouver canneries, although seasonal in opera-
tion, contribute 10 per cent of the total nutrients during their
two to three month pear canning season.
I would like to read the following list which summarizes
the nutrient contribution from each of the six industries:
Crown Zellerbach discharges approximately 123,000 pounds
per day, which is 49 per cent of the total. Columbia River Paper
Mills discharges approximately 52,000 pounds per day, which is
21 per cent. Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 45,000 pounds, 18 per
cent; California Packing Corporation, 18,000 pounds, 7 per cent;
Washington Canners Co-op, 8,500 pounds, 3 per cent; and Longview
Fibre Company, 4,700 pounds, 2 per cent.
The State of Washington in 1955 enacted a law regulat-
ing the discharge of waste material into the waters of the State
and providing for the issuance of waste discharge permits. The
Pollution Control Commission has the authority to specify condi-
tions necessary to avoid undue pollution in each permit under
which waste material may be disposed of by the permittee. Per-
mits may be temporary or permanent, but are not valid for more
than five years from the date of issuance.
It has been the policy of the Pollution Control Commis-
sion to issue permanent permits to industries utilizing known
and reasonable methods for reducing the pollutional content of
their wastes, notwithstanding the fact that the reduction being
achieved may not eliminate the sphaerotilus problem. Under this
policy, of the 54 industries on the river, 46 or 85 per cent are
operating under permanent permits. Four of the remaining eight
industries, all of whom are operating on temporary permits, are
involved in the aforementioned problem of nutrients and
-------
71
sphaerotilus and will continue to operate on temporary permits
pending determination of the significance of their discharge to
the sphaerotilus problem and pending the determination of the
feasibility of treatment processes. The last four industries are
involved in problems other than sphaerotilus and will receive
permanent permits as their individual cases dictate.
In the summer of 1955, the Washington Pollution Control
Commission, through its Director and Chief Engineer, urged that
the Crown Zellerbach Corporation suggest a plan to eliminate the
major portion of the sulfite liquor solids discharged from the
Camas mill. In August of that year, J. D. Zellerbach, President
of the corporation, indicated an interest in solving the problem
and suggested a study be made to guarantee that the capital ex-
penditures achieve the desired results.
In September, 1955* the Commission accepted the proposal
and later named Dr. E. J. Ordal, microbiologist from the Univer-
sity of Washington, to serve as senior scientific advisor in the
study.
Several possible solutions to the sphaerotilus problem
have been investigated during the study and are summarized as
follows:
No. 1. Soluble Base Pulping - There are a number of
soluble base pulping processes presently being used which permit
the evaporation and burning of the waste liquor. Soda base pulp-
ing and the familiar MgO process are examples of soluble base
pulping processes. There are two sources of waste from these
processes: (l) the weak wash water and (2) the evaporator con-
densates. These wastes, in conjunction with the other pulping
effluents, may be of sufficient magnitude to support heavy slime
growth.
No. 2. Heat Hydrolysis - Heat Hydrolysis is a process
by which the digester strength liquor is heated at temperatures
of 250 degrees Centigrade and at high pressures. The slime re-
duction, which can be expected by this method, will be about 50
per cent.
No. 3. Changing'the Waste Distribution Pattern
Observations of conditions in the Columbia River indicate that
major sphaerotilus growing areas may be the log rafts along Lady
Island and the Washington shore. By altering the present efflu-
ent discharge pattern from the Camas mill's deep water diffuser
line, it may be possible to substantially reduce sphaerotilus
growth1, To accomplish this, it would be necessary to eliminate
the difvfuser aspects and discharge all effluent at the end of the
-------
72
present submerged'line. This method might eliminate waste
liquors that presently contact" the log rafts along Lady Island
and the. Washington shore and would demonstrate" whether or not
this sphaerotilus growing area appreciably affects conditions
downstream.
No. 4. ' Intermittent Discharge - Intermittent dis-
charge or regulated discharge has been proposed as a possible
solution. This method consists of storing the waste and the dis-
charging over a short interval. Since bacteria feed continuously
and require a continuous source of food, elimination of fpod
throughout the major portion of the growth phase might substanti-
ally reduce the bacterial numbers.
Of primary' concern in the consideration of this program
is the waste concentrations which would result below the mill.
No. 5. Yeast fermentation - In this proces.s, the
steam stripped waste is aerated in a fermentor in-the presence
of yeast cells which utilize sugars. Prom experimentation, it.
has been concluded that the overall slime reduction from this
process would be about 56 per cent.
No. 6. Bacterial Fermentation - This process is
similar to the yeast fermentation process, the only difference
being that bacteria are continuously recycled to maintain high
concentrations of cells in the fermentor. B.O.D. reductions of
80 to 95 per cent are possible. Effluents from this process
did not, when assayed, support slime growth.
This fermentation process has been very effective when
using ammonia base liquor, but, when using the calcium base
liquor from Camas mill of Crown Zellerbach, difficulty is ex-
perienced in collection of bacterial cells. In accordance with
Dr. Ordal's suggestions, laboratory work is being continued on
an intensified scale. ;
Another method proposed is that of river controls. It
is known that the growing sphaerotilus is swept downstream during
periods of river freshets and, for this reason, the possibility
of cleansing the growing areas with a release of impounded water
from the many upstream hydroelectric plants just prior to the
fishing seasons has been suggested.
The feasibility of this solution would have to be in-
vestigated with the agencies controlling the dams.
This concludes the portion of our statement dealing
with waste discharges and control programs.
-------
73
Mr. Miller will now call on another member of our staff
to discuss the effects of waste discharges.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller, do you plan on putting in
the full report for the record?
MR. MILLER: We intend to do that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: We will have this marked as Washington
Exhibit No. 1 at this point.
...Whereupon, the document referred to was marked as
Washington Exhibit No. 1, and such document accompanies the ori-
ginal transcript of the conference...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are there any questions?
MR. MILLER: No questions.
MR. EVERTS: I have nothing.
MR. POSTON: No questions.
MR. MILLER: Since about 1943, there have been a number
of researches conducted by the Washington Commission and projects
conducted jointly by the Oregon and Washington Commissions, and
jointly by the Oregon and Washington Commissions and the United
States Public Health Service.
For a brief review of these research problems and the
refinement of those problems, 1 would like to call on Mr. Charles
Peterson.
MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman and conferees:
Several intensive studies, have been made on the lower
Columbia River pertaining primarily to the sphaerotilus problem
and, to a lesser degree, contamination resulting from domestic
sewage discharges. Today, I will briefly summarize those investi-
gations which are most pertinent to the problem today.
The Washington State Pollution Commission and the Oregon
State Sanitary Authority undertook a joint investigation of the
sphaerotilus problem commencing in late 1940^and terminating in
early 1942. Significant conclusions of the study, which is offi-
cially entitled "Report on Investigation of Pollution in the Lower
Columbia River", but which has come to be known and referred to
as the -Lincoln-Foster report, were as follows:
-------
The slime growth, which was present in certain areas
of the lower Columbia River arid seriously handicapped fishing
operations, was identified as a. strain or strains of Sphaero-
tilus, a filamentous sheath-forming fungus.
Sphaerotilus occurred in greatest abundance within
Camas Slough and near and below the pulp mill just west of Long-
view. The slime also grew attached to objects along the Washing-
ton bank of the river from the mouth of Camas Slough to a point
almost opposite the mouth of the Willamette River.
Waste sulfite liquor and specifically the carbohydrates
contained in the waste liquor was the cause of the growth of
Sphaerotilus in the Columbia River.
On the lower Columbia River, Sphaerotilus grew only in
places where the concentration of sulfite waste liquor was 50
parts per million or greater.
This last statement is especially significant because,
based on that, all of the control measures and correction proced-
ures on the Columbia River took place in the following years.
During the summer of 1951 /the Pollution Control Com-
mission conducted a .survey of the Columbia River to determine
effects of both industrial waste and domestic sewage discharges.
Since the'Lincoln-Foster report of 19^3* several changes had
taken place: Sewage treatment facilities had been constructed
by the cities of Vancouver, Kelso, Ry.derwood, Woodland and Mor-
ton; The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company at Xiongview had changed its
pulping process'from calcium base to magnesia base, which, of
course, entails recovery of cooking liquors; the Longview Fibre
kraft mill at Longview had constructed a diffuser type outfall;
and the Crown Zellerbach mill at Camas" had also installed a dif-
fuser outfall for strong liquor disposal.
At the time of the 1951 survey, however, the Crown
Zellerbach outfall had developed a break, and all wastes were
being discharged to Camas Slough. Because the pipeline break
created a condition not normally in existence, the survey area
was limited to that section of the river below the Interstate
Bridge.'
Pertinent results of the survey were as follows:
Excessive coltform concentrations, were present in Colum-
bia River waters due to discharges of raw sewage from Camas,
partially treated sewage from the Vancouver area, and raw sewage
from Longview.
-------
75
The waters of the Cowlitz River were of fairly good
bacteriological.quality upstream from Castle Rock.
The most profuse growth of sphae.rotilus in the survey,
area was found to exist just downstream from the Columbia:River
Paper Mills, Incorporated, pulp mill at Vancouver. Concentra-
tions of sulfite waste liquor in the Vancouver area were found
to average between 60 and 550 parts per million.
Extensive growths of sphaerotilus were also observed
below the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company outfall at Longview.
Subsequent to the investigation conducted in 1951,
additional significant changes took place in regards to indus-
trial waste disposal. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company completed
installation of a diffuser outfall for their Longview operation;
the Columbia River Paper Mills at Vancouver had installed a re-
tractable diffuser line; and the diffuser at the Crown Zellerbach
operation at Camas had been repaired and was operating satisfac- ;
torily.
To determine the effectiveness of such diffusers,, a
check survey was conducted in 195^- by the Pollution Control Com-
mission. Conclusions of primary importance were as follows:
River conditions immediately below Camas had improved
considerably as regards sulfite waste liquor concentrations since
the diffuser line had been put into operation.
Survey results indicated that concentrations of over 50
parts per million existed in the river from a point approximately
450 yards below the outfall to a point just below Lady Island.-
The installation of the diffuser discharge line at the
Columbia River Paper Mills resulted in noticeable reduction in
liquor concentrations in. Columbia River waters below Vancouver.
In 1951, the average liquor concentrations at the railroad bridge
were 120 parts per million, and concentrations of over 500 parts
per million had been detected immediately below the outfall loca-
tion. In 1954, maximum concentrations detected varied between
50 and 60 parts per million.
Theoretical calculations and actual survey results in-
dicated a background concentration of 15 to 20 parts per million
apparent sulfite. waste liquor in the Columbia River immediately
above the Weyerhaeuser outfall at Longview.
The installation of the Weyerhaeuser diffuser line had
Improved water quality conditions considerably in the Columbia
-------
76
River, primarily along the Washington shoreline just below the
former outfall location. Although concentrations up to 44 parts
per million were obtained, there was little evidence of the
sphaerotilus growths that formerly were present in abundance.
During portions of the years 1955, 1956, and 1957, a
joint survey was conducted in the lower Columbia River area by the
U. S» Public Health Service, the Oregon State Sanitary Authority
and the Washington Pollution Control Commission. The general ob-
jectives of the survey were to locate the areas of active sphaero-
tilus growth; to develop methods to correlate the areas of growth
with various concentrations of nutrients and certain physical fac-
tors; and to determine the effect of sphaerotilus production in
the lower Willamette River upon the Columbia River. This parti-
cular report is presently in the draft stage.
In 1955, after a particularly troublesome slime .situa-
tion, the Director of the Pollution Control Commission asked the
Crown- Zellerbach Corporation to investigate possible solutions to
alleviate the problem. J. D. Zellerbach, President of the corpora-
tion> agreed to a study of the slime problem and requested that
the Commission direct the research activities. Dr. E. J. Ordal,
irticrobiologist from the University of Washington, was selected as
Senior Scientific Advisor, and, in addition, various members of
the Commission staff, as well as industry personnel, have assisted
in the survey and research activities. Except for Commission
personnel salaries, all expenses of the survey were^ borne by Crown
Zellerbach.
In 1958, a progress report was published covering the
first, two years of these intensive limnological and laboratory
studies. Major findings in these pertaining to the river were as
follows:
Laboratory and stream studies showed that slime growth
occurs at concentrations of sulfite waste liquor well below 50
parts per million.
, Phosphorus proved to be an important nutrient factor in
slime growth; low concentrations of this element in late summer
and early fall may be a limiting factor.
Laboratory studies demonstrated that velocities over 0.5
feet per second are necessary for optimum slime growth.
As Mr. Gibbs mentioned previously, of the various pro-
cesses he investigated, 'the bacterial fermentation process proved
to be the most.effective for reducing the slime potential of sulfite
waste liquor.
-------
77
I might say, however, there are some inherent problems
developed in that .process;
During the.summer of 1958, the Washington Pollution
Control Commission conducted a limited survey of the lower Colum-
bia River and some of its principal tributaries. The primary
purpo.se .of the survey was to obtain current bacteriological data
and sulfite waste liquor concentrations for comparison with re-
sults primarily of the 1951 survey. This comparison forms the
basis of the next section of our statement, namely, waste effects
in the lower Columbia River.
First, I would like to discuss the bacteriological
characteristics. Since the Pollution Control Commission survey
of.1951* the domestic sewage problem on the lower Columbia River
had improved considerably. Sewage treatment facilities had been
constructed by the cities of Winlock, Castle Rock, Camas and
Longview, and disinfection facilities had been put into operation
at the Vancouver sewage treatment plant. In addition, essenti-
ally all of the major industries on the river had either installed
adequate domestic sewage treatment facilities of their own, or
had connected their sanitary sewers to municipal sewerage systems.
During the month of August, 1958, the Pollution Control
Commission conducted a limited bacteriological survey on the
Columbia and its tributaries, using the same sampling stations
established for the 1951 survey. Although the data collected in
1958 is scanty admittedly, it does serve as a comparison with
similar data obtained in 1951.
Attached to our statement are tables listing all data
obtained in 1958, together with the average values obtained in
1951. For the purpose of our verbal statement at this time, how-
ever, I will just summarize the significant changes.
In the overall evaluation of the area surveyed, which »
extended from above Camas to a point one-half mile below Stella,
the 'bacteriological water quality during the August, 1958, survey
demonstrated significant improvement over .that of 1951. These
data were essentially from six widely spaced stations selected
to give a broad view of the bacteriological picture of the Colum-
bia, rather than pinpointing any specific area. The 1958 results
for the Gowlitz River system, which is an important tributary
system to the Columbia on the Washington side, indicated that
this river was in relatively excellent condition and demonstrated
the beneficial effects of the new sewage treatment plants at
Winloek and Castle Rock.
Bacteriological data obtained in 1958 for the Vancouver
-------
.78
area demonstrates a definite improvement in bacteriological water
quality in the immediate Vancouver waterfront area, but also in-
dicates the influence of unchlorinated effluent -from the treat-
ment facilities serving the city of Portland. Data collected at
the mouth of the Willamette River indicated a moderately contam-
inated condition with both, for example, with samples yielding
an average MFN of 24,000.
Results of bacteriological sampling in the Longview-
Kelso area in 1958 showed the same general improvement over the
1951 results along the immediate Washington shoreline. However,
the results of the sampling station at the Interstate Bridge
location, which was a station set up across the entire width of
the river, demonstrated a definite overall increase in MPN. The
actual cause Tor the increase was not determined by survey pro-
cedure, but may possibly have been due to unchlorinated sewage
discharges from the cities upriver, such as Portland, St. Helens
and Rainier. Survey observations have shown that the waters
fronting the Longview area are primarily Cowlitz River waters
and hence this section is not appreciably affected by the over-
all bacteriological quality of the Columbia River.
Insofar as physical and chemical characteristics are
concerned, the primary problem in the lower Columbia River per-
tains to slime production, and, since pulp mill wastes are the
major contributor of nutrients, which promote slime growth, our
statement at this time will be limited to a discussion of sulfite
waste liquor concentrations detected at the various stations in
the survey area. Again, as in the case of bacteriological data,
my discussion will be limited to a summary of significant changes,
All data is included in the attached tables to the statement.
The first area investigated in 1958 was in the vicinity
of Vancouver. Here the data indicated that the diffuser outfall
serving the Columbia River Paper Mills was very effective in
diluting the waste liquor. The highest concentrations detected
were in the 50 to 60 parts per million range, as compared with
average values of 300 to 500 parts per million detected in 1951.
However, it should also be noted that all concentrations deter-
mined in 1958 below this particular pulp mill were sufficient to
promote the growth of sphaerotilus. This is according to recent
information obtained that indicates that 15 to 20 parts per
million are now sufficient to support growth.
Sulfite waste liquor concentrations for the Longview
area are reported as "apparent" sulfite waste liquor concentra-
tions. These values are reported thusly because they represent
a combination of sulfite waste liquor from the Camas-Vancouver
area, and Kraft wastes and MgO bleach wastes from the Longview
-------
79
area. Results obtained just abpve the confluence of .the Cowlitz
River indicates that the1 Columbia River at this point had a back-
ground sulfite waste liqupr concentration of 20. to 25 parts per
million-as it'entered the Longview area. However, it can be pre-
sumed that the wood sugars in the liquor had been at least partly
and possibly wholly utilized by bacterialr action by this time.
Consequently, the values indicated for the rest of the stations
in:the'Longview area do not necessarily give an accurate... indica-
tion of the amount of wood sugars present as nutrients.
We.obtained.some high values just below the Longview
Fibre outfall during this portion of the survey. These were.,due
primarily to "the fact that the outfall had suffered a break,.one
that has since been repaired. High values were also obtained
near the shore and immediately below the diffuser outfall of the
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company pulp mill. These concentrations=that
were detected at this particular time were sufficiently high to
support growths of sphaerotilus in at least the immediate vicinity.
It should be stated here, however, that, based on the
Lincoln-Poster studies, the mills during the period of1950 to
1953 were requested to reduce sulfite waste liquor concentrations
in the receiving waters to below 50 parts per million, and the
mills have essentially met this requirement.
Insofar as biological considerations are concerned, I
would like to repeat that the primary effect of industrial waste
discharges to the lower Columbia River is the resulting growths
of sphaerotilus. It is quite apparent that a problem exists,
especially pertaining to commercial and sports fishing. The
effects of these slime growths have already been well discussed.
Consequently, I will not repeat the reported areas of growth, the
effects of freshets, the effects on fishing operations,and so
forth.
I would like to make this statement in concluding, how-
ever. The recent Joint studies by the U. S. Public Health Ser-
vice and the States of Oregon and Washington were undertaken for
the purpose of providing current and definitive information on
this particular problem. The report of these studies, together
with other research in progress, should provide a sound basis for
the development of a joint program of action by the pollution con-
trol authorities for the two States.
A summary of our statement at this hearing is as follows,
and I will summarize Mr. Oibbs1 presentation as well as'my own.
The Columbia River has a multiplicity of uses, the more
important ones being industrial water supply, sport fishing,
-------
80
boating, commercial fishing, navigation, and waste assimilation.
The municipal sewage treatment program followed by the
State of Washington has brought about the construction of primary
sewage treatment plants with disinfection facilities to serve 90
per cent of the sewered population adjacent to the lower river.
Construction planned for the next year will bring this total to
96 per cent.
Of the 54 industries located adjacent to the lower
river, 46, or 85 per cent, are operating under permanent waste
discharge permits, indicating that they are utilizing known and
reasonable methods of pollution abatement.
Six industries are considered to be contributing a sig-
nificant quantity of nutrients to the river. These are as follows:
Crown Zellerbach in Camas, Columbia River Paper Mills, Washington
Canners, and California Packing Corporation, all of Vancouver,
and Weyerhaeuser Timber Company and Longview Fibre Company in
Longview. The daily contribution of the six industries is
251,200 pounds of available sugars, of which 90 per cent is dis-
charged by the four pulp mills.
Much effort has been expended in studying treatment
processes to reduce the nutrient content of pulp mill wastes.
The most promising process studied to date is that of bacterial
fermentation. Additional study is under way to eliminate some of
the problems encountered thus far.
Several intensive surveys and research studies have
been made on the lower Columbia in regards to the sphaerotilus
problem and to the contamination resulting from domestic sewage
discharge.
Early findings indicated that the slime growths appeared
only when concentrations of liquor were 50 parts per million or
over, and original requirements of the pulp industry were based
on that assumption. Subsequent studies have shown that at the
present time slime growths are supported adequately in concentra-
tions of 15 to 20 parts per million at least in some places.
In 1951, it was determined that excessive coliform con-
centrations were present in Columbia.River waters due to the raw
sewage discharges. A survey of the slime problem at that time
indicated profuse growths below Vancouver and below the Weyer-
haeuser Timber Company outfall at Longview.
In 1954, a survey by the Pollution Control Commission
demonstrated that the diffusion of wastes from the four pulp mill£
-------
81
on the river resulted in a.general reduction .of .the. sulflte waste
liquor concentrations .detected in previous surveys..
A joint Federal-State survey was made in 1955 through'
1957 for the purpose, of locating the principal slime.growing
areas in the lower Columbia River system. The report of this
study is presently j.n preparation.
In 1958, a Pollution Control Commission survey demon-
strated definite improvement in the bacteriological water quality
of the Cowlitz River and of the Columbia River below Camas. and in
the vicinities of Vancouver and Longview.
tions?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Would you mind waiting for some ques-
MR. MILLER: We have made four conclusions in this re-
port. Number 1, considerable progress has been made by Washing-
ton municipalities and industries in reducing the pollution load-
ing in the lower Columbia River.
Number 2, the principal problem remaining to be resolved
is that of slime growths of sphaerotilus resulting from nutrients
contained in industrial waste discharges.
Number .3., the forthcoming report of the recent joint in-
vestigation of the slime problem, coupled with research presently
in progress, should serve as a sound basis for the development of
a program of action by the States of Washington and Oregon.
Number 4, a joint meeting of the pollution control
authorities of the States of Oregon and Washington should be held
as soon as practicable after receipt of the transcript of this
conference for the purpose of expediting a mutual and beneficial
program with respect to pollution problems in the lower Columbia
River.
That is the completion of our statement.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Everts, do
.you have any questions or comments?
MR. EVERTS: No, sir.
MR. POSTON: I have none,
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Peterson,, I'd like to ask one. In
dealing with the industries on the'river, the 54 industries, you
Pointed out that 46, or 85 per cent, are operating under permanent
-------
82
permits. Then you specified six industries, Crown Zellerbach at
Camas, Columbia River Paper Mills, Washington Canners and Califor-
nia Packing Corporation all of Vancouver, and the Weyerhaeuser
Timber Company and the Longview Fibre Company at Longview, and
you did not mention permanency.
Do these people have discharge permits too?
MR. PETERSON: They either have permanent waste dis-
charge permits or temporary waste discharge permits.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, do you review these permits
periodically if they're permanent?
MR. PETERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are they reviewed every year?
MR. PETERSON: There is not a particular time schedule,
CHAIRMAN STEIN: How about the temporary? Do you care
to distinguish there? What I'm trying to get at is the distin-
guishing feature between the temporary and permanent permit.
Let me recapitulate. As I understand it, all these plants, all
54 industries, do have permits.
MR. PETERSON: Mr. Stein, I would prefer that either
Mr. Gibbs or our Director answer the questions pertaining to the
permit system.
MR. MILLER: I think Mr. Gibbs is more familiar with
it.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Did you want me to repeat the question,
Mr. Gibbs? The 54 industries located adjacent to the river, all
of these industries have permits?
MR. GIBBS: They do.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: How many of these industries have
temporary permits?
MR. GIBBS: Eight of the Industries have temporary per-
mits.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: What is your procedure as to temporary
permits? What I'm getting at is: Do you review them periodic-
ally, and, if so, how of.ten and what type of review do you give
-------
83
them befor.e you issue another temporary permit?
MR. GIBBS: Another temporary? First, let me say the
d.ifferenc.e between a permanent and temporary permit is as it is
described in our statement. Permanent"permits are issued to in-
dustries who are utilizing known and reasonable 'methods' of pollu-
.ti.on abatement.
Those industries, who are not as yet utilizing methods,
are issued a temporary permit, normally for one year.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, what happens at the end of the
year when the temporary permit expires? I'm trying to get the
.procedure of.what you do.
MR. MILLER: The temporary permit, Mr. Chairman, is
utilized as a means of, No. 1, of course, the law requires that
an. industry, have a permit. So, the temporary permit is utilized
as a means of providing a permit with the condition that the in-
dustry has agreed to an order to qualify-permanently for a permit.
Now, the length of time involved under a temporary per-
mit would depend on how long it takes to develop methods' in order
to qualify for a permanent permit, and it will vary in many in-
dustries. In some instances, at least, industries have had ex-
tensions of temporary permits and probably will continue to have
them until they resolve their problems. There are a lot of com-
plications in it.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That's fine. I was just trying to
understand the situation. Do I understand then that these in-
dustries, which do have temporary permits, get an automatic re-
view at the end of each year?
MR. MILLER: The temporary permit is issued for a
specific period of time, and 60 days before the time expires,
the industry is required to apply for a new permit and specify
what progress has been made, and then negotiations begin on the
either permanent or another temporary permit, depending on the
conditions.
It's merely an instrument or a method or a mechanism
of moving toward a permanent permit.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: One more question: Is there any
specific time that they issue a temporary permit for? Is that
at times longer than a year, or evidently there's'a"-date-'cert a in
involved in these, is that right?
-------
84
MR. MILLER: There is a date certain. We issue a tem-
porary permit for as short a period as 60 days. I can recall at
the moment some of them. I would have to ask a question because
I'm not too long-standing with the organization.
What is the longest single period of time that we have
issued temporary permits for?
MR. GIBBS: The longest one I can recall is two years.
MR, MILLER: One single temporary permit had a two year
time limit on it. Now, this was undoubtedly a case that a pro-
gram had been developed where it was anticipated it would take
two years to move in and get it taken care of.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. I have no further questions
Do you want to proceed, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: In preparation for this conference, we
wrote to 40 individuals and agencies interested in the Washington
side qf this problem. We received, on the basis of those 40 in-
vitations .to participate, seven written replies, indicating that
a statement would be made at the time of the conference, arid a
different statement presented for the record. I understand that
there are several people in the audience who did not notify us
that they intended to make a statement, but would like to make
one, and they will have an opportunity as soon as the prepared
statements have been read.
I would like to call first on our Washington Department
of Fisheries.
MR. HOLLAND: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Gilbert Holland, with the Washington De-
partment of Fisheries.
This statement has been prepared in part by Mr. H. 0.
Wendler, who is in charge of our Columbia River station at Van-
couver; I will not read it verbatim since an item or two has
already been covered specifically in previous papers already
given. However, copies of the statement will be provided.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: May we label that Washington Exhibit
No. 2, please?
...Thereupon the document referred to was marked Wash-
ington Exhibit No. 2, and such document accompanies the original
transcript of the conference...
-------
85
MR. HOLLAND: Attention has been focused rather heavily
on the effects of slime fungus on commercial fishing nets and, in
some cases, on the lines of sportsmen- fishing in the Columbia
River, below Camas.. However, relatively little has Tseen said
about the effects-, of waste liquor or its apparent by-product,
slime fungus, on certain marginal species of .anadromous fish
inhabiting the Columbia River. These are the shad and the smelt.
Both have considerable commercial and recreational value during
the time, they are ..present in the river and during certain periods
of their life history may be extremely vulnerable to polluted
waters.
.Shad was first introduced from the eastern .United States
in -the 1870!>s and 80's. Because the environment in the Columbia
River was eminently suitable, shad had become firmly established
in this system by the early 1900"s." The Columbia River is-pre-
sently one of the major shad producing rivers in North America.
The fishery on this species has b.een, for the most part, incid-
ental and supplemental to the more lucrative fisheries, the lucra-
tive salmon fisheries-, since the shad, run coincides with the
blueback salmon run which has a higher market value. Catch stat-
istics are-not always a reliable measure of the abundance of
these species. In the early days, only roe shad were in demand.
The buck shad had no value and were discarded. Since 1953, how-
..ever, reported landings have to some extent been a measure of
the abundance of roe shad.
Major shad spawning areas in the Columbia River system
are: Youngs Bay :near Astoria, Willamette Slough, Camas-Washougal
Reef, Mt. Pleasant, and Hamilton Slough. I would like to point
out these areas. (Indicating on map) Youngs Bay is near Astoria,
Willamette Slough near the mouth of the Willamette River, the
Camas-Washougal area, Mt. Pleasant near Washougal, and Hamilton
Slough near Bonneville. It has been estimated by the Department
biologists that -the Camas-Washougal spawning ground for shad may
produce' as high as 50 per cent of the total Columbia River run.
Although the total annual shad catch in the Columbia
River from 19^0 to 1957 has exceeded 500,000 pounds, certain
shad-producing areas have shown a decline in landings since
Part of this decline has been due to changes in season and in
fishing areas. Based upon the estimates prepared by another
fisheries-agency, the Oregon Pish Commission, and submitted to
the members of the United States' Senate, 'the annual average first
wholesale value of shad- on the Columbia River equalled $170,000
during the years 1938 to 1952. Nearly 100,000 pounds.'of shad
annually are taken from the- Camas-Washougal, area of the Columbia
River. ^Mos.t. of this catch is: taken during th.e. shad-only season
that normally commences a week or more prior to the' regular '
-------
86
summer salmon season. In addition, shad are taken on hook and
line in various areas of the Columbia River.
In 1941, Cheyne observed the effects of different con-
centrations of sulfite waste liquor on the hatching of Columbia
River .shad eggs obtained from spawning fish in Camas Slough.
He used three different concentrations, 46.3 parts per million,
98.5 parts per million, and 168.3 parts per million. Prom his
data, it appeared that the greatest mortality on shad eggs
occurred at 98.5 parts per million. He further noted that in
the three test jars containing sulfite waste liquor a filament-
ous organism appeared. This organism proved to be Sphaerotilus,
the same filamentous organism which is present in the Columbia
River where sulfite waste liquor is found in certain concentra-
tions. Sphaerotilus appeared most abundant in the test jars
containing 98.5 parts per million of sulfite waste liquor where
it was observed attached to the eggs and also loose filaments
were seen to be lodged in the gills of newly-hatched fry. This
caused death by suffocation, as their gill covers became extended,
This condition was present in all three test jars, but was most
prevalent at the aforementioned concentration. Cheyne also
noted that, as the concentration of sulfite waste liquor in-
creased, the incubation period increased.
Shad eggs after fertilization are semi-buoyant, slowly
sinking to the bottom of the river. They are carried downstream
at the mercy of currents and eddies until they fall into small
crevices between stones or gravel or among the aquatic vegeta-
tion. Thus the eggs and newly hatched fry are arrested in the
areas of high sulfite waste liquor and where slime fungus blankets
certain areas of the bottom of the river.
The next section deals with smelt. During the period
1950 through 1954, experimental work was conducted by Smith and
Saalfield on smelt response to various dilutions of sulfate base
effluent. Many commercial fishermen expressed belief that the
nearly complete failure of the Cowlitz River smelt run during
the period 1949 to 1952 may be attributed to the discharge of
industrial pollutants in the Longview area. The experiments
were undertaken to measure the directional response of migrating
smelt. The effluents utilized were acquired from the Longview
Fibre Company, which discharges primarily a sulfate base efflu-
ent, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company Pulp Division, which dis-
charges a mixed effluent containing both sulfate and sulfite
wastes, and the Reynolds Aluminum Company, which discharges a
waste with a relatively high concentration of fluoride materials.
The results will be presented in a table accompanying
the formal statement, but, generally speaking, in regard to the
-------
87
results of the experiment, it can be said that the results in-
dicated that the response of the smelt showed a significant pre-
ference, to the unaltered water.
With regard to the experiments to the combined sulfate
and sulfite base effluent from the Weyerhaeuser mill, it can be
said that the responses of the fish indicated a significant pre-
ference for the unaltered channel-up to the point where the dilu-
tion, level became as high as 1:800 parts in the altered channel.
At this dilution, no significant preference was noted.
In the third experiment, with the fluoride base efflu-
ent, the smelt again exhibited a decided preference to clean
water, except at the highest dilution level.
The conclusion reached from the findings is obvious
there is merit in keeping pollution to a minimum.
Smelt catches, as shown for the shad, are governed a
great -deal by market demand. When the market becomes saturated,
landings will decrease, despite the fact that large quantities
of smelt are still available. Recent years have shown a decided
increase in the number of fishermen engaged in fishing for smelt,
but -no corresponding increase in catch. Average annual landings
have always exceeded one million pounds,
The known smelt spawning grounds in the Columbia River
system are located in Grays River, in the Columbia near Stella,
Cowlitz and Kalama Rivers, in the Columbia River near Martin's
Bluff, Kalama, and in the Lewis and Sandy Rivers. As the fish
progress upstream, they have no choice but to swim through the
polluted water to reach these spawning areas.
With your permission, I would like to point out the
areas in question. (indicating on map) The Columbia River near
Stella below Longview, the Cowlitz and the Kalama Rivers, Cowlitz,
Kalama, Martin's Bluff near Kalama, and then the Lewis and Sandy
Rivers.
We have a statement with regard to our research in con-
nection with pollution by the sulfate and sulfite pulp mills.
For many years, pulp mill wastes, especially waste
liquor from the sulfite pulping process, have demanded the most
immediate' attention as a major industrial waste causing pollution
in-this< State.
In 1949, the Washington State Fisheries Department and
the Washington Pollution Control Commission, with financial
-------
88
assistance from the United States Public Health Service and the
Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, established a biological
research project at the Department's Deception .Pass marine re-
search station near Anacortes, Washington. The purpose was to
determine the effects of certain waste materials from industrial
operations on fish and other aquatic organisms common to this
region. The initial studies involved the effect of sulfite
waste liquor on the various species of salmon, and the results
are reported in Research Bulletin No. 1 of the Washington Depart-
ment of Fisheries.. After extensive laboratory studies, the
following sulfite waste liquor concentrations were found to be
capable of killing significant numbers of Juvenile salmon during
continuous exposure for 30 days in the presence of ample amounts
of dissolved oxygen.
Here again.we are presenting a table of results. I'd
like to recite the results obtained on the species of Chinook
and silver salmon, showing their age, and the threshhold sulfite
waste liquor concentration, that is, the concentration at which
significant numbers will be killed when exposed for 30 days with
ample oxygen in the solution.
Chinook salmon at the age of 38 days, at the thresh-
hold sulfite waste liquor concentration of 1,175 parts per mil-
lion; at an age of 280 days, 600 parts per million; at an age
of 305 days, 560 parts per million; for silver salmon, at an age
of 351 days, the threshhold concentration was 1,230 parts per
million; at an age of 412 days, the threshhold concentration was
1,015 parts per million.
Additional tests were conducted with pink and chum
salmon, but for the Columbia the tests were for Chinook and
silver, the most prevalent.
Since dissolved oxygen was maintained in a.11 the ex-
perimental aquaria in concentrations greater than five parts per
million, mortalities of the test animals were due to the iethal
qualities of sulfite waste liquor alone. Adverse effects, in-
cluding loss of equilibrium and sluggishness, occurred in much
lower concentrations than those listed, above and indicated that
in non-lethal concentrations of sulfite waste liquor the salmon
would be more susceptible to natural predators. Susceptibility
to sulfite waste liquor of each species of salmon increased with
age within the range of ages tested.- Furthermore, at the age
when the .yar^QUS species on their seaward migrati9n are present
in an estuary, such as the lower Columbia River, the Chinooks
were more susceptible than the other species of salmon tested.
Other lal>ora^ory studies sbowed that marine organisms used most
extensively as fiopd by the .salmon have less tpleranoe for
-------
89
waste liquor than salmon.
The next statement pertains to kraft pulp mill wastes.
Since the waste liquor in kraft pulping is processed for re-
covery, the toxicity of kraft wastes to young salmon is much
less than that from the sulfite process. However, wastes from
loosely operated kraft mills may contain substantial amounts of
toxic materials, and the effects of the effluent on aquatic life
will vary according to the degree of recovery provided. In the
bioassays at the Deception Pass marine research station, the con-
centrations of sulfite waste liquor were recorded in terms of
parts per million of 10 per cent solids, while the concentrations
of kraft waste effluent were recorded in terms of the dilution
ratio of the entire waste flow without reference to solids con-
tent.
A report on the effects of kraft waste effluent on
young salmon has been prepared for publication. Generally speak-
ing, a dilution of at least 1:100 was found to be necessary to
avoid deleterious effects on young salmon. In one experiment,
exposure of 63-day old chinooks for 30 days to a dilution of
1:169 resulted in a significant reduced growth rate. Some of
the vital fish food organisms were found to be comparatively sus-
ceptible and others more tolerant than young salmon to the kraft
waste effluent.
As to other pollutants, the toxic effects of a wide
variety of organic and inorganic pollutants were also tested at
the Deception Pass marine research station. For the most part,
the substances tested were known components of industrial wastes
discharged into the waters of this State. For example, the waste
waters from aluminum plants, such as those on the Columbia River,
are known to contain fluorides. One bioassay with 3i inch
silvers exposed for three days to sodium fluoride in fresh water
indicated a critical tolerance level of less than 500 parts per
million.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that these various reports
that were cited in this statement are also included in this re-
port as literature, and that concludes our statement.
CHAIRMAN STEIN:. Mr. Everts, do you have any comments
you want to make?
MR. EVERTS: No.
MR. POSTON: I have nothing.
MR. MILLER: I haven't a question, but I'd like to make
-------
90
a statement that the Washington Pollution Control .Commission.-.has
plans to be consummated at an early date to employ a board of
biological consultants to review all of the data on the effects
of sulfite waste, liquor on salmon and other fish. .J think that
will resolve" some of the differences of opinion that might exist
at .the present time.
. CHAIRMAN STEIN: Will you wait just a moment, Mr, Hol-
land,? I want to ask you a question.
On the basis of the work you have done and the litera-
ture, and studies you have analyzed, would you say that ^in.the
mainstern of the Columbia River that discharges from pulp and
'.paper mills have a deleterious effect on chinook salmon, silver
salmon, smelt and shad, as far as the fish's growth and well-
being is concerned?
MR. HOLLAND: Laboratory assays might indicate to that
effect. However, I have not been on any surveys on the Columbia
River, in any field observations. I'm not qualified to answer
from .that standpoint, but perhaps Mr. Wendler may wish to elab-
orate on that. Our assays would indicate a deleterious effect.
Of course, a dead fish is much more difficult to observe in- the
field. It sinks to the bottom out of sight, or is quickly taken
up by a predator. So, it's difficult to make a positive state-
ment on that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: I'd like to call Dr. Bucove, Director of
Health of the State of Washington.
DR. BUCOVE: Thank you, Harold. While I'm a member of
the Pollution Control Commission of the State, I'm making this
report, Mr. Chairman, as Director of the State Department of
Health. This presentation will, therefore, be limited to our
main role in the area, that of domestic and sanitary waste dis-
posal, and our purpose in making this presentation is to add a
little emphasis to the aspects of the problem in the area under
consideration. We don't like to see them overshadowed by the
technical and industrial aspects of waste pollution in the Col-
umbia River.
For the purposes of brevity, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to confine my oral presentation to a brief general state-
ment of the Department's present role and projected role in the
area under consideration in a summary of a statement I have here
for presentation.
-------
91
CHAIRMAN STEIN: We can attach your statement as Wash-
ington Exhibit 3.
...Thereupon, the document referred to was marked Wash-
ington Exhibit No. 3, and such document accompanies the original
transcript of the conference...
DR. BUCOVE: I would like that. Our'present operating
program in regard to existing treatment plants is as follows:
The State Health Department receives monthly opez'ation
reports from all the plants in this area. This allows close
supervision of their day-to-day operation and provides a record
of accomplishment. The number of certified sewage plant opera-
tors is indicated in a table in our report. The voluntary pro-
rang of certification requires a candidate to take a three and a
half hour written examination and evaluation of experience. A
six man board appointed by the Pacific Northwest Sewage and In-
dustrial Wastes Association, composed of three currently employed:
sewage work operators, one representative of the Association of
Washington Cities, one representative of the engineering faculty
from the State College or University, and one representative of
the State Health Department, passes on the applicant and may
award a certificate in one of five groups. The operators in the
lower Columbia area, for the most part, have taken the opport-
unity to have their ability recognized by becoming certified.
It can be stated that a great deal of progress in Wash-
ington has been made in providing treatment of sanitary waste
discharges. Disinfection, while not as effective in all cases
as is expected, is being carried out in all plants. Operation
and caliber of training of operation person is in a very favor-
able position when compared with other areas of the State.
Our future projected program is as follows:
This Department in a cooperative program with the Wash-
ington State Pollution Control Commission and the local health
departments intends to lend its efforts to get satisfactory treat-
ment as fast as feasible of all sanitary wastes not now treated.
This includes Ridgefield, Battleground, Vader and Cathlamet.
We plan to encourage further separation of storm and
sanitary waste and reduction of infiltration such that sewage
plartts will be less often hydraulically overloaded. This in-
cludes Camas, Vancouver, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso, Longview,
Morton and Winlock.
Extension of sewers to areas in need will be encouraged,
-------
92
This is desirable in Camas, Vancouver, Ridgefield, Battleground,
Kalama, Woodland, Kelso, Longview and Cathlamet.
We will require and encourage more effective sewage
chlorination in Vancouver, Columbia Academy, Kelso, Longview,
and Morton.
We plan to continue working with our Oregon counter-
parts .in requiring equal treatment and chlorination on the Oregon
side of the river.
We ..plan to continue to improve sewage plant operation
through' training ;of operators, certification program, visitation
and'recommendations.
We" plan to continue working with the State Pollution
Control Commission in the preventing of unacceptable- industrial -
wastes that will unduly.affect public or industrial water'systems
or".endanger, the public health.
A summary of our statement is as follows:
Historical background material in our files indicates
that a; slime problem existed as early as 1926.
The water quality objectives of the Pollution Control
Council of the Pacific Northwest area are suggested as the guide
to evaluation of the lower Columbia pollution problem.
The water supplies using raw Columbia River do not
meet the suggested standards due to high coliform counts. Bath-
ing, swimming, boating, and fishing, and other uses are impaired
by high coliform counts.
Communities along the Columbia avoid, for the most
part, use of the Columbia River water, and those that do have
been forced to provide extensive treatment. A table of water
supply information is given. Possible future uses are described.
Domestic sewage sources on the lower Columbia in Wash-
ington are given in table form, together with connected popula-
tion, dates treatment was started, degree of treatment, chlor-
ine use, operation reports submitted, and operators certified.
A written description is given of each community's facilities.
Costs, design flow, etc., are.given. Operation and certifica-
tion program data is given.
The treatment of all domestic sewage going to the
lower Columbia is fast becoming a recognized fact. Effective
-------
93
chlorination of all treated effluents should be made an immedi-
ate goal of both Washington and Oregon. An outline of this de-
partment's future correction program is given.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Bucove.
Mr. Everts, do you have any comments or questions?
MR. EVERTS; I have one question, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to have a little further explanation of what the Doc-
tor intended to imply by Item No. 5 on the future correction pro-
gram, in which they were to encourage the Sanitary Authority to
require equal treatment and chlorination on the Oregon side''of
the river.
DR. BUCOVE: You may note that I changed that in our
oral presentation to read:
"We plan to continue working with our Oregon counter-
parts in requiring..."
Does that satisfy you?
MR. EVERTS: I was concerned about equal treatment and
chlorination. What do you mean by "equal treatment"?
DR. BUCOVE: I think probably, referring to Mr.
Kittrell's presentation this morning, the fact was borne out
that there seemed to be an unbalance in the amount of success
we have been having on our side of the river with regard to
treatment.
MR. EVERTS: For the information of this conference, I
would like to mention that Mr. Kittrell's report did not mention
the fact that a treatment plant is now under construction at
St. Helens, and bids are being received today at Rainier for the
construction of a treatment plant. I think that evens us up.
DR. BUCOVE: I'm very happy to have that information,
sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you have any further comments or
question, Mr. Everts?
MR. EVERTS: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTONt Nothing.
-------
94
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: May I ask you a question? As I under-
stood it,'you said that'the Columbia River was, at least, a poten-
tial source of water supply for various communities.
DR. BUGOVE: I inferred such, yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: And that the coliform count was such.
that it was above standards that you considered reasonable for a
raw water supply?
DR.: BITCOVE: "That' s correct.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: And that the cities were avoiding'the
use of it. ""Now, could we infer from that statement that, if the
treatment facilities were installed so as to bring the coliform .
counts down, that the Columbia River could be an acceptable
source of a potential water supply by providing such facilities?
DR. BUCOVE: I feel that, if we could meet such a con-
dition, certainly the Columbia River would be considered as a
source of water supply.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Is there a representative of the Washing-
ton Department of Game here with a statement?
MR. PRICHARD: Well, I'm here, but in my last report
I was told that there would be a paper presented to this body,
and on my leaving I had not received a copy of it. I don't know
whether you have, but I have a paper to present.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: May we have your name for the record?
MR. PRICHARD: Albert T. ' Prichard, member of the
Washington Game Commission.
MR. MILLER: We'll call for the Game Commission again
after you finish your statement, Mr. Prichard. Mr. Nelson made
a statement on this matter this morning. We have him on the list.
I don't know if you intended to make a statement on behalf of
another organization.
MR. "PKICHARD: I have.two letters, sir, that were given
to me for presentation at this meeting, one from the President of
-------
95
the Vancouver Chapter of the Washington Wildlife League, and the
other from the Salmon Committeeman of the Rainbow Anglers. I
could just present the letters, if you wish, or I could read
them whatever you desire.
MR. MILLER: Well, as to reading them, I'd leave that
up to your desire, but, if you don't care to read them, you may
present them to the Reporter.
MR. PRICHARD: Very well, sir, I'll read them.
This letter is from Roy Walker, President, Vancouver
Chapter, Washington Wildlife League.
"Dear Mr. Stein:
"The Vancouver Chapter, Washington Wildlife League,
feel very strongly that the present polluted condition of the
Columbia River is not in keeping with the conditions necessary
for maximum recreational utilization. It is a well known fact
that recreation, such as salmon and steelhead fishing, water
skiing, and boating, is of great economic importance to the
Northwest. Many thousands of boats, both commercial and sport,
use the Columbia River.
"The shores of the river'in many areas are used for
picnicking and camping. A large number of camp grounds, picnic
areas, and recreational beaches could be established on the
Washington side if the water were of a purity that would warrant
their construction.
"Population trends are to the Northwest and the. popula-
tion is increasing daily. These people look to the Columbia for
recreational activity.
"Statistics prove that recreation in all of its aspects
is the third largest industry in the State of Washington. It
appears to us that such a large industry compels pollution abate-
ment in all water areas and, in this point, the Columbia River.
"We certainly concur with other interested parties
that the U. S. Public Health Service should intervene on the
Columbia River and do all in its power to abate the pollution."
That is signed by Roy Walker.
The next letter is from J. W. Arrasmith, Salmon Com-
mitteeman, Rainbow Anglers Club, Vancouver, to Mr. Murray Stein.
-------
96
"Dear Sir:
"In regard to the pollution of 'the Columbia River by
industrial wastes, I would like to state the problem that con-
fronts the sportsmen.
JIAs you may know, dredging operations in the. Columbia
River cause the formation of large sand bars or beaches along
the shores. On these bars the stee'lhead and salmon congregate
and travel. This furnishes fishing, picnicking, and related
recreations to thousands of people in the lower Columbia River
area.
"The waste pulp fiber and slime discharged from the
paper mills on the Columbia River at times makes fishing prac-
tically impossible. Although the lines used are of a monofila-
ment type, th.ey b.ecome so loaded with waste material that in a
few minutes' fishing it is impossible to reel them in until the
line' is cleared.. The lures generally used are of "spin-glow"
or' cherry bobber type. These will become sp corroded and
covered with refuse that they become inoperative.
"An example in point is the small bar at ...the downr
s'tream outskirts of Vancouver, Washington, betwee'n the city
limits of Vancouver and the Alcoa Aluminum Plant approximately
one m.ile downstream from the Columbia River Paper Mill. For-
merly this bar produced excellent fishing all summer. This year
it is impossible to fish at all because of slime and waste
material from the paper mill.
"While realizing that industry and resulting employ-
ment is vital to the welfare of the community, it is our opin-
ion that irresponsible discharge of waste matter into our public
waters merely to increase the profits of an organization cer-
tainly does not contribute to the welfare of a community."
That is signed J. W. Arrasmith.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Everts, do you have any questions
or comments?
MR. EVERTS: No, sir-
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller?
-------
9?
MR. MILLER: Do you want these letters?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: We'd like to have those in the file,
and I suggest to the secretary that we make a note of the dates
on those letters, which was not read into the record.
MR. PKlCHARD: The letter from Mr. Arrasmith is dated
August 26th, and September 10th on the one from Mr. Walker.
MR. MILLER: Is there a representative here from Crown
Zellerbach Corporation?
MR. BOYLON: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my
name is P. 0. Boylon. I live in Camas, Washington. I am resi-
dent manager of the Crown Zellerbach Corporation pulp and paper
mill.
All of us here share an interest in the Columbia. This
multiple purpose stream is one of the great resources of the
Northwest. Crown Zellerbach relies heavily on the Columbia and
has ever since one of its predecessor companies at Camas brought
the pulp and paper industry to what is now the State of Washing-
ton. They brought it 75 years ago. Today this mill has 2600
employees, whose pay checks total 15 million dollars a year.
Were it not for the river and its water, there would be no paper
mill at Camas.
Ours is an industry based on wood and water. At Camas,
we- use Columbia River water to supplement our supply from deep
wells and lakes. Columbia River dams generate most of the power
that operates the mill. The river and its tributaries form a
water highway over which we tow in logs harvested in a dozen
downstream Washington and Oregon counties. These logs are the
raw material out of which we make pulp for paper. River barges
loaded at Camas bring paper products to Portland and other river
ports for shipment to markets all over the world.
The Columbia also serves as a convenient and fireproof
storage basin for the log rafts we must keep in reserve to guar-
antee an around-the-clock seven-day operation at the Camas mill.
In its capacity as a multiple use stream, the Columbia fulfills
yet another essential service. It carries away the highly dil-
uted effluents of our several pulp-making processes, all of
which are carefully monitored and controlled by a comprehensive
millwide effluent sampling system.
I should point out here that all domestic sewage from
the Camas plant is segregated and is treated in a modern, effi-
cient sewage treatment plant owned and operated by the City of
-------
98
Camas. Our mill -effluents are completely free "6T pathogenic
bacteria of the type injurious to public health..
Our effluent discharges are a matter of record. Rer
ports are filed regularly with the Washington Pollution Control
Commission. Prom its very inception, this Commission, has had
full cooperation'from Crown Zellerbach mills at Carnas and else-
where. 'For instance, eight years ago, the company at the re-
quest of the Washington Pollution Control Commission installed
a/:deep water diffuser line through'which pulp.mill effluents .,
are discharged in the main channel of the Columbia River at a
depth of about 45 feet. Cost of this installation and. mainten-
ance1 since that time have totaled well over a'half million.dol-
lars. .Ove-r the 'past. ten'-years, the Camas mill has : spent mope
than two. million dollars1 -f or internal plant installations 'de-
signed to improve water quality. As a result of these improve-
ments and better operating procedures, our stock losses per ton
of-product have been reduced 140 per cent since 1935.
Typical of our cooperation is the joint study agreed
upon by Crown Zellerbach and the State of Washington two years
ago to investigate the precise causes of a sphaerotilus growth
in the Columbia River and, if possible, determine a method 'or
methods for its control.
...Reporter's Note: At this point, Mr. Boylon deleted
portions of his prepared statement. At a point subsequent in
the conference, a request was made of Chairman Stein that the
entire prepared statement appear in the transcript, and the Re-
porter was thereupon instructed to insert the prepared statement
in its entirety...
Sphaerotilus is found in many parts of the world. It
occurs''ln clean rivers such as the Columbia when temperature,
velocity and phosphorous content reach a balance favorable to
growth. These conditions appear to vary from year to year.
Sphaerotilus does not constitute a public health problem and is
not toxic to fish.
: Prom all sanitary engineering criteria, our study has
shown that the 14 mile stretch of the Columbia River from Wash-
ougal to the Interstate Bridge at Vancouver is not polluted.
At no time during the past two years has the dissolved oxygen
of the river in this area dropped lower than eight parts per
million. The decrease in dissolved oxygen directly attributable
to the Camas mill discharge is less than one-half part per mil-
lion. The biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) below the mill
outfall varies from one to three parts per million. The back-
ground B.O.D. is about one part per million.
-------
99
(Interpolating) Again, I would like to point out
that there is no scientific basis for a comparison of sewage
and pulp or paper mill effluents by population equivalent.
Domestic sewage has pathogenic bacteria where pulp and paper
mill effluents are free from these organisms.
(Returning to text) Spent sulfite liquor discharges
by Crown Zellerbach Corporation at Camas, Washington, contains
approximately two per cent sugar content. The conversion of
these sugars to sphaerotilus may be rather inefficient since
competition for the available sugars occurs among the complex
and varied microbial population in the river, and a major por-
tion of the organic load may be consumed by bacteria other than
sphaerotilus.
It is well to point out that the mere addition of cer-
tain organic materials found in pulp and paper mill effluents,
such as sugars, to the river is not sufficient to promote
sphaerotilus growth. Nutritional requirements of sphaerotilus
are complex. It has been shown by exhaustive studies that
nitrogen and phosphorus are essential for its growth and with-
out ; these two elements, it cannot exist. Pulp and paper mill
effluents are deficient in these essential elements. These
elements find their way into the river through two major sources
domestic sewage (treated or raw) and agricultural runoff.
Both of these sources of nutrients for sphaerotilus growth have
been steadily increasing in the upper Columbia, and all informa-
tion we have confirms a tendency for them to continue to in-
crease in the future.
(Interpolating) Now, the other two speakers from the
Washington State Pollution Control Commission covered the forma-
tion of the cooperative study group that we had formed. So, I
will skip that part of my report.
...As instructed by the Chairman, the deleted portions
are included in their proper context...
In a conscientious effort to help develop knowledge
which might aid in the solution of the problem of sphaerotilus
growth, Crown Zellerbach suggested to the Washington Pollution
Control Commission two years ago that it select an outstanding
biologist to direct a research study on sphae'rotllus growth in
the Columbia. The company agreed to provide the necessary funds
to conduct the study and to supply laboratory facilities. The
study itself was to be under the sole and complete direction of
the Commission. In making that commitment, my company pointed
out thap it had a responsibility to its many thousands of share
owners to be sure that any substantial expenditures made in
-------
100
connection with the sphaerotilus problem would, in fact, achieve
the desired results.
The Washington Pollution Control Commission agreed to
this proposal and the research study began early in 1956. Since
that time, our research and operating personnel have met with
representatives of the State at regular intervals-to review and
discuss the project. Last May, it was our privilege, in coopera-
tion with the project's senior scientific advisor. Dr. E. J.
Ordal,- Professor of Microbiology- University of Washington, to
present a detailed progress report to members and staffs of the
Washington Pollution Control Commission and the Oregon Sanitary
Authority. This was a public presentation attended by inter-
ested citizens of both States.
At that time, recommendations were made for further
study and for pilot investigations on a broader scale of several
promising leads which had been developed. This study is con-
tinuing, and we are prepared to proceed with investigations of
these major leads: (1) altering the present effluent discharge
pattern to avoid the log rafts along Lady Island and the Wash-
ington-shore which may be major growth areas for sphaerotilus;
(2) pilot plant studies of intermittent discharge of effluent
to manipulate the feeding schedule of sphaerotilus, so-as to
control its growth; and (3) intensified laboratory studies of
bacterial fermentation of wood sugars in the calcium base sul-
fite" liquor in an economical manner, which might produce com-
mercially marketable animal feeds from the waste liquor.
In all this research, which to date has cost us
$150,000y 'we"have' given due consideration to the practicability
and "to the physical and economic feasibility of finding a solu-
tion to the problem.
In addition, during the last decade Crown Zellerbach's
chemical products division, located at Camas, has spent many
thousands of dollars on sulfite liquor research alone. In our
sphaerotilus studies with the State of Washington, we have been
able to draw freely on the work of these chemical products re-
search teams.
The-two year river and laboratory study conducted by
the -Washington Pollution Control Commission and Crown--Zellerbaeh
has already contributed substantially to the store of scientific
knowledge about the Columbia. It is only through pla-nned re-
search of this type, carried forward on a.-comprehensive'-scale,
that we can expect a rea'l solution to the-problem of sphaero-
tilus 'growth in the river. We 'believe that reasonable progress
is being made on the sphSerotilus situation ''-- certainly in
-------
101
relation to the efforts of many other groups throughout the
country also working on this complex and difficult problem.
Continuation of this progress -- on the basis of voluntary
cooperation between private, industry and the State authorities -
seems to us the best guarantee of achieving early and construct-
ive results.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Boylon. Mr. Everts,
do you have any questions?
MR. EVERTS: No.
MR. POSTON: I have none.
MR. MILLER: I have no question. I'd like to say that
we tried to have Dr. Ordal at this meeting, but he happens to be
on the east coast and has been there for several weeks and won't
be back for several more weeks. I don't know whether he would
want to'add to any of these comments, but we did make an attempt
to have him here. I did talk to Dr. Ordal about a 'month ago in
preparation for this conference, and he strongly advised con-
tinued research on this particular problem.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Boylon.
MR. MILLER: Is there a representative here from Long-
view Fibre Company.
MR. WOLLENBERG: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
my name is R. P. Wollenberg. I am Vice President in charge of
operations for the Longview Fibre Company, which operates an
integrated pulp and.paper mill at Longview, Washington, which
produces some 1,100 tons per day of paper and' paperboard from.
pulp manufactured at the mill primarily by the kraft process.
A small portion of' the pulp is made by grinding. Our mill
employs an average of 1,6$0 people at Longview. We utilize the
Columbia River for rafting of logs, fcir shipment of products to
the east coast and overseas, as a source of process water, and
for the discharge of our mill effluent.
We cite the situation of the Longview mill of bur com-
pany as one case lthat demonstrates"the adequacy of the measures'
taken by the Washington State Pollution Control Commission and"
shows^progress in the abatement of pollution.
Pursuant to directives from the Washington State
Pollution Control Commission and'with its technical assistance,
-------
102
our company has done the following:
1. Installed a multiple outlet dlffuser to discharge
the effluent well out into the river and spread out so that
large dilution is immediately achieved. This diffuser has been
in effective operation for a number of years except for a brief
period this summer when a break occurred in the pipe leading to
it.
2. Provided a sanitary sewage disposal plant.
3. Installed additional fibre recovery equipment in
the mill.
These changes having been made, the Washington State
Pollution Control Commission has granted our company a permanent
permit. We are required by this permit to sample our effluent
and report the results to the Commission. Thus, we must con-
tinue to perform adequately in the recovery of fibre and chemi-
cals so that the necessary water quality of the Columbia River
is protected against any undue damage from our effluent.
We would like to make one further point. We note that
the U. S. Public Health Service has built up estimates of waste
liquor concentrations on the unsupported assumption that waste
liquor recovery in a kraft mill is 85 per cent, and that 15 per
cent goes to the sewer. Our spent liquor has 3*500 pounds of
solids per ton of pulp. Our make-up chemical is 50 pounds per
ton of pulp, or about one and a half per cent. Of the loss
which is being made up at least one-half goes into our product ,
and about one-fifth goes into the atmosphere so that'less than
one per cent goes into the river. While the U. S. Public Health
Service report clearly states that 85 per cent recovery in the
kraft process is only an assumption, much of the reasoning and
conclusions following are based on this assumption. How much
the report is based on these erroneous assumptions is clearly
indicated by the statement on page 24 of the report, and'I quote
in part:
"...some unknown combination of river characteristics
permits Longview wastes to produce intermittent light slime
growth..." there's a skip in the quotation, and then it con-
tinues "...rather than concentrated growth..."
If the actual facts as to recovery were used in the
report, concentrated growth would not be predicted. We request
that the report be revised to reflect the facts as to chemical
recovery before being used as a basis for enforcement action.
-------
103
Now, since I prepared this statement, I've heard the
'statements today, and I suggest the comparison of Mr. Kittrell's
assumed figures with Mr. Gibbs1 reported figures will bear out
this criticism.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. Mr. Everts, do you have
any questions or comments?
i
MR.-EVERTS: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller?
MR. .MILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: For your information, this report was
based on available information, as I understand it, available to
our investigator when he came out to survey the situation. I
would prefer not in this case to talk about enforcement action
because what is in here and what we're trying to do is to develop
a cooperative effort, to develop the situation to see where we
are to go from.
However, I should then say that generally, when we do
'have an enforcement action and this -is not necessarily re-
lated to the Columbia River -- that will be based on evidence at
hearings or in court, and that will be through painstaking evid-
ence put in and not based on any assumptions. You can be sure
of that.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Is there a representative of Weyerhaeuser
Timber 'Company here?
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and gentle-
men, my name is Raymond Baker. I am manager of the manufacturing
pulp division-of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company. For a number of
years'prior to 1955, I was mill manager of our Longview opera-
tion .
We appreciate the invitation from the State of Washing-
ton Pollution Control Commission to participate in this meeting.
We are here today .as one-of the many users of the
jCblumbia River.- Our,uses of these waters are multiple. They
-------
104
include domestic supply, process water, receiving water for
effluents, transportation and storage of logs, and transporta-
tion of other raw materials and finished products.
At Longview, Washington, we operate a plywood plant,
sawmills, and pulp and paperboard mills. These and related oper-
ations at that location provide direct employment for 3,900
people.
In 1948, after years of research and pilot plant work,
we installed the world's first magnesium base sulphite pulping
process. In this process, we burn the organic material separ-
ated from the wood fiber and recover spent cooking chemicals.
Our capital expenditures for this recovery system have exceeded
$5,000,000. In addition, we have incurred substantial operating
expenses in bringing the process to its present high level of
efficiency.
As we have expanded capacity to include kraft pulp,
semi-chemical pulp and paperboard, we have incurred substantial
costs for the installation of equipment in addition to that nor-
mally required, in order to further limit the discharge of fiber,
barks, knots, chemicals, and so forth, into the river.
In 1952, in cooperation with, and at the request of
our Pollution Control Commission, we added a submerged line for
effective, quick and adequate dilution of the effluent in the
river. This cost $110,000.
A sanitary sewerage system that treats sanitary wastes
for the entire plant site was completed in 1957 at a total cost
of $196,000.
In our kraft and semi-chemical operations, we have
installed chemical recovery systems of ample capacity to insure
maximum efficiency.
On the basis of these facilities, together with vari-
ous other requirements, the Washington Pollution Control Commis-
sion issued to us permanent permit No. 679. We submit monthly
reports to the Commission giving pertinent data on production
and effluent, as requested by the Commission.
River data, which we have collected over the years,
have always indicated ample dissolved oxygen to support aquatic
life. The lowest value ever recorded within several miles down-
stream from our outfall was 7.2 parts per million; normally, the
low values have been 8.5 parts per million. At no time have we
-------
105
seen any evidence of harmful; effects on fish life. In fact,
the area for some distance below our dispersal line remains a
favorite public fishing area for jack salmon, as well as other
species.
The millions of dollars our industry has spent on
pollution control equipment and research relating to it have
been well spent. In our own case, we have developed a system
that is recognized as representing the furthest advance in prac-
ticable and feasible pollution control. The B.O.D. loading pro-
duced by our mills, which is at a practicable minimum, is dis-
charged into receiving waters that are, always near or above the
oxygen saturation point. For these reasons, we sincerely be-
lieve that our use of the Columbia River represents a minimum of
interference with competing uses.
Our belief is confirmed by a marked increase of all
types of recreational use of the river. Of commercial uses,
only fishing might be adversely affected. Our most recent in-
formation, based upon a "Letter to the Editor", written by Mr.
Ted Farnsworth, leading commercial fisherman, points to increased
commercial catches. There is an attachment to the report repro-
ducing that publication.
...While not so designated by the Chairman, the report
referred to has been marked Washington Exhibit No. 4, and such
document accompanies the original transcript of the conference...
The only adverse effect charged to the pulp industry
is its alleged contribution to increased slime formation. Our
Pollution Commission has negatived any possibility1 of such forma-
tions causing injury to fish. In its Progress Report No. 39*
stated, and I quote: :
"...slime fungus does not destroy fish or fish food
.1!
Organisms...
We have been informed that some gillnetters have,
during limited periods and in a few locations, incurred increased
operating expenses as a result of such formations. Like other
users of the waters of the Columbia, the gillnetters should ex-
pect to experience some inconvenience and expense in accommodat-
ing their use'to competing uses. It is for this reason that we
have willingly incurred millions of dollars of capital and oper-
ating costs in order to insure the compatibility of our uses
with other uses:
Now, after listening to this morning's proceedings, I
would like to add one comment to our formal statement. The
-------
106
Federal Act establishes as a development criteria for abatement,
and the practicability and the physical and economic feasibility
of securing abatement. Mr. Poston, in. introducing Mr. Kittrell,
referred to him as an expert on evaluation of the Public Health
Service rules. I was struck by the complete failure of'Mr.
Kittrell to include in his evaluation any reference to the ex-
tent to which contributors to pollution are presently following
practices that are practicable and feasible. That we are doing
so is evidenced by our permanent permit 'from the Washington
Pollution Control Commission.
We trust that the report on this conference will
remedy the deficiency in Mr. Kittrell1s evaluation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you have any comments, Mr. Everts?
MR. EVERTS: No.
MR. POSTON: Nothing.
MR.MILLER: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I'd like to make one comment with
reference to your statement. I think this is substantially so
in all pollution control activities that I know of throughout
the country, generally the folks who prepare the scientific re-
ports analyze the situation as to interference with water use,
as well as an analysis of the stream and the type of wastes
coming into the stream. When we speak of experts in this field,
we do not speak of them in terms of evaluating economic or
physical feasibility of securing a method of treatment.
Generally, those matters are left to a board in the
State or an official agency in an official capacity, and I think
Mr. Kittrell's capacity here related to about the same as you
may have in any official State agency. I don't think it is very
unusual.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Are there any other representatives of
pulp and paper industries that would like to make a statement?
MR. BARNES: Mr. Miller, my name is Francis Barnes.
When Mr. Boylon made his statement in accordance with the in-
vitation from the State of Washington, he omitted certain
-------
107
portions of'his prepared statement. I would like..at this time,
if it's agreeable with the conferees, to make sure that the
entire1 statement is inserted in the record.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Without objection, we will so do,
and that will appear in the stenographic report of the record
as if those portions had been read.
...See "Reporter's Note" on Page 98...
MR. MILLER: Mr. Prichard, has the official state-
ment arrived of the Game Commission?
I might say that Mr. Prlchard has asked me to point
out that, while he is a member of the Washington Game Commission,
he is making this statement in his own behalf.
MR. '""PRICHARD: Mr. Chairman, fellow conferees, ladies
and gentlemen:
I am making this statement today in behalf of the
Cowlitz Game and Anglers Club for the Chairman of the Pollution
Committee. I have been a member of this committee for a number
of years, and I've actively participated in the pollution prob-
lem on the Columbia, and I would like to digress just one moment
if I may and apologize, if that is necessary, for the fact that
the paper has not arrived from the Game Department, as I was
assured it would. As I think most of you know, we recently
moved to new offices in Olympia, and maybe it's- lost somewhere.
I just don't know. We have new personnel there; and so con-
fusion could arise.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Prichard, you seem to have the
same trouble in your State that we have in the Federal Govern-
ment. We couldn't get our copies of Mr. Kittrell's report here
either. They seem to be some place between Cincinnati and Port-
land.
MR. PRICHARD: I'm glad then that the State of Wash-
ington isn't the only one that has troubles.
In thi.s paper here, I would like to state that the
purpose of this presentation is to give the United Spates Public
Health Service conference information concerning our experience
with pollution in the lower Columbia River, its.effect on water
uses in the past, and the effect' on the economy of: the nation
that we believe will occur if pollution abatement: practices are
not put into immediate effect.
-------
108
The following statements are not entirely original as
most of them are compiled from reports made by various State
and Federal agencies, but, because of this, they are factual
and we ask the Federal and State authorities concerned to give
careful consideration to the statements contained herein.
VALUE OF THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERY AND RECREATION PROGRAM
That the Federal Health Service recognizes the value
of the fishery and recreational activities in this area is evid-
ent in their- report "The Pacific Northwest Drainage Basins",
made public in 1951. In this report, the Federal Health Service
stated:
"The commercial fishery industry of the Pacific North-
west is of great importance to the economy of the area. This
industry's capital investment in fishing equipment, .boats,-;and
packing plants is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 200
million dollars. Data are not available for the Pacific North-
west as a whole, but according to the Washington State ^Department
of Fisheries, the wholesale- value of fish, fish products and by-
products, plus the money paid Washington fishermen for their
catch during the year 19^9, is estimated to be 100 million dol-
lars."
In evaluating the recreation program to the area, the
report goes on:
"in former studies of the economic wealth of the Paci-
fic Northwest, recreation has not always been considered.asr a,
major industry. The actual number of people this industry sup-
ports and the number who partake of the recreational opportunitiei
in the area are not known. It has been estimated by state
agencies and others concerned, however, that tourists spent
over 300 million dollars in the Pacific Northwest during 1949.
Not included in this total is the money spent for recreational
purposes by local residents."
This has been a few years ago. That has undoubtedly
increased many-fold. The report goes on:
"Recreational opportunity in the lower Columbia drain-
age area is diversified and great. This area, rich in natural
beauty, attracts many visitors. Fishing, hunting, picnicking,
boating, camping, swimming, mountain climbing and winter sports
are readily available to all people living in the sub-basin and
surrounding areas. People from all over the world are attracted
to the area by the famous Astoria and other Columbia River sal-
mon fishing derbies, the winter sports at Timberline Lodge and
-------
109
Government' Camp, recreation areas at Columbia. Gorge and the many
other activities along the Columbia River. Obviously the re-
creational income is as important as the income from other major
industrial activities."
To point out the importance of the part played in the
value of the Pacific Northwest fishery by the Columbia River,
we will quote from a publication by the Washington State Depart-
ment of Fisheries of 1958:
"...a compilation prepared by the Washington Depart-
ment, of Fisheries statistical section (from information based
on tag recovery data) points up the contribution of. the Columbia
River (salmon) stocks to the Pacific troll fisheries. This re-
port states that Ralph P. Silliman in a paper published in 1948
estimated, the Alaska troll catch of Columbia River origin chin-
ook as follows: Ketchikan 30$, Sitka 20$, Pelican City 16$.
Parker and Kirkness in 1956 estimated on the basis of tag re-
coveries the Columbia River contributed to the troll Chinook
catch as follows: Ketchikan 46$, Pelican City-Sitka 41$, north
of Pelican City
"Silliman also gives figures ranging from 36$ of the
Queen Charlotte Island troll catches to 75$ of those in the
Columbia River vicinity. H. Heyamoto of the Washington Fisher-
ies Department in 1954 estimated on the basis of two marking
experiments that the Columbia River fall Chinook run constituted
45$» of the .-total troll catch of Oregon, Washington, and the west
coast.of Vancouver Island. (His figures do not include data.
based on the contribution of the spring and summer runs to the
fishery of this area.)
"California-troll Chinook are largely of Sacramento
origin, according to a report by Fry and Hughes in 1951. How-
ever, there are apparently some, northern stocks contributing to
this fishery, since two percent of. recovered California tags
come from the Columbia River;. vicinity or northward. From
studies outlined .above, at .least half of these can be considered
.Columbia River stocks or approximately 1$ of California land-
ings."
This report, which is available from the Washington
State Department of Fisheries, goes on to show importance of
comparable value played by silver, sockeye, pink, and chum sal-
mon of. Columbia River origin.
The same report, states:
"A growing menace to fisheries appears with pollution
-------
110
of waterways, lakes and streams. Toxic, trace minerals and
waste resulting from domestic and industrial .development often
can be destructive to practically all forms of marine life.
Abatement of pollution is a requirement in fisheries manage-
ment ."
The Congress of the United States, recognizing the
value of the Columbia River fishery, appropriated money for the
Federal Pish and Wildlife to engage in a multi-million dollar
salmon and steelhead rehabilitation program in the Santuary
area on the lower Columbia River in an effort to compensate for
fish loss caused by upriver federal dams. Approximately 20
million dollars has already been spent on this continuing pro-
gram and it is said the cost will eventually be over 30 million
dollars.
From these facts, there can be no doubt as to the value
of the Columbia River fishery or of the recreational program made
possible by clean water in the lower river.
Some of the most prevalent sources of pollution are
the pulp mills located at Camas, Vancouver and Longview, Wash-
ington, and wastes that are barged from an Oregon mill down the
Willamette River and dumped into the Columbia. These concentra-
tions of waste sulfite liquors exert ah oxygen demand which re-
duces the dissolved oxygen concentration of the river water and
causes growth identified as sphaerotilus.
Excessive loss of oxygen in the river water may result
in a fish kill as happened in a comparable instance in Everett
Harbor in 19^9 when thousands of fingerling size fish were found
dead on the beach and Pollution Control Commission field engin-
eers observed adult salmon circling on top of the water and
finally sinking to the bottom exhausted. This condition was
the result of the discharge of pulp wastes in the Snohomish
River being held up by an incoming tidal action until the con-
centration reached the point where a complete lack of oxygen
was observed in the entire area within a quarter of a mile of
the river mouth. This can be referred to under the title of
"An Investigation of Pollution in Port Gardner Bay and the Lower
Snohomish River", a copy of which may be found in the files of
the Washington Pollution Control Commission at their office in
Olympia.
Wood fiber, which is discharged from these mills and
others, despite the use of modern savealls and settling tanks"
this amounts to between 25 and 60 pounds per ton of dry pulp
according to the Oregon Sanitary Authority and the Washington
Pollution Control Commission -- does not disintegrate and covers
-------
Ill
submerged objects and, blankets the.bed of the river. This
covering.of fiber not only smothers.-out food organisms but
c.overs spawning beds and aids in the production of sludge.
Fiber from pulp mills has been found 15 to 20 miles downstream
from the source.
In addition to lowering the dissolved oxygen content
of. the river, waste liquor may act as a. toxin and affect fish
life. This toxic action may result in complete extermination
of fish, or> in less serious amounts may slowly but steadily
diminish the fishery over a period of many years. In 19^1,
when the spring runs of fish in the Columbia River were decreas-
ing in abundance, and the fall runs were increasing, it was
assumed by the Oregon Sanitary Authority and the Washington
Pollution Control Commission that, because pollution was at its
greatest during the fall runs, which occurred during low water
stages, pollution was not the determining factor in the decline
of these fish. .However, at the present time, the spring runs
are gaining, and the fall runs,are decreasing in numbers at
alarming rates. It would seem reasonable, by the same line of
reasoning,, to assume that pollution is now playing an important
.part in the decline of these fish.
Tests made by the pollution control authorities have
proven that sphaerotilus is always present below the outfalls
of pulp mills using the. sulphite process of making pulp.
Sphaerotilvts in large amounts, makes commercial fishing, almost
impossible and causes a serious economic loss to the fishermen
and through them to the entire area. This slime growth also
causes rapid deterioration of commercial fishing nets and sports
fishermen's lines when they are used in water, infested; with .this
growth.
After a two year study of pollution, in the Columbia
River, the Washington State Pollution Control. Commission and.the
Oregon Sanitary Authority published a report, in which they
stated:
"it is recommended that the pulp and paper mills at
Camas, Vancouver:, and ,&ongview,. Washington using the sulfite
pulping process take, .steps -to accomplish more effective and
immediate dilution of their waste .sulfite; liquor. At. .no plac.e
in the, river, should the concentration-of waste sulfite liquor:
(containing. 1.Q percent.'total solids) exceed fifty parts per
million. Since.sphaerotilus does not grow, well in places where
the concentration of waste sulfite liquor is below 50 p.p.m., it
is expected that adequate dilution would,largely eliminate the
present*, slime nuisance."
-------
112
These mills took the recommended steps by placing the
outfall ends of discharge pipes further out in the river and by
adding diffuser nozzles to these pipes. The result was that a
greater portion of the river, including the main channel, was
infected and the growth of sphaerotilus has increased to the
point where the Director of the Washington Pollution Control
Commission in 1957 requested a special meeting with a pulp mill
and sports and commercial fishermen to review the waste disposal
projects at this mill. The letters from the Director gave as a
reason for holding this meeting, "During the summer and fall
season the slime fungus problem on the Lower Columbia River has
been serious."
Indeed it. was and is. Commercial gill nets, floating
types, in the river were gathering such heavy accumulations of
slimethat the nets were actually sinking as a result.
When the meeting was held, the company explained the
experiments they had been attempting with calcium based cooking
liquors and stated that, "if their present experiment worked
out successfully a pilot plant is contemplated. If this is
successful, full elimination of the waste sugars from the mill
will be possible but a minimum of four years time will be re-
quired to achieve that result."
In the meantime, because of increased production in
the mills, the pollution load gets heavier and heavier.
Conclusion: The pulp mills have certainly not kept
pace with cities and towns on the lower Columbia River in elim-
inating pollution.
The people in each community on the river have sup-
ported the local authorities' efforts to raise bond monies to
construct sewage treatment plants with no thought of profit ex-
cept that derived from having clean water. Every seweraged com-
munity on the lower Columbia River either has a sewage treatment
plant or is in the process of getting one.
On the other hand, complete and profitable use of
spent liquor components, sugars, lignin sulphonates, and other
by-products of the pulp and paper industry is what is being
sought by the industry. This is from a paper by Technical
Associations of the Pulp and Paper Industry -- The Pulp Mills
Research Program of the University of Washington.
What has happened to those mills which have attempted
to make partial use of their spent liquors? Let us review two
of them.
-------
113
Prom the Federal Health Service report on the Pacific
Northwest Drainage Basin, we quote the following:
"Sulphite pulp mill wastes which have affected the
shellfish industry have been partially eliminated by the con-
struction of an alcohol recovery plant by the Puget Sound Pulp
and .Timber Company at Bellingham. Since installation of the
alcohol recovery plant it has been possible to re-establish the
oyster producing industry in this area."
\
In the last Puget Sound Pulp and Timber Company's re-
port to their stockholders, the first paragraph reads as follows:
"Strength in earnings of the by-products division of
our business continue to act. as a partial offset to a decline
in profits from pulp manufacture. With-this support we are able
to present a considerably better profit performance for the
first six months than would have been the case had our operations
been limited to pulp manufacture."
Again quoting the Federal Health Service report:
"The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company's mill on the lower
Columbia River at Longview, Wash, has - developed and installed a
magnesium base sulphite pulping process- which burns all sulphite
liquors and recovers both chemicals and heat. In its operation,
returns in the form of chemical and heat are expected to be
sufficient to pay operation costs and may defray the initial
cost' of installation."
It will be interesting to secure factual evidence from
this company in regard to actual operating costs of this process
which is said to .reduce 'the total organic pollutional .discharge
by 50 per cent. .
. From these statements, it would appear that both of
these mills have profited from their efforts to reduce pollution.
This gain should be taken into consideratipn when figuring costs
from future efforts at complete elimination of their pollution.
We also feel that the- Federal Government would be
justified in allowing certain tax reliefs to the pulp and paper
industry for plant installations found necessary for complete
elimination of waste materials from these mills. We believe
this to be Justified, not only because of the economic .value to
the. recreational programs and ..the commercial fishery, of the
area, but because Congress should protect the multi-million .dol-
lar salmon and steelhead rehabilitation program which it is now
promoting.
-------
114
We believe that complete elimination of this, pollution
at its source is necessary because past experience has proven
that partial elimination and diffusion is not the answer. Con-
trolled experiments at Crown Zellerbach's laboratories have
proven that as little as one part of one part per million of
W S L will cause sphaerotilus to grow under certain conditions.
We believe that all users of the public waters should
replace that water in just as pure a state as it was when teken
from the public.
The growth of our human population is tremendous.
Census experts tell us that this country's population will in-
crease to 250 million by the year 2000. Along with such increase
in population will come more intensive use of land and water with
rapid and constant changing conditions. Along with population
growth and movement is a corresponding growth in outdoor re-
creation, including hunting and fishing. Not only are people
making higher salaries than ever before, but we have a shorter
and shorter work week with more and more leisure time.
There is little area left in the United States for
increased population to spread except to the west. Those who
don't actually move here to live are swelling the ranks of tour-
ists coming here as a result of more money, more time, better
roads and better automobiles. So, while needed wildlife habitat
is shrinking, the demand for more game and fish is increasing
rapidly.
Conservationists are faced with the problem of trying
to maintain enough game and fish to supply an increasing demand
in the face of shrinking habitat; of trying to keep up to modern
conditions with inadequate or laxly enforced laws.
If wildlife management is to exist, we must recognize
the whole broad picture of production and natural resources in
relation to human needs, and then we must plan our programs
accordingly. It is necessary too that all interests, including
those of soil, water, forestry, agriculture, industry and wild-
life, recognize the unity and complete interrelationship that
exists between all portions of the conservation movement.
The number one job confronting us today is the problem
of water management and it is a big one. Many people seem to
have the idea that the country's water supplies are inexhaust-
ible. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The earth's cover of soil and vegetation is being
stripped thin in too many places. Under normal conditions, this
-------
115
cover helps the soil store great quantities of water in the
underground water table. Except for normal runoff in time of
rain or melting snow, all water receives its supply directly or
indirectly from this source. This water table is receding at
an alarming rate, which results in reduced river flows. The re-
maining water becomes warmer. At the same time, industrial and
municipal demands for water are increasing. They add to the
pollution load and at the same time reduce the amount of water
available to dilute their own pollution.
The time is here when any chance margin of safety has
been eliminated. No longer may we be content to try to correct
a pollution problem after the damage is evident. We must con-
cern ourselves with the prevention of such damage while that is
yet possible.
That fish are dependent upon soil quality has been
proven time and again by wildlife and soil technicians. This
may surprise some, but fish is as much of a crop of the land as
wheat or timber. The ability of any body of water to support
abundant fish life depends upon the available plant and animal
food. These organisms in turn depend upon the nutrients in the
water and their abundance and quality is directly related to the
fertility of the soil on which that water lays or over which it
flows. Better fishing is not going to be created by releasing
hatchery-reared fish in waters incapable of .supporting, them.
In too many instances, our management program has not
given adequate weight to the so-called secondary use purposes
which include recreation and fisheries. Let us hope that the
Federal Health Service and our State pollution control authori-
ties do not make this mistake now, as it will be disastrous at
this l^te date in the history of the fishery and recreational
programs on the lower Columbia River.
Gentlemen, that concludes that. I have two other .ob-
servations, in listening:to: some of the other things that have
transpired previously.
One is that we dp. not seem to be too concerned aboxit.
the Willamette River discharge. Yet, by the same token, the
.Oregon fishermen are increasing in large numbers on the Washing-
ton shores because it's better fishing for them where they don't
have to come into the-direct pollution at the moutji of the Willam-
ette. That certainly has a bearing. I believe that the Willam-
ette flow contributes in a major aspect to our entire lower
Columbia pollution problem.
Thank you for listening.
-------
116
CHAIR1VIAN STEIN: Mr. Everts, do.you have any questions
or comment?
MR. EVERTS: No, sir.
MR. POSTON: I.have nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I'd like to ask you a; question. I
don't know, maybe we're getting to a difference of opinion, but
you said that there was serious interference, as I recall it,
with net, fishing and commercial fishing in the- lower Columbia
River by this sphaerotilus.
MR. 'BRICHARD: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yet we have a statement here just
previous from Mr. Baker of Weyerhaeuser, and he says, and.I
quote:
"Like other users of the waters of the Columbia, the
gillnetters should expect to experience some inconvenience and
expense in accommodating their use to competing uses."
Do you agree with that statement?
MR. RKICHARD: I believe that our waters are to be
used by all people, and it belongs to all of the people. I be-
lieve you have entered here in evidence, Mr. Chairman, pictures
that will refute any such statement and that will show you the
condition of nets. I have attended commercial fishermen hearings
in the lower river, one in particular at Cathlamet, where the
pictures of the nets, which you have in evidence here today, were
displayed before us, and in talking to each and everyone of the
fishermen, it's a deplorable condition when nets sink from
sphaerotilus. It makes it inoperative.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Are there any other representatives from
the Washington side that care to make a speech?
...There was no response...
MR. MILLER: I'd like to make one statement in conclu-
sion.
-------
117
I know that there are many.of you representing all
the various- interests in-this thing, who undoubtedly would have
liked'the opportunity to question some of the people who have
made statements here on some of the statements that were made".
In talking about this with Chairman Stein yesterday, he pointed
out that, if we permitted an open session of questions follow-
ing each speaker, undoubtedly this conference would go on for a
week,- as it probably would, and we probably wouldn't gain too
much by it anyway.
I do want to assure the people on the Washington side
that all the statements made here today will be .included am
I correct, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That's right.
MR. MILLER: in the summary and statement of the
conference, and the report of the conference to be put out at a
later date. I want to assure all the interests of the'Washing-
ton side that, if the information contained therein, is to be
used in making decisions by the Washington Commission, you 'Will
be given an opportunity, if you're affected by any. of these ..
decisions, to comment on any statements made. You may als:o be
assured that we will review and check the statements that have
been made if we're going to make decisions based on them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, unless someone else has some
commerits,' we"will close our presentation.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. I'd like to just clarify
this. We will put out two documents after this conference. One
will be a summary, which will be a very short summary. The other
will be a verbatim transcript, and it will contain all the state-
ments, and that will be available to you. We find that that is
the best way to handle this/ so you'can base future actions or
determinations on exactly what was said.
Now, I said we would leave at 4 o'clock, arid it's al-
most'that now'. Tomorrow we-are going to take up the statements.
from Federal agencies and have a discussion of the conferees
and come to some-conclusions. Then we will summarize,.
Before we close, I would like to ask the.representa-
tive from the'Corps of Engineers to give us a statement today
because he will not:be available tomorrow, and, without objec-
tion1, I 'I- would like to call on the'representative of the Corps of
Engineers at this time before we recess.
TERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
-------
118
Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and gentlemen, my
name is Allen Terry of the Operations Division, Corps of Engin-
eers, Portland District. The District Engineer has asked me to
make a very brief resume of the facets of the problems affect-
ing our operations.
The Corps of Engineers by the Oil Pollution Act of
1924 and the River and Harbor Act approved March 3, 1899, is
directed to prevent the dumping of oil or refuse into the navig-
able waters of the United States primarily to protect navigation.
Pollution of the navigable waters within the Portland
Engineer District presents two major problems affecting naviga-
tion. These will be discussed separately in their application
to the lower Columbia River.
1. The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 makes it unlawful
for any person to discharge, or suffer, or permit the discharge
of oil by any method, means or manner into or upon the coastal
(tidal) waters of the United States from any vessel except in (:'<
case of emergency imperilling life or property or unavoidable
accident, collision, or stranding.
Oil pollution has in the past been serious in the
harbors of the lower Columbia River, but at present violations
are extremely rare. Crude oil spills can be very destructive to
fish and wild fowl, expensive to remove from pleasure and other
water craft, and completely ruinous to beaches for recreational
purposes.
Accumulation of crude or other oils upon docks and
other marine installations definitely aggravates the chances of
a major harbor conflagration. Removal of these accretions of
oils from wharves and similar structures is practically im-
possible.
The astronomical increase in the number of sports craft
over the past decade makes spilling of oil a serious violation.
Crude oil, especially when spilled in a tidal stream, will
necessitate cleaning and repainting several hundred or perhaps
thousands of these sport craft.
Gasoline or diesel oil spills are extremely dangerous
in a harbor from the standpoint of a major fire which would be
impossible to quell once the flames attack wooden sub-structures
of wharves and docks.
Regulations require that contents of ships' bilges or
other waste oils be discharged at least 50 miles at sea or by
-------
119
special protective means while in harbors. Most oil docks and
tankers are now equipped with filters to reclaim oil, making
discharge from bilges free .of pollutants.
Cases of accident, collision, or gross carelessness
still are possible and when they occur steps must be taken im-
mediately to remove oils from the water surface of the harbor.
Posters outlining the proper procedure and reporting of such
incidents have been posted on all major docks. Through the
cooperation of the United States Coast Guard and Port authorities
the reported cases of oil pollution in the lower Columbia River
have become exceedingly rare. In the Portland area, prompt and
vigorous action by the harbor' police has improved'the overall
situation materially.
2. Section 13 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899
prohibits the deposit of any refuse matter of any kind or de-
scription, except certain liquids, whereby navigation shall or
may be impeded or obstructed. Penalties are provided for con-
victions of violators.
Drift and debris in the lower Columbia River and other
estuaries and its definite hazard.to navigation remains a serious
problem to the Corps of Engineers. Loss of or serious damage
to a ship's propeller by striking a submerged object requires
dry docking,, inspection and the loss of several days of effect-
ive time. An economic loss of many thousands of dollars re-
sults from each accident of this type.
V/ater borne commerce on the lower Columbia River in-
volves an annual movement of approximately 22 million tons
transported in approximately 2,000 .deep draft ships, as well as
many barges and other lighter draft vessels.
There are an estimated 15,000 pleasure craft of all
sizes and types which use the lower Columbia River for re-
creational purposes.
Most, of the drift and debris upon this stream is
directly or indirectly attributable to man's activities. Logging
upon the headwaters of numerous tributaries and seasonal movement
of.- new and ol.d' drift downstream during flood seasons accounts
for a great share of these deleterious materials. Marine con-
struction activities and lumber and plywood mill operations are
aggravating this problem of debris control. The short waste
sections of peeler logs, known locally as "lily pads", are
particularly dangerous to small pleasure craft. These pieces
of de"bris float almost level with the water surface making
-------
120
detection almost impossible until struck by boats.
The Portland Engineer District has recently assigned
an employee whose principal.duty is to investigate and report
upon violations of Federal regulations in regard to pollution
of navigable waters. Improvement of conditions has been secured,
but a tremendous job of education and enforcement still remains
to be done. Increase of river traffic, especially sport craft,
will aggravate this problem.
Policing of rivers and harbors of the Portland Engin-
eer District involves navigable portions of the Columbia and
Willamette Rivers, fourteen coastal estuaries, and approximately
400 miles of navigable tributaries to coastal harbors. It can
readily be seen from the foregoing data that the Corps of
Engineers is not staffed to continually or adequately patrol
navigable waters within its boundaries.
Estimates of damages caused to craft of all types is
almost impossible to ascertain, but it is acknowledged to be
considerable and increasing in many areas.
Solution of this problem of stream pollution affecting
navigation can be greatly assisted by the following steps:
a. Control of logging methods on the watersheds of
tributary streams. Steps are now being taken by State and other
public agencies to regulate logging in an effort to eliminate
debris which would later pollute streams.
b. An increased and continuing campaign of public
education to secure cooperation of industries and other agencies
to reduce these economic losses which result from debris causing
damages to boats.
c. More strict enforcement of regulations and faster
prosecution of flagrant violations.
d. Education of the sport boating public as to its
responsibility to operate craft at reasonable speeds and with
mature judgment. A great percentage of damages to pleasure
craft in striking debris could be eliminated by operators realiz-
ing the dangers and operating in a sane manner.
It is encouraging to see that cooperative efforts are
being made to restore our streams to their former beauty and
cleanliness and improve them for navigation and recreation.
-------
121
. We appreciate, this "opportunity of presenting' this
statement in brief on this navigation facet of the stream pollu-
tion problem.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Everts, do you' have any comments
or question?
MR. EVERTS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller?-
MR. MILLER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I'd like to make one comment here for
clarification, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong. As
I understand it, the .Oil Pollution Act of 1924 gives the Corps
of Engineers jurisdiction over waters that are in the nature of
coastal or tidal. I understand also that this applies to the
Columbia River, that is, the.portion of the Columbia River we
have under consideration here. Section 13 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1899, on the other hand, applies to all navigable
streams.
So, I think, as far as these waters .are concerned,
there is concurrent jurisdiction.
MR. TERRY: Both would be applicable.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let me turn this over to Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: I indicated before that we had sent
letters to a number of agencies, inviting them here. I would
like to get in the record the list of the individuals and the
agencies who were invited to attend.
Also, in view of the fact that you will re-open the
conference tomorrow to participants, I wonder if we can have
the privilege, if we can get a statement from our .Game Commis-
sion or other Washington interests in the morning, of getting
them in the record.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let this list appear in the record
-------
122
at this point at the end of Mr. Miller's remarks, rather than
as an attachment.
oOo
...Following is list of individuals and agencies to
whom Mr. Miller directed letters of invitation to appear at the
conference, dated August 12, 1958...
Milo Moore, Director John A. Biggs, Director
State Department of Fisheries State Department of Game
4015 - 20th Avenue West General Administration Building
Seattle, Washington Olympia, Washington
Dr. Bernard Bucove, Director
State Department of Health
Smith Tower
Seattle 4, Washington
F. 0. Boylon, Manager
Crown Zellerbach Corp.
Camas, Washington
D. C. Ellsworth, V. Pres.
Columbia River Paper Mills
1029 S. W. Alder St.
Portland, Oregon
Manager
Longview Fibre Co.
Longview, Washington
L. D. Jones, Manager
Washington Canners
Box 30
Vancouver, Washington
City of Camas
Town of Ridgefield
Town of Kalama
City of Longview
Town of Ilwaco
State Parks Department
100 Dexter Avenue
Seattle, Washington
E. N. Wennberg, Manager
Weyerhaeuser Timber Go.
Pulp Div:, Longview
John Hilstrom, Manager
N.W. Div., Cal. Packing Co. .
Box 2109
Portland 14, Oregon
W. C. Rodenberger
10704 N.W. Lower River Road
Vancouver, Washington
Tom Hall, Chairman
Pollution Committee
Wahkiakum County Planning Council
Skamokawa, Washington
City of Vancouver
Town of Woodland
City of Kelso
Town of Cathlamet
Howard Nelson
2313 E. 10th St.
Vancouver, Washington
-------
123
W. W. Steinhoff
3101 Fourth Plain
Vancouver,Washington
Roy Shanks
1801 E. 1st St.
Vancouver, Washington
J. W. Arrasmith
900 W. 15th Street
Vancouver, Washington
Gerald Barker
P. 0. Box 583
Ridgefield, Washington
Ed Mainwaring
Hotel Broadway
Longview, Washington
Ron Tuttle
1202 Commerce
Longview, Washington
Melvin Lebach
Chinook Packing Co.
Chinook, Washington
Warren Neal, Commodore
Vancouver Yacht Club
4113 Fir Street
Vancouver, Washington
Ted Hart
125 S."Street
Vancouver, Washington
Roy Radow
1701 S. Access Road
Vancouver, Washington
Charles W. Groth
612 W. 10th
Vancouver, Washington
Fred Strong
Strongs Moorage
Woodland, Washington
Larry Keller
Kelly Tire Co,
Longview, Washington
G. L. Thompson
Keystone Packing
Ilwaco, Washington
Great Western Malting Co,
Box 1507
Vancouver, Washington
---oOo
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, tomorrow we will pick up and
have any further statements by participants both from Oregon and
Washington who did not appear or could not be here today.
Further, we will have our Federal agencies, who will
be here and be given an opportunity to make statements. There
will be a discussion by the conferees of the problem. The con-
ferees will then attempt to arrive at conclusions, and then we
will summarize the conclusions in order to determine whether
the conferees are agreed as to the summary.
Now, at this point, I want to thank you all for coming
and\ hope you see your way clear to be here again tomorrow.
-------
124
We will now stand recessed until 9 o'clock., tomorrow,
at the same place.
...Whereupon, at 4:05 o'clock, p.m., Wednesday, Sep-
tember 10, 1958, the conference adjourned, to reconvene at 9
o'clock, a.m., Thursday, September 11, 1958, at the same place...
oOo
-------
125
THURSDAY SESSION
...Whereupon, the Conference was reconvened at 9
o'clock, a.m., Thursday. September 11, 1958...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The conference in the matter of
pollution of interstate waters of the lower Columbia River is
reconvened after a recess from yesterday.
We will, as announced yesterday, continue with the
agenda. Hopefully, we will push to get through by 12 o'clock
at the latest today. The plan for this morning is to have
statements by Federal agencies and other participants invited
by the State of Washington and the State of Oregon, who have
not had an opportunity to be heard before, and at that point we
will call a short recess. Following the recess, we will have a
discussion by the conferees of the material brought forth at
the conference, try to arrive at some conclusion, and. then sum-
marize the conference.
I think one of the criticisms we had of the conference
yesterday was that we didn't have any stretch period, and we had
prolonged and somewhat dry sessions. I think the sessions were
a little short. We are going to try to take care of that today.
I don't know when the recess might come. It might come a little
early in the game, but I think the recess will be designed to
let you go out and get a cup of coffee and sort of relieve the
tedium of listening to all this data.
Now, again I want to indicate that under the law we
are required to prepare a summary at .the end of the conference,
covering three points at least three points, and these-are:
Occurrence of pollution of interstate waters subject
to abatement under the Federal Act; adequacy of measures taken
to abatement of that pollution; and nature of delays, if any,
being encountered in abating the pollution.
It would be useful, if the persons making the state-
ments keep that in mind in preparing their statements.
Before we call on the Federal agencies, we would like
to canvass the States and see if they have any more people who
would like to be called.
Mr. Miller, do you have any people from Washington?
MR. MILLER: No one has so indicated. Is there anyone
-------
126
from Washington who cares to make a statement at this time?
...There was no response...
MR. MILLER: Apparently not, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Everts, is there anyone from the State of Oregon
who might care to make a statement at this time?
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
a representative of the city of Portland would like to make a
statement this morning. I would like to introduce to the confer-
ence Mr. Gordon Burt, City Engineer for the city of Portland.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. Again, before you start,
Mr. Burt, may I indicate that anyone who wishes to make a state-
ment should come up to the lectern. Then the procedure is for
such person to make the statement, and the conferees may then
_make comment.s or ask questions.
Mr. Burt.
MR. BURT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman Stein, conferees,
ladies and gentlemen.
The city of Portland is active in pollution control
work in this area and, in cooperation with the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority, has expended some 19 millions of dollars in
pollution control work in an effort to improve the sanitary
quality of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. Our projects are
not complete.
We are asking the voters in the election this November
to approve a levy to provide five million dollars for completion
of Portland's program of intercepting of these discharges and
treating the same. In addition, we are also going to ask the
voters this fall to approve a five million dollar levy to re-
habilitate some of our older sewers and to enlarge some, which,
because of expansion and growth of the city, are now reaching a
point where they are no longer of sufficient size to serve.
It is our feeling that completion of our project by
intercepting all the raw sewage, which will include probably an
industrial waste treatment facility in the Smith Lake area and a
domestic sewage treatment plant at Linnton, are of paramount im-
portance .
-------
12?
We have conferred this year with the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority in the development of this program and are
hopeful that funds will be made available this'fall1 to move
along in the direction which I have indicated.
At the present time, flows, which are being treated
in.-the primary sewage treatment plant and discharging 'the efflu-
ent to the Columbia River,:have been increasing about three
million gallons per day each year. It moved from an average
daily flow of .54 million gallons a day to 57, and this last
year, which we Just completed June 30th, our average yearly flow
was 60 million gallons a day, being treated at the sewage treat-
ment plant on Columbia Boulevard.
We operate a system of 19 pumping stations in addi-
tion to this major sewage treatment plant.
That'-a the completion' of my statement, Mr* Stein. I
will be glad-to .answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you have any questions?
MR. MILLER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Everts?
MR. EVERTS: Noquestions.
MR. POSTON: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would like to ask one. As I under-
stand it, you are giving your waste primary treatment at the
present time?
MR. EURT: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Without chlorination?
MR. BURT: Without chlorination.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are there plans to go beyond primary
treatment in the city now?
MR. BURT: Our next stage in- expenditure of funds' in
construction of facilities is!to: build two additional sewage
treatment plants, arid about nine or ten pumping stations and
intercepting sewer-s-to complete the project ~ of intercepting all
of the .raw waste; 'That: is not complete'at the presen-t--s'tage,
and we feel that that is of such urgency that it demands first
-------
128
attention.
CHAIEJ&X S7SIX: What I was trying to get at was these
new sewage treatment plants. They will also provide primary
treatment, is that correct, or will they do more than that?
MR, BVRT: The Oregon State Sanitary Authority is now
requiring complete treatment for any discharge, any effluents
discharged into the Willamette. These two proposed treatment
facilities would discharge into the Willamette and would be in
the nature cf complete treatment.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is, primary and secondary treat-
ment?
MR. BURT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are you planning to discharge any
raw effluent by additional outfalls, that is, outfalls from that
sewage treatment plant, into the Columbia River, directly into
the Columbia River as a result of your new program?
MR. BURT: No, there will be no additional outfalls
into the Columbia River.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: But it would be expected that the
loading of the Columbia River would be increased because of that?
MR. BURT: Probably not because there are raw dis-
charges into the Willamette now which enter the Columbia, and
by intercepting them and treating them, we will reduce that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, here's something for our informa-
tion. We are hearing here about a tri-county arrangement. Are
you folks in Portland involved in that plan?
MR. BURT: To a degree, we are. We've been active in
promotion of the tri-county plan. Mr. William A. Bowes, Commis-
sioner of Public Works, has been one of the principals interested
in promotion of the tri-county plan, and we have been negotiat-
ing with him for joint use of sewage treatment facilities.
These facilities again will be complete treatment to eliminate
heavy discharges of pollution into the Tualatin River, and from
the Tualatin River into the Willamette River, and then, of
course, downstream into the Columbia River, and it is hoped that
the city will join with the tri-county authorities, and we have
money available at the present time to Jointly build an inter-
cepting sewer and to jointly build a sewage treatment facility.
-------
129
CHAIRMAN STEIN: As I understand it then, the efflu-
ent, the treated effluent of the tri-county facilities will
eventually find its way into the Willamette and not into tribu-
taries of the Columbia other than the Willamette?
MR. BURT: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, are there going to be any of
these treatment facilities within the city limits of Portland?
In other words, are you going to accept waste from outside your
city limits and treat it within your city limits, -or at another
plant under your jurisdiction?
MR. BURT: We have and are doing that now. We're
cooperating with the counties to this extent, that, with the
lie of the land, the natural drainage indicates it's most econ-
omical to treat flows from the city in a county plant that is
contemplated, and, conversely, where it's convenient for a sec-
tion of the county lying outside of the city limits to have the
sewage treated with the city system. We have contracted with
them and are installing sewers for that purpose at the present
time.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: You have no problem in exercising
jurisdiction in the operation of a plant outside your city
limits, and you share that plant with someone else, do you?
MR. BURT: We seem to be able to do that, and actually
our own sewage treatment plant was built outside of our city
limits, and then we immediately annexed it to the territory to
bring it in.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. I'd like to, if I might,
see, if in summary, we can set up this picture. As I see it,
the improvements are being made in the Portland system and in
the surrounding area, which would provide primary and secondary
treatment for all wastes which go into the Willamette River ror
a tributary thereof. However, there is a portion of sewage and
domestic waste treated by the plants under the jurisdiction of
the city of Portland, which only receives primary treatment,
and the effluent from this treatment is discharged into the
Columbia River, and there are no present plans to at this stage
go and raise the level of treatment for the wastes,- from which
the effluent is discharged directly into the Columbia. Is that
correct?
MR. BURT: That Is correct, Mr. Stein. You made an
excellent summary. We have made some preliminary cost studies
of coordination -which would result in anticipated operating
-------
130
charge of .between 100 and 200 thousand.dollars a year. We feel
that all funds that we can make available at this time should
go into completion of our system, of our program of intercept-
ing all raw sewage discharged.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Burt.
At this point, I would like to turn this mike to Mr.
Miller.
MR. MILLER: I just received a note indicating that
there is a gentleman from the Washington side that has an ex-
hibit to present to the conferees and the conference. I doubt
that you will want -to insert this one in the record, Mr. Chair-
man. I think it comes more in the nature of an appendix.
Will Mr. Charles Schram of Columbia River Packers come
up, please?
MR. SCHRAM: Should I bring it in?
MR. MILLER: You indicated you had an exhibit.
MR. SCHRAM: I'll get it. It will take five minutes.
MR. MILLER: Do you mind if we proceed then, and you
can follow the next speaker perhaps. Is that all right, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes. We'd like to at this point move
on and call for statements by Federal agencies. For this pur-
pose, we will ask Mr. Poston, from the Public Health Service,
to call on the Federal agencies. .
MR. POSTON: Thank you, Chairman Stein. I have not
heard from all of these Federal agencies. So, I think I will
call them in the order in which the invitation was issued to
them.
Is there anyone here from the United States Geological
Survey who wishes to make a statement?
...There was no response....
MR. POSTON: The Soil Conservation Service?
...There was no. response...
MR. POSTON: The 13th Naval District?.
-------
131
MR. GLEASON: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen, I am Robert J. Gleason, District Sanitary Engineer
for the 13th Naval District. I am-.here as the representative
of the Commandant, 13th Naval District, at the invitation of
the United States Public Health Service.
My comments will be brief as I know there is much to
be accomplished this morning.
First of all, I wish to convey the Commandant's appre-
ciation for the invitation to attend this important conference
on interstate pollution problems in the lower Columbia River
basin. The Navy Department is vitally interested in any pollu-
tion problems affecting the health and well being of military
and civilian personnel and wishes to cooperate with local,
State and Federal regulatory agencies on problems of mutual con-
cern.
The 13th Naval District includes the States of Wash-
ington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. In this area, there are
presently more than 50 Naval activities, ranging in size from
the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton, Washington, to
smaller installations, such as the Naval Reserve Training Cen-
ters at various locations throughout the four States. There
are three Naval activities in the Columbia River basin, namely
the Naval Reserve Training Center at Swan Island, Portland, and
at Longview, Washington, respectively, also the Naval Station
at Tongue Point, Astoria, Oregon. Although the Naval Station
at Astoria is somewhat west -of the limits covered in Mr. Kitt-
rell's report, it is located in the lower Columbia River basin.
In March of 1958, the Naval Reserve Training Center
at Swan Island discontinued the use of septic tank treatment
facilities after making connection with the city of Portland
sewage system. At Longview, Washington, sewage from the Naval
Reserve Training Center is discharged to a septic tank in the
uplands and is dispersed in a sub-surface field. At the Naval
Station-at Astoria, Oregon, sewage treatment facilities, consist
ing of primary sedimentation, separate sludge digestion, and
chlorination of the sewage effluent, before- discharge into the
waters of Cathlamet Bay are provided.
Several years ago, in 19^8 to be exact, the 13th Naval
District made a complete study of the Bear Creek water supply
works of the city of Astoria, Oregon, from which the Naval Sta-
tion purchases its v/ater supply. This study was made in co-
operation with the city engineer as: a result, or doubts expressed
as to the adequacy of the Astoria supply to continue to supply
Navy requirements in addition to city demands. Modifications
-------
132
and improvements made by the city as a result of this study re-
moved any further threat of water shortage.
It is of particular interest to note here that studies
made by the Navy at that time of the waters of the Columbia ad-
jacent to Tongue Point indicated that a suitable water supply
could be developed by the installation of coagulation infiltra-
tion facilities, followed by chlorination.
This concludes my comments at this time, and, in clos-
ing, I wish to thank the Public Health Service, as well as the
other conferees on behalf of the Commandant, 13th Naval District,
for the opportunity, of attending this conference.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, sir, for an excellent
statement.
Do you have any questions?
MR. EVERTS: Nothing, Mr, Stein.
MR. POSTON: I have none.
MR. MILLER: No questions.
MR. POSTON: Do you want to go ahead, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Schram, do you care to show your ex-
hibit now?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you want to identify yourself
first, Mr. Schram? Perhaps in showing the exhibit, you can
talk and describe it, so we can get it for the record,
MR. SCHRAM: I'm Schram from Columbia River Packers,
Vancouver plant. We had permission from the fisheries to place
this piece of net in the water yesterday.
...The net was displayed...
MR. SCHRAM: It was drifted approximately two hours,
and we cut Just a short piece to show you what it really is. We
lost a lot of it dragging it over the side of the boat. That's
heavy.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. Are there any comments
or questions?
MR. MILLER: Just where was this taken, Mr. Schram,
-------
133
for the record?
MR. SCHRAM: On what we call the Fisher Drift approxi-
mately six miles up from the Interstate Bridge.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you think you could point that out
on the map up here, where that might be?
MR. SCHRAM: (indicating on map) It's just below
Camas, between Camas and Vancouver there.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. Now, may I ask you, Mr.
Schram: Is that typical of conditions that you find during the
fishing season?
MR. SCHRAM: Quite often, especially in the low water,
the lower stages of the water.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, when you say "quite often", how
long does the fishing season last?
MR. SCHRAM: Well, we have three to four seasons a
year, and they're open three weeks at a time.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, during these three week periods
let's assume that you make, as the testimony here indicated,
perhaps four passes a day. During the three week period, how
many of these days would you find conditions like that to exist?
MR. SCHRAM: In May and June, when the river is fairly
high, you don't run onto too much of it. Therefore, there's.a
supply of water to sluice it out, and that's only at times too.
It just depends on when they release it. Then they will give it
up for a few days, and then it will become clear until the water
is, say,, around eight and nine and lower, and then it's just
solid.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Is that a nylon net you've been using'.
MR. SQHRAM: This:is linen, this particular piece.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: How :do you get .that stuff off of
there? What do you do?
MR. SCHRAM: It takes a long time, three hours of good
old hard solution with a hose> and possibly racking it out and
leaving it dry and shake it out .after i.t's dry, if you can
staWd the smell. It takes a 3,ong .time to get it out. You make
one drift a night, and you're done.
-------
134
CHAIRMAN STEIN: In other words, if you make one drift
and you get a net clogged with these slimes, you feel that you
can't make another drift that night?
MR. SCHRAM: Your net is too heavy. It goes right to
the bottom.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Schram. Let's see if
any of these other gentlemen may have.questions or comments.
...There was no response...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. At this point, we will
continue with the Federal agencies again, and Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: The Bureau of Reclamation?
...There was no response...
MR. POSTON: United States Coast and Geodetic Survey?
.. .There was no response...
MR. POSTON: United States Coast Guard?
COMMANDER ELLIOT: Mr. Chairman, conferees, .ladies'and
gentlemen:
I only have a few brief remarks. The Coast Guard
activities in this area
MR. POSTON: Would you identify yourself, please?
COMMANDER ELLIOT: Yes. I'm Commander Elliot, Officer
in Charge of Marine Inspection, and Captain of the Port of Port-
land.
The Coast Guard activities in this area ar.e mostly en-
forcement activities. Part of our obligation is to investigate
acts of misconduct, negligence, and so forth, of personnel on
merchant vessels, and any pollution occurring from merchant ves-
sels, on which licensed or documented men are employes, is
handled by our office.
We follow through and take suspension or revocation
actions against the personnel ^involved in such violations. , The
Coast Guard also investigates oil .pollution incidents for the
Corps of Engineers. It's up to the Corps of Engineers to
mine whether further prosecution should take place-after our
-------
135
investigation by' the Coast Guard has' -been completed.
That, in substance, is the activity of the Coast Guard
in the local area as far as pollution is concerned, and that's
about all we have' to say.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, sir. Do you have any com-
ments?
MR. MILLER: I haven't any.
MR. EVERTS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR.. -POSTON: " No; sir. The United States Forest Ser-
vi'c'e?
'MR. BULLARD: Mr. Chairman, Conferees, ladies and
gentlemen, I am W. E. Bullard, of the Division of Watershed Man-
agement, Regional office of the Forest Service here. Our terri-
tory "covers trie States of Washington and Oregon.
'" T have listened with- considerable interest tortile
several statements presented to the conference thus far,' arid
have noted some references to matters that concern the Forest
Service. Although we feel that the relation of the National
Forests to the "lower Columbia River is 'not direct, we certainly
recognise that tributaries draining National Forests feed the
Columbia, and that the land 'management and the land cover condi-
tions do affect' water quality. Our National Forest management
objectives include protection of the water resource as the prime
element. Our" National' Forest practices and operations are---
geared to ^thi'S objective as best we know how.
I' can say we are pleased to see this- concerted- group
attack on the pollution problem. We've found such interagency
efforts to be successful in other fields, and we expect that it
will be in this, and we certainly will be happy to cooperate
insofar as we can.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Bullard. Would you
wait ; :and see if there are'' any comments or questions?
MR. MILLER: I 'have none.
MR. EVERTS: Nothing.
'MR; POSTON: I have none.
-------
136
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Bullard.
MR. BULLARD: Thank you.
MR. PGSTON: I believe we have a statement by the
United States Pish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Edward Perry, Program Director of the Columbia
River program. I believe Mr. Perry has come in. Will you come
up, please?
MR. PERRY: Pollution has a direct bearing on Columbia
River runs of salmon and steelhead, which are of such importance
to the economy of the Pacific Northwest. The Federal Government
has spent some 1? million dollars in the past few years in co-
operation with the State fishery agencies and on hatcheries to
maintain the- anadromous fish runs in the Columbia River system.
Nearly all of this has been spent in the lower Columbia basin.
Additional millions have been spent on research, including some
studies on water quality...
The Pish and Wildlife Service is definitely .interested
in any action that will result in reduction of the pollution in
the Columbia River and its tributaries with the view toward re-
storing the water in this great river system to its former pro-
ductivity.
One of the prime requisites of our Columbia River
fishery development program has been adequate control of pollu-
tion. We are not a pollution control agency. However, our
interest has been intent, and we've always endeavored to encour-
age adequate study and control of pollution in the Columbia
basin. We are particularly interested in any studies that are
undertaken to determine the types, seasonal occurrence, and
effects of pollution. We believe that such studies should be
sufficiently broad to include the effects of pollution on all
aquatic organisms, as well as the effect on the general public
health. We urge that such studies be continued as a normal pro-
cedure on the Columbia River, so we can detect problems as soon
as they arise and so that we can produce evidence that will ob-
tain satisfactory control.
The Pish and Wildlife Service will willingly cooper-
ate with all other agencies with a view towards resolving numer-
ous problems associated with pollution and control in the Colum-
bia River system.
Our particular concern at the moment in the lower Col-
umbia River are effluents that encourage growth of sphaerotilus
-------
137
and increase ,the temperature of the water. The sphaerotilus
problem is recognized as being serious because of its interfer-
ence, with the gill net fishery in the river. We have observed
this problem in the operation of our own experimental nets in
the river, as well as those of commercial fishermen. The tem-
perature problem is not so. conspicuous, but it is becoming more
important. In normal years, there is little concern, but, dur-
ing years of low flow and high temperature, and increases in
temperature caused by large plants such as that at Hanford, may
have serious effects on the entire fish run.
In this bureau, we are especially worried about the
high incidence of disease in salmon associated with high temper-
atures. In essence, we feel the salmon population of. the Colum-
bia is in serious jeopardy, and all harmful influences should be
eliminated and high standards maintained to assure them perp.e.tua
tion.
We do .urge stringent .control on all sources of pollu-
tion of the Columbia River and a continuous monitoring .system to
assure its maintenance.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you,. Mr. Perry. Do you have
any comments or questions?
MR. MILLER: I'd like to ask whether the Service has
any direct evidence of effects on fish life that would be bene-
ficial to the several control agencies, such as fish kills or
effects on food changes, or anything of that nature.
MR. PERRY: We have passed on what limited factual in--
formation that we have had to Mr. Kittrell for the preparation
of his report, and we have not discovered anything in addition
to that that would be emphatic and interesting to you right now.
MR. MILLER: That's all.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Everts, do you have any questions'
MR. EVERTS: No.
MR. POSTON: I have none.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Perry, thank you for an excellent
statement. I would like t'o point out that we, who are' interested
in\pollution control, also watch temperatures of the water, and
how the changes intemperature under certain.circumstances has a
-------
138
detrimental effect on aquatic life, and how it can be severely
damaged by legitimate water uses, as regards the fish habitat,
but I notice that you highlight your temperature changes to the
Hanford Works.
The stretch of the river that we're dealing with is
somewhat outside the scope of that in the conference that we've
undertaken, and it's outside the scope of the portion of the
river that we've undertaken to deal with at this time.
MR. PERRY: I realize that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The reason we do this is not that we
don't recognize the potential problem In other areas we believe
they are rather serious problems but, in order to intelli-
gently deal with the problem, we have to sort of break the river
down into manageable portions. Otherwise, the problems get so
complex and so diffuse that it's very difficult to have an in-
telligible result in a conference, or something of that sort
that might evolve from a conference.
I will say that the Public Health Service Is keeping
the temperature, as well as other problems from Hanford, under
surveillance In the Columbia River,- and it's closely watched,
and the effects of it, but what I would like to know Is: Do you
relate temperature changes to any installations which may be at
Bonneville and below?
MR. PERRY: Not any outstanding relationship there,
Mr. Chairman. Particularly, Hanford is the place that we are
worried about, and I realize that's outside the area that you
are immediately concerned with. However, it affects this area.
It affects everything downstream, and I think that you should
give consideration to that, even though the source of that efflu-
ent is not in this area that you're concerned with.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, particularly, we're interested
In the statement that you have made here in recognition of your
status as an objective fact-finding expert agency in the field,
that this sphaerotilus problem is recognized as being serious
because of its interference to the gill net fishery in the river,
and I want to thank you for making a statement on that because
that is one of the areas that the conferees are trying to reach
a conclusion on. Thank you very much, Mr. Perry.
MR. PERRY: Thanks very much. I appreciate the opport-
unity.
MR. POSTON: I wonder if there are any other repre-
-------
139 ,
sentatives of Federal agencies that wish to be heard at this
time,
...There was no response...
MR. POSTON: If not, Mr. Chairman, I believe that con-
cludes the statements by Federal agencies today.
CHAIRMAN .STEIN: This sort of concludes the statements
by the participants, and, before we recess, I'd like to take this
opportunity to give anyone in the audience, who feels he wants
to make a statement at this time, an opportunity to make one,
if he'feels he has anything relevant or pertinent to add to. the
discussion, because, after the recess, we will have a discussion
of the problem by the conferees and come to conclusions.
Is there anyone who wishes "to make a statement at this
time?
...There was no response...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: If not, we will recess until 10.30.
The 'conference stands recessed.
...A short recess was taken...
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The conference is reconvened.
We would like to have the chairman of both Commissions,
Mr. Coe and Mr. Wendel, sit up here during these discussions and
conclusions of the conference.
Before we begin though, I should like to announce that
we received a communication and petition from the Wahkiakum
Planning Council -- I hope my pronunciation is correct -- and I
think we will put the entire communication without objection in
the record.; However, I would just like to read the last; two
paragraphs of the letter, which may add a little new light.
Generally, the other points have already been covered by other
statements of other participants in the conference.
...In accordance with the Chairman's request, the
letter of the Wahkiakum Planning Council, dated September 9,
1958, addressed to the Chairman of the Conference, signed by
Thomas C. Hall, Chairman, Pollution Committee, is reproduced
in its entirety, as follows:... ,
"Although we notified the Pollution Control Commission
-------
140
of the State of Washington that our group would present a short
oral statement at your conference, we now find that we are un-
able to appear in person. We are, therefore, requesting that
this letter be made a part of your record on this subject of
vital interest to us.
"The problems respecting the cause and effect of pollu-
tion of the Columbia River as it affects Wahkiakum County, Wash*
ington, are perhaps somewhat disproportionate to the county
size. While our problems are no different perhaps than any
other typical area of similar size along the Columbia River, we
are perhaps a bit unfortunate in that our present economy is
dependent .in a large measure on the economic resources provided
by the Columbia. Our citizens have noted with dismay the in-
creasing pollution of the Columbia River and its detrimental
effects on the fishing and recreational resources. We are,
therefore, quite willing to assist in any way we can in combat-
ing this increasing problem.
"Our concern in pollution in the Columbia River is one
of effect rather than cause. Wahkiakum County is largely a
rural area, being a small county with an area of 269 square
miles, predominantly forest covered. It borders the Columbia
River on the south with more than 50 miles of river frontage.
"We have little or no industrialization which requires
the use of the Columbia River as an instrumentality .for disposal
of wastes. Other than the use of the Columbia River by the
Town of Cathlamet for sewage disposal, our contribution to the
total polluted condition of the Columbia River is negligible.
"The economy of Wahkiakum County is based almost com-
pletely on three industries, namely logging, agriculture, and
fishing. Out of the total county area of 172,160 acres, 8l$,
or 139,450 acres, is forest land. Little processing of forest
products is carried on in Wahkiakum County, the county being
chiefly noted for the timber grown and logged in this area.
More than 60$ of the forest lands of the county are owned by
Crown Zellerbach Corporation and this firm has seen fit to pro-
cess the forest products obtained from Wahkiakum County lands
at other points along the river, principally at Camas, Washing-
ton, and St. Helens, Oregon, paper mills. The Columbia River
is used as an avenue of commerce for the transportation of log
rafts from the Wahkiakum County area to the factory sites up-
river.
"The gross product value of these three industries in
Wahkiakum County are as follows: Logging $2,700,000.00, Agri-
culture $1,369,367.00, and commercial fishing in Wahkiakum
-------
141
County Area $321,350.00. In addition to the fishing carried on
in the county area,, our resident commercial fishermen range up
and down the river in their fishing pursuits and the total in-
come received by our resident fishermen in the Columbia River,
although accurate figures are not available, must necessarily
exceed a half million dollars.
"Although we shall not comment specifically on the
detrimental effect which the increasing pollution of the Colum-
bia,River has or is having on our valuable salmon resources for
the reason that specific information on this subject is avail-
able and undoubtedly will be presented by the departments of
fisheries and game from .both the States of Oregon and Washing-
ton^ we must generally note that our local fishing industry is
in an apathetic condition. Although our fishermen decreased in
number and are being severely regulated as to their fishing
seasons, the salmon population of the Columbia River has de-
creased in almost every category during the last 10 years. Our
fishermen do not simply point the .accusing finger at pollution
for there are many other varied, complex causes of our salmon
decline. It must be: stated, however, that it. is the general
opinion of the people of this area that pollution is one of the
greatest factors in the decimation of our salmon runs.. Statis-
tics, we believe, will bear out that the growth, of the wood re-
lated industry .(primarily pulp) has been in dir.ect proportion
to the corresponding decrease in the salmon population.
"During the last 10 years, our fishermen have parti-
cularly noted the ever-increasing presence of foreign matters
in the nature of slime in the waters of this .river. They have
noted that, as the pollution increased, the capability and the
life of their nets have been correspondingly decreased. It is
conservatively estimated that the useful life of gillnet's. has
been .very substantially reduced up to 50$ during the past few .
years apparently from pollution causes. The average gillnetter
in this county will spend approximately $750.00 each year fpr
, replacement of gillnets where he formerly expended aj)out 50$
'of this amount only as little as 10 years ago. When this in-
crease in maintenance costs of gillnets is equated with the
number of our fishermen, (approximately '120 resident commercial
fishermen), it may be readily seen that commercial fishing costs
in this area (discounting inflationary price increases) have in-
creased more than $40,000.00 from the cause which the fishermen
can'only ascribe to ..the slime and foreign matter in the water
which .quickly weakens and destroys their nets.
"Various studies have been made of the problem. It
appears, however, from a perusal, of the various authoritative
articles on this .subject, that the. primary problem of" pollution
-------
142
is that of biological unbalance caused by waste deposits in the
Columbia River. It appears further that the greatest single
factor in creation of this imbalance is the dumping of wood
sugars into the Columbia River, which, in turn, causes fungus
growths bringing about the presence of slime and foreign matter
in the river.
"While we largely point the accusing finger at the
pulp industry, we do not and cannot take uncompromising position
that the pulp industry should be removed from the Columbia River
area. Not only is our county dependent principally on forest
products for its economy, but.it would seem clear that it is no
answer that one industry must die or be severely penalized in
order that the other might survive. We firmly believe, however,
that research has discovered feasible means of reducing pollu-
tion to a safe minimum and that methods of production have been
devised which will reduce the industrial wastes dumped in the
Columbia River in order that the opportunities for preservation
and increase of our salmon will be greatly enhanced.
"While the increasing pollution of the Columbia River
has had its greatest immediate effect in relation to the com-
mercial fishing industry, it is affecting our economic life in
other respects. Wahkiakum County is fortunate in having a
large State food-fish hatchery on the Elochoman River. Recently
there was completed a half million dollar game fish hatchery on
a tributary of this same river. Plans are now under way for
construction of another fish hatchery on the Grays River. The
value of these two streams for sport fishing is increasing. A
check of steelhead records kept for several years show that the
steelhead catch by the sports fishermen in the county has run
from 2000 to 3500 fish annually. With the new fish hatchery
just completed on Beaver Creek, a tributary of the Elochoman
River, it is expected that this county will become one of the
best steelhead areas in the State. In addition, brook trout
and harvest trout fishing is good in this county. Further,
substantial fish catches of other types of salmon are made in
this area, and it is presently being extensively prospected for
good sport fishing spots.
"inasmuch as Wahkiakum County can expect little in the
way of further industrialization, one of our chief economic
hopes for the future lies in the development of the recreational
opportunities which exist here. We believe that opportunity
exists for the development of Puget Island and other points in
the county into one of the recreational attractions of Southwest
Washington. Plans are going forward for development of moorage
facilities in Oathlamet. With the rapid increase in the number
of pleasure boats for fishing or water sports, it becomes
-------
143
increasingly important to us that measures be taken to retard
the use and abuse of the Columbia.River as a sewage depository
for human waste and the vast quantities of wastes being dumped
by industries along the Columbia River.
"Our economic basis is unfortunately not diversified.
Continued reduction of our fishing industry and an increase in
the health-menacing condition of the waters of the Columbia
River spells a real economic disaster for Wahkiakum County. We
are hopeful, therefore, that some reasonable solution of the
pollution problem may be quickly found and implemented in order
to enhance the possibilities of an extensive and prosperous
further development of one of our greatest Northwest natural re-
sources, the Columbia River."
oOo
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Then we have a petition, which we
will put in the record, which says, and I quote:
"We, the undersigned citizens and commercial fisher-
men of Wahkiakum County, do respectfully petition and urge the
United States Public Health Service to use its authority, assist-
ance and influence in instituting a definite program and promote
enabling legislation, both on a national and state level, to
effectively arrest, curtail, and reduce pollution of the waters
of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Pollution of the
river has in the last few years become very evident and the pre-
sence of foreign matter in the waters of this river appears to
be increasing each ..year. This pollution has seriously affected
the undersigneds in the following particulars:
"(l) The useful life of gillnets has been very sub-
stantially reduced (up to 50$) during the past few years
apparently from pollution causes.
"(2) The foreign matter in the water has reduced the
capabilities of gillnets and has greatly increased the work
of .the average commercial fisherman.
. "(3) The undersigneds are informed and believe that
the fish producing capabilities of the Columbia River have
been markedly reduced by pollution.
" (4) The ..waters of the Columbia River has become in-
creasing unfit for human consumption and is rapidly becom-
ing .a health menace."
That is the end of the quote, and there are a numoer
-------
144
of signatures attached to this petition. I .will give this to
the recorder for purposes of the record.
Now, we would like to go on with the discussion of
the hearing. First, I think we have to consider the require-
ments of the Act, and one of these requirements includes occur-
rence of pollution in interstate waters subject to abatement
under the Act, (2) adequacy of measures taken toward abatement
of pollution, and (3) nature of delays, if any, being encoun-
tered in abating pollution.
Now, I think we should, for the sake of uniformity,-
take these up in order, and, at the end of them, decide where
we go from here.
Under the second point, that is, adequacy of measures
taken toward abatement of the pollution, we should emphasize
that we may want to expand this discussion somewhat up here be-
cause perhaps in the development of the statements given before
the conference, sufficient attention has not been given to the
accomplishments of the official agencies on both sides of the
river and of the industries and municipalities concerned. I
think in these conferences there is always a tendency to empha-
size the work that still needs to be done, and yet not give due
credit to the accomplishments which have taken place, and these
accomplishments, I think, as we all know, and as is implicit in
almost all the statements, have been conceded to have been con-
siderable.
Obviously, if the industrial establishments or the
municipalities were just dumping their wastes into the river
raw without any treatment at all, or had done no work, the river
would be a sorry place indeed.
Now, the first point we would like to discuss is the
occurrence of pollution of interstate waters subject to abate-
ment under the Act, and I think for purposes of discussion Mr.
Kittrell has divided this into two parts, which seem to be a.
useful classification, one part dealing with possible bacterial
pollution, or pollution containing pathogenic organisms which
may be harmful to humans, and the other dealing with the in-
dustrial pollution.
Now, as to the first, if I might summarize and then
ask for discussion on this point, the bacterial contamination of
the river, if such occurs, appears to come from municipal sources,
and notably the municipalities of Portland and Vancouver. Such
discharge of wastes, it seems to me, at least causes the
-------
145
introduction of materials in t.he mains/tern of the Columbia River,
which provides a potential health hazard to people- coming into
contact with the river water, and these are both commercial and
recreational users. Most Of the .commerc.ial users, the fisher-
men, are engaged in one or another form of boating activities.
The recreational users.involve boating, swimming, water skiing,
fishing, trapping, .water fowl hunting, and so forth.
Now, we would like to ask the State agencies, one, if
they are in general agreement with that as a conclusion from the
statements adduced at the .conference,, or if they want to expand'
on it or modify it, or make any other comments on it.
Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Well, we would certainly agree that there
is a problem of bacterial contamination. I think'it will take
further study to determine and to fully evaluate this problem,
to find out where these health menaces actually exist, and this,
of course, involves the determination of where the river is. ,
used, and the uses involving bodily contact.
I think all we can say, as a general conclusion, is
that -there, is a bacterial problem, but it needs evaluation up
and-down the river, tying the problem together with the uses,
both present and planned.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Everts, please.
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, as the Public Health Ser-
vice reports pointed out, there is certainly a bacterial prob-
lem in the river,;and I am in agreement with Mr. Miller that
the problem needs additional assessment for this reason, that
in the Public Health Service's .report, they reviewed the water
quality, objectives which were developed by the Pollution Con-
trol Council of the Pacific Northwest basin.
These objectives, as pointed out in our statement
yesterday, are long range objectives, which have to be applied
with judgment. It seems to me that the Washington State Pollu-
tion Control Commission and the Sanitary..Authority of the State.
of Oregon certainly must come to some kind of agreement as to
what the standards or bacterial quality of the lower Columbia
River should be. At this .point, no agreement on that point.has
been reached.. I agai,n refer to, the question which was raised
in >our statement yesterday, that being whether or not. the Public
-------
146
Health Service was ready to recommend that those objectives be
applied as bacterial standards for the lower Columbia River.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Well, I will concur that to my satisfac-
tion there has been amply demonstrated that there is a bacterial
pollution problem. I am not in full agreement that additional
studies are necessary to come up with something that would show
some progress in this regard. Perhaps the time has come when
we should go into action and forget about so many studies.
I think that we have had evidence presented here that
recreational use of the river is not being fully utilized be-
cause people just don't like to go into the conditions that
are encountered there. I am not in a position to say whether
the Public Health Service would endorse officially the recom-
mendations of the Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Council.
As you well know, the Public Health Service has some water
quality standards, particularly as they apply to drinking water.
The matter of getting a finite figure that we can use for some
of the other uses is a little bit difficult.
I think we must, as Mr. Everts said, use some judg-
ment and try to achieve as to this problem the earliest possible
and best possible bacterial quality of the lower Columbia River.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would like to expand this on one
more point. I think we have one more thing that I may have
omitted when we first began to talk about this bacterial pollu-
tion, and that is the use of the river as a potential source of
public water supply.
This alludes to the statements made by Dr. Coe, the
State Health Officer of the State of Washington, that in his
opinion the bacterial contamination of the river, at least in
considerable portions of the river, make it unsuitable for a
water supply, and that the river would receive serious considera-
tion as a source of public water supply if that were cleared up.
Now, I think Dr. Bucove also indicated in his opinion
the water quality of the river in various aspects of it did not
make that advisable under present conditions and under present
bacterial concentrations. I don't think the parties are too
far apart. I think there may be a difference in the question
of whether further study or evaluation is necessary, and I
think, if both parties mean evaluation of what the possible
water quality standards are and if that is an approach to take,
-------
147
then I think we're all pretty close together.
Now, when Mr. Everts asked if we would recommend
those, if the Public Health Service would recommend these ob-
jectives as water quality standards for the area yesterday, I
thought that was a rhetorical question, and, generally, we don't
try to answer rhetorical questions, but the question was asked
again today, and I think it's certainly our policy and I think
one of the requirements of the law, in having worked with Mr.
Everts for many years, that at least initially it is the States
which should come up with an action program and should develop
it, and not actually the Public Health Service.
Our function in this area is to provide technical
aid and .assistance on request to the States. We would like to
work very closely with them on this, but, again, I think in
this whole field of water pollution control, we don't want to
upset the 'traditional Federal-State balance and relationships
just to deal with the pollution problem. We want to do that
within the existing framework of our relationships here, and
pollution, as important as it is, and to some of us it's our
life work, is certainly not as important as the basic Federal-
State relationships.
Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Well, much as I would like to agree with
Mr^ Poston that we are ready at this moment -- I just judge
that's what he meant -- ready now to apply bacterial" standards
to the river, I know that in our case on the Washington side
we don't have the information on which to do that. Certainly,
we are not in a-position to adopt the broad-standards and apply
them to all stretches of the river. There are many parts of
the river where you would never have recreational use take
your industrial .waterfronts and commercial harbors, and commer-
cial anchorages.. Certainly, we can't anticipate that those
areas are going to be bathing areas. They're not intended for '
bathing areas, and no one in their right mind would swim there
anyway.
What I'm saying there is that we certainly need the
time"to go over the river, determine what'uses exist where,
determine what kind of standards we need to protect those uses,
and then go about applying them and enforcing them.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you, Mr. Everts, want to make a
further statement, or you, Mr. Wendel?
-------
148
MR. WENDEL: Speaking from the standpoint of the
State of Oregon, which, according to the report, is contribut-
ing the greatest bacteriological load on the Columbia River, I
would like to say that it'.s just about a year ago that the city
of Portland was ordered to complete its interceptor and treat-
ment plant system. The city has taken cognizance of that
through putting on the ballot what they call a package measure,
which in one measure includes not only that which they are
ordered to do, and that on which they are in violation of law,
but also packaged with that a lot of other things, such as
parks, and so forth, running to some 30 million dollars, I be-
lieve.
When that was proposed, the Sanitary Authority in-
formed the city government that it didn't think it was proper
to package all those into one measure on the ballot, and that,
regardless of the vote, the Sanitary Authority would use every
means at its disposal to see that the city was brought into
compliance with State law, and that we propose to do, and since
the city of Portland is the chief contributor to the bacterial
pollution of the Columbia River, that is the biggest job we have
ahead of us, and that which will provide the greatest correction
to the Columbia River waters.
The report also mentioned two other cities, St. Helens
and Rainier, and both those cities one has its work under
way now. The other is voting bonds today rather, accepting
bids for construction today, and that leaves us, as far as the
municipalities are concerned, with the city of Portland as the
one that will have to be brought into compliance right away.
They have been in violation of State order for a great number
of years, and we don't propose to let this violation continue.
Now, there's one other thing I'd like to mention
while I am, figuratively speaking, on my feet, and that is an
article which appeared in one of our papers, which stated that
the Sanitary Authority is out of sympathy with the tenor of the
hearing, and I want to when I read that last night, I then
phoned in a correction to the paper and said, "That's not true
at all. On the contrary, we feel the hearing will have a very
beneficial effect on resolving of interstate problems, bring-
ing to us, as it does, the Public Health Service's nationwide
experience in such matters."
The only thing that we could be somewhat disturbed
about was the use of the long range objectives, which are not
in agreement with standards that have been adopted and which
are always open to criticism, discussion and amendment, and I
-------
149
have no doubt that standards must.:be amended from time to time
as-the population grows and as industrial developments on the
rivers increase, but the long range objectives are at such
great variance with standards that have been used, and appar-
ently accepted by everyone because we've been in close touch
.with Public Health Service people throughout the years, that
it came as quite a shock to see what achievements had been made
as compared with these long range objectives.
That is the only disagreement that I have on the part
of any people connected with the Sanitary Authority, and I Just
want to set the record straight on that. We are in complete
sympathy with this hearing, and we think it's going to help us
do our Job.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are there any further comments on
the question?
...There was no response...
- CHAIRMAN STEIN: During the recess, we noted that Mr.
Wendel had not seen Mr. Schram's exhibit. I wonder, Mr. Schram,
if you will get up and pick that net up again for Mr. Wendel's
benefit. This net had been in the Columbia River. When was
it? Overnight?
...The net was again displayed...
MR. SCHRAM: Two hours.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Two hours. Yesterday?
MR. SCHRAM: Yesterday.
MRk WENDEL: If that,is the result of any conditions
due to activities on the Oregon side, I hope you will let us
hear from you and give us your complaint.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The next point we would like to take
up is alleged interference with water quality f-rom other
sources, and this includes industrial wastes, largely from the
statements- here pulp .and paper wastes-, about which it has been
stated that they are"deleterious to sport and commercial fish-
ing, and also it has been alleged to create a health hazard in
creating a dermatitis, and when eyes are rubbed, irritation of
the eyes to- commercial fishermen.
We know that the paper industry has expended consider-
able money on research, has put in diffusers operations in an
-------
150
effort to meet the requirements of the Washington agency, and
that the slime growth still persists. At-least one plant has
stated that they have made considerable progress in almost
complete elimination of the waste going into the stream.
I wonder if the States would care to comment on that.
Prom our point of view, it seems to be that the industrial dis-
charges here do create a problem in infiltration of these .inter-
state waters and creating conditions causing a degradation of
water quality, which is injurious to commercial and sports
fishing.
MR. MILLER: There is certainly no question in our;
minds that a serious problem exists with regard to slimes and
sphaerotilus, and that that problem interferes seriously with
people who use the river for either commercial or sports fish-
ing, or, for that matter, for some other purposes. I think
there is probably no one here who wouldn't agree also that it
is an extremely complicated problem, and that there are prob-
ably many areas where we don't know the answers. I think this
.was"pointed out-very capably yesterday by the representatives
of the commercial fishing interests, and I think it's very im-
portant that we recognize that this isn't a matter like munici-
pal treatment where you know the specific solution. This isnlt
an area you can move into without proper information.
This implies more research. I think there needs to
be an end to research. I don't think we need to research for-
ever. I think, again so far as the Washington side is con-
cerned, it has to be our objective and our early objective to
define what we want and set an objective, and then give in-
dustry the job of meeting that objective, of which I am cer-
tain they can and they will. This again, however, involves
the same problem that I mentioned before, determining where is
the problem, to what extent it needs to be reduced to prevent
interference.
I'm thinking that there's a possibility that it's
physically impossible to prevent every last trace of slime
growth. I certainly don't know if this could be done. I
wouldn't want to set my mind towards such an objective when I
don't know if it can be accomplished. As I say, I think our
research or whatever needs to be done in that field has to
move forward, has to move forward as expeditiously as possible.
So far as the Washington Commission is concerned, I
think we should insist and will Insist that it move forward and
that we must define the problem that is to be resolved in order
-------
151
that we can expect, industry to adopt programs towards solutions
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller-
Mr. Everts?
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, both the oral and visual
evidence, which has been presented at this conference, cer-
tainly indicate that the slime in the Columbia River is a real
problem, and our Authority-certainly stands ready to assist in
any way possible in reaching any solution that will correct
this problem at the earliest possible time.'"
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston, do you have anything?
MR. POSTON: I believe I haven't anything further.
I agree with the -conferees.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I think we have a substantial area
of agreement on that point. '
The next point we'd like to consider is adequacy of
measures taken toward abatement of pollution. Now, perhaps I
might say for the Public Health Service that we may have been
a little remiss in preparing out statement and not giving full
consideration to all the splendid work which has been done, but
the problem we face is this: It is sort of taken for granted
that the industries and the municipalities living in this area
face up to their problem and do something to protect their re-
source, and then we also have the problem that the Public
Health Service when you get down to any individual agency,
you know you have people out here that might think it's a very
rich Federal Government has a limited budget. We, in a :
sense, operate very, very tightly, and, when we send an investi-
gator out, we are spending the taxpayers' money, your money arid
our money, and.we try to present and get the man to do-a mini-
mum amount of work just to accomplish the purposes that we're
trying to follow. These purposes here are to ascertain whether
interstate pollution exists and are subject to jurisdiction of
the Federal Act.
To try to determine the adequacy of the measures
generally on that, we -have relied upon the- State agencies, the
industries and--the municipalities involved, and I think that's
how it's worked out here. These groups have given us a pretty
clear picture of the work they have done, and the accomplish-
ments which they have made. I think the record will clearly
indicate that, -arid I think' the method of procedure that we have
-------
152
spelled out is probably justified, but I would like again the
States perhaps to review the adequacy of measures which have
been taken.
I think it has been pretty well agreed that, while
considerable progress has been made, we still do have a prob-
lem of bacterial contamination and pollution due to industrial
created slimes which create conditions injurious to commercial
and sport fishermen, but to talk about the measures which have
been taken, I'd like to call on Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: We've talked a lot about progress, and
there has been a lot of progress. I just want to say that I
can certainly understand, from the standpoint of the person who
uses the river, that, to just take my own situation, if I had
to handle the little exhibit in the basket very often, I would
probably be very difficult to convince that there's been a lot
of progress, but I think we must look at the record.
On the Washington side, if my memory serves me right,
there are two cities -- they're small cities -- that have no
sewage treatment facilities at the present time. There has
been substantial activity and progress on the industrial front
also.
I think we must recognize that the problems that are
bothering us now are bothering us because they are the most
difficult ones to solve, and, as I indicated before, because
they are complicated, they take time.
I think it might be interesting at the conclusion of
this conference to put a dollar value on these improvements
that have been made in the pollution control field, on the
sewage treatment plants that have been constructed, and on the
various activities that have been conducted by business or by
industry. I think that probably the total dollar value would
be pretty impressive to all of us, anci we all know where the
money has to come from. Our difficulty is to raise it. I
think that's a real achievement.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Before I turn this over to Mr. Everts, I want to
emphasize and underline one part of what Mr. Miller stated, and
that IB that this is a complex and tc\-gh problem. We're deal-
ing with a hard problem. This is one thing I hope everyone
will go away with. Generally, when the Public Health Service
comes into an interstate pollution problem of this sort, it is
a tough problem, and it is a hard one. It is a complex problem
-------
153
because, if that were not the case, we would not be here. Cer-
tainly, in that case, we would not be coming out.
Mr. Everts?
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, in the statement which Mr.
Wendel presented to this conference yesterday, the accomplish-
ments, which have been made to date in Oregon, were included
in the Appendix. I believe that I can summarize those briefly
by saying that all of the domestic sewage originating on the
Oregon side of the river now has or is now provided with treat-
ment before discharge into that stream, except for -the city of ~
St. Helens and the city of Rainier.
Mr. Wendel has pointed out this morning in his com- *
ments-that the city of St. Helens now has a treatment plant now
under construction at the present time. The city of Rainier
received bids yesterday for the construction of a treatment
plant for that city. ' With the completion of those two installa-
tions, the domestic wastes from those cities using the lower
Columbia River as a point of discharge will be completed.
On the other hand, the city of Portland still has
work to do to remove the discharge of untreated sewage from the
Willamette River. When that project is completed, we will cer-
tainly expect improvements to be made in that area. There
still remains the problem of chlorination of Portland sewage,
and that will be a subject of discussion between the Sanitary
Authority and the city of Portland another day;
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: I wish to commend the official agencies
of Washington and Oregon for their past efforts and to recog-
nize the tremendous expense the industries and municipalities
have been put to in their efforts to abate pollution.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Poston.
The next point: we would like to discuss is the nature
'of delays, if any, being encountered in abating pollution, and
'I "think we can say that the conference discussions hav'Q. indic-
ated what some of tfcfese areas might-be.
I'think Mr. Vendel pointed out here that the city of
Portland has-been under orders and has now taken action as far
abs' municipal pollution is -concerned,- and I think, if the city
of'Vancouver chlorination process is not sufficient and I am
not "prepared :to -say that it is or it-isn't -- but Mr. Kittrell's
-------
report raised the question in the evaluation, and I can under-
stand the reluctance of people in a smaller community taking
action, and not waiting until their larger sisters here in
Portland have taken action, at least commensurate action. This
is a kind of problem, I think, that is not for the communities
in this area, but it is the type of problem we find in any large
stream, and particularly interstate streams, where much of muni-
cipal action is dependent upon the large city in the area; show-
ing the way, and then the other cities put in like treatment
and take like action.
Now, I would point out that there is a little differ-
ent situation with these municipal wastes because I don't think
there is very much doubt that there are known available methods
of dealing with the municipal wastes which come from Vancouver
and Portland and the other municipalities here. The nature of
the delays as far as industry may be concerned is a question
of finding an equitable and economical solution, or any solu-
tion from industry's point of view in pollution control, and
perhaps a feeling by industry, as indicated in some statements
here, is that the water users interfered with were relatively
-minimal and didn't require the expenditure of funds to provide
the kind of treatment.
Now, these are problems I think which have to be met
squarely if a legitimate and substantial water use is inter-
fered with, and the equities of the situation demand that the
person contributing to that pollution stop interfering with
that water use, stop discharging so that the water quality will
improve.
I think it is well established by Federal Law and all
State Laws that I know of that the persons responsible for the
discharge, whether they be a municipality or an industry, have
the responsibility for taking care of their own wastes. This
means providing adequate treatment facilities to take care of
the wastes, and also devising methods of treating that waste.
The devising of methods of treating the waste is not the re-
sponsibility of a Federal or State regulatory agency or commis-
sion, however constituted, and I do not think that industry or
the municipalities would want that. It's very clear in the law
of the land that it is the responsibility of the municipalities
and industries to devise their own methods, and I think the
demands of the American people for water of a reasonable qual-
ity is such that within a reasonable time it behooves all water
users to accommodate the others and cooperate in a program of
water quality management so.that an area control can accommodate
industry, expansion of industry, and expansion of population,
and yet make the water available for other legitimate uses.
-------
155
In this area, one of the major uses of the water
seems to be commercial fishing and recreation, and, of course,
in addition to that, as the pressure'of population becomes more
and more apparent to this area, the folks here are going to be
looking to the Columbia River as a potential source of public
water supply.
I might add oh the side here, before we turn this
over, that in Washington at the present time we are involved
in a tremendous operation in trying to preserve the nation's
water resources.' One of the big problems we have here is the
operations with Canada on keeping water in the Columbia River
sufficient, not perhaps in conjunction with their plans that
they have set up in the Frassr River. Now, we keep pointing
out over and over again to the people here to keep this in
mind, that Just getting the quantity of water, a sufficient
quantity of water is not enough unless we have adequate water
quality management and are making good use of that water. Our
position becomes emaciated when we try to get and preserve an
adequate quantity of water down that stream if we're going to
dissipate the use of that water when we finally get it.
With that, I would like to turn over well, there
is one more point that I think we should emphasize. "To pick
up Mr. Miller's point, Mr. Miller stated in'his original pre-
pared statement that the State agencies of Washington and Ore-
gon should get together to work out a concerted program towards
this problem. I think we might indicate that that is a third
area of the nature of delays in this problem because I think
that any of these interstate problems, where we're not just
dealing with one side of the river or the other, we do know
that we have two able Commissions, and that the problem of
interstate relationships between two States is always a deli-
cate one and a difficult one, but I'm sure these folks can do
it,' and the solution of the problem, it seems to me from the
statements made at the conference, is for the State agencies of
Washington and Oregon to come up with a joint concerted program
so that the river problems and action to handle these problems
can be evaluated on a total basis.
Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER:. Are you talking on the nature of delays?
.CHAIRMAN STEIN: The nature of delays.
MR_. MILLER: Well, oh the municipal side of the pic-
ture on the Washington side, I don't think it's really necessary
-------
156
to talk about the nature of delays. As indicated before, we
have just a few small towns left, and it's just a matter of
getting the city fathers to convince their citizens to vote
the necessary bonds to put in these systems. I think they
should be encouraged, and I'm sure that our Commission will,
as it has in the past, as measured by the accomplishments, en-
courage these people to move forward as quickly as possible,
and I don't anticipate any delay in that way that will affect
the full Columbia picture on the municipal side.
"On the industrial side of it and in general for the
moment, I would like to feel that the or I do feel that the
main delay is lack of knowledge. As I said before, we need to
acquire this knowledge as quickly as we can. Prom the stand-
point of the official agency, I think we need to move rapidly
into seeing that we set our objectives so that industries and
municipalities will know clearly and definitely what we want,
what we will insist on, and what will have to be done.
I just want to comment, since the Chairman mentioned
the Joint meeting that we recommended with Oregon under the
subject "nature of delays", that I don't want the inference or
the impression taken away that there has been any reluctance
on the part of either the Oregon or the Washington authorities
to get together. In fact, they have gotten together once, I
think. That's a good start. I think we will probably do that
again soon. Certainly, there hasn't been any delay in this
field, because we haven't gotten together, we just haven't done
it.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Everts?
MR. EVERTS: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that we
have any further comments on that subject, other than we agree
with Mr. Miller.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Within the limits of our resources, the
Public Health Service will assist in any way with problems that
we're called upon to help these two pollution control commis-
sions to solve.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Then we come now to one final point
in these discussions and the conclusions, which we seem to be
doing together, and that is, where do we go from here. I think,
as far as I'm concerned, this has been a most enlightening
-------
157
experience in beginning to develop a factual basis for this
problem. '
I .might go back and give you a personal experience In
Washington that""is, Washington, D. C. We have been hearing
about.the .lower Columbia-River for many, many years. They have
been :exaggerated statements,- and, by the time they get to Wash-
ington', they ''get so magnified that the area seems to be exag-
gerated. -The statements did not determine what the situation
was.
We've tried to evaluate the situation as part of our
normal' activities^ under the Water Pollution Control Act, and we
found,'that, on'examination of the literature and statements it
was so complicated and there were so many unresolved areas, we
just couldn't come up with a definitive judgment, although it
seemed that it was very clear" that there was an interstate
pollution problem here and there seemed to be sufficient evid-
ence -to indicate that. ' Then Mr. Kittrell came out and I think
he did a magnificent job in the short period that he was here
in cooperation with the States, industries and municipalities
involved. Then the picture began to get a little clearer. t
Now, as a.result of this conference, and getting all "
these reports together, I think we have a pretty clear picture
of what is "happening in''the Columbia. Now, perhaps you folks,
who have lived here, have been aware of this problem and know
the scope of the problem and have known it for a long time and
have known just what it was. I, for one, have seen this evolve
from a misty problem that we just couldn't put our finger on -to
handle all the aspects of it, and I've seen it sharply developed
here.
I would suspect from talking to many people here that
in a measure this conference has been useful to the people work-
ing in the field here and the residents in the area in helping
develop the problem for them too, and, hopefully, I think, once
we have the problem set out before us, we have to come up with
a we don't want to let this hang here we have to come up
with or try to come up with a: solution.
I would like to point out a provision of our law that
says that, if the Surgeon General believes upon -conclusion of
the conference or thereafter that effective progress toward
abatement-of pollution has not been made, he -Is to recommend
that the State agencies take appropriate remedial action.
Well, I don't know, unless ;we set up an actual kind of
program, whether the Surgeon General--- he has to make a
-------
158
Judgment on this -- will be able to make the Judgment. What
I would like to do is to take back to the Surgeon General of
the Public Health Service a definite action program, to be
able to tell him that in our opinion that effective progress
toward abatement of pollution in this area, or the meeting of
the pollution problem, is being made, and, toward that, I would
suggest that we might consider as a proposal one of the alter-
natives I mentioned in the opening statement of the conference,
and that was that we consider this session of the conference
the first session of the conference, and that the State agencies
be charged to follow the suggestion made by Mr. Miller of
getting together as rapidly as possible after the conclusion
of the conference and working out a Joint action program for
the lower Columbia River, which will include an evaluation of
the uses of the river, the problem of bacterial contamination,
the problem caused by industrial discharges, slime growths,
the effect on commercial and sport fishing, and, briefly in a
sense considering that, what the States would want to be done
in order to come up with and achieve water quality which they
believe could be reasonable to secure and equitable under the
circumstances, and to decide when that was going to be done,
so the industries and municipalities would have to meet their
obligations if they had to do anything.
Now, we would want to set a particular time for this
to happen, that is, until the second session is called. Also,
we would like to, as we have done in other conferences and
this is acceptable to have the Public Health Service, and
that would be Mr. Leonard Dworsky, who is coming into this
area as our representative with offices in Portland, to make
a periodic progress report at certain intervals, based on in-
formation he's gotten from the States, for distribution to the
conferees and the State agencies, and for distribution to any
people they may want to distribute it to.
Now, maybe we can switch the procedure and call on
Mr. Everts first.
MR. EVERTS: I haven't finished my discussion with
Mr. Wendel.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Generally, we agree with that line. I
would like to suggest that the conferees should get together
at three or four or six month intervals to discuss progress at
check points and see where we are headed, and probably use
those meetings for a determination as to whether or not .a
further full-blown conference is needed and when it might be
-------
159
needed.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, we would agree with that.
The problem We have here, as you know, is that we have a con-
ference under :way, and we would like to get a terminal point
on the conference. Now, I would riot visualize that we would
need a full-blown conference. It may well be that, if an
actual program is developed, we may be able to have a second
session where an announcement would be made of the determina-
tion of the actual program, without getting statements or
participation as we've had here today, because I imagine in
the development of your action program, you are going to have
similar discussions, at least analogous discussions with the
people in your area.
We would not visualize that, but-Just as a touch
point to get us together so we can have a termination point.
I don't think we can determine that termination point at this
stage.
Mr. Wendel?
MR. WENDEL: Mr. Chairman, it would seem that what
the two States could do jointly is chiefly agreement and estab-
lishment of standards, to which they both will subscribe.
Thereafter, our problems seem to be mainly individual problems.
We have the problem on the Oregon side of bacteria mainly, on
the Washington side an industrial problem, and I think that is
going to require each one of us to do- an individual job on the
problems that we have, and I think the States jointly would
establish panels. Am I correct in that?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is correct, but I would like to
make one point there, and that is on what we at least have in
mind by a joint program, because, while your problems may be
different, yours bacterial and Washington's industrial, largely
speaking, the effects are mutual. In other words, it would
not be appropriate for you folks to come up with certain bac-
terial requirements or provisions which would not be satisfac-
tory to the Washington people 1 In the same sense, it would
not be appropriate for the Washington people to come up with
certain requirements for the industries, which, even before
their inception, would not be satisfactory to you.
.*
That's'part of the problem. We visualize that, once
these are set, you people will, of course, have your individual
programs. What I would like to do, if we could, is to not
leave this Indefinite as to when we would try to get together
aga^n for the second session, so that" we could have a time and
-------
160
a date'that We could.-bring back as a;check point.
Now, -I wonder if any of the conferees might have'a
suggestion asvto -how..-long you might think this process would
take; Let ,me taake this clear. I'm not talking about 'a com-
pleted process.'of total improvement. I'm talking abotit -the
process, of getting together where', we can have an action'pro-
gram at the second' session of the conference and then'termin-
ate it as a Public Health Service conference.^
MR. MILLER: Well, it certainly.is most difficult to
sit here at this moment and try to guess when.-we might be able
to develop this program. I think, as I said before, it ought
to come off as quickly as possible. I think that one thing we
should avoid is that, if we set va time limit, say a year, and
we find that in six .months we're ready to proceed, We shouldn't
use the year to just use up the time because we had set -a date,
and I think that' s one of the 'disadvantages of setting an exact
date.
However, if the law requires an exact date, I will
suggest as a starting point a maximum of one year.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would agree. Let me clarify a
point on that. The question we have here we can formulate
this for not longer than a year', but, if .the conferees believe
that they're ready, we will be here as soon as practical before
the year. The 'difficulty in not setting a date, and this I'm
projecting from past experience, the difficulty in not setting
a date is that very often, when this happens, some people say
that the State or we or someone is taking an unreasonable or
an inordinate amount of time. Now, the question of reasonable-
ness or reasonable time varies with every individual that I
have ever confronted.
We have found that for orderly procedure for both
State activities and our activities and the activities of the
persons responsible for the sources of discharges and persons
using the river it is always best for them to have a date cer-
tain so we all know what we're talking about, and we can con-
centrate on that issue, rather than on the question of who is
reasonable and who isn't, and that's the only reason for suggest-
ing a date. Perhaps a year, which is your suggestion, or be-
fore that, if practical and if requested to do so, would be
suitable for.the conferees.
MR. EVERTSr Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly sympathetic
with Mr. Miller's opinion on this matter with this exception,
that I'm quite confident that under the laws both States are
-------
161
bound to do just as much as they possibly can within their
area in administering their.own water pollution control stat-
utes, and I'm also extremely confident that the Sanitary'Auth-
ority is not going to wait until a year to move in on 'some of
these situations.
I would like to-suggest that, while you may wish to
set. a year as a date for a subsequent continuation of this con-
ference --' that's my understanding of what you're suggesting --
that perhaps the conferees themselves could meet in an interim
period of six months, or perhaps earlier, if problems developed
or if matters were such that it would seem appropriate, so we
might have an opportunity to discuss where we were.headed, how
much progress, had been made,, what further might need to be done,
and not wait, until .the end of the year for: the continuation of
the conference, if .that suggestion might be agreeable" with my
colleagues from Washington. I'm sure it's agreeable with the
Sanitary Authority, I make that suggestion.
MR. WENDEL: .With one exception. Insofar as the city
of.Portland is concerned, they've been on notice now for some
time, and we are considering calling a meeting very, very soon,
a special meeting of the Sanitary Authority, and, if I can pre-
sume to anticipate the reaction of the Sanitary.Authority, I'
.would- guess the Sanitary Authority would, give the city of Port-
land three months in which to develop a financial program and
the adoption of an immediate action on that program that will
lead to compliance with State law.
I'd like to ask Mr. Everts if he doesn't feel that
from past experience with the Sanitary Authority that that will
be their action.
MR. EVERTS: I would certainly concur in that. There
would probably be 90 days and he said three months. So, that
will give them one or two days more.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: I think these are reasonable suggestions
that the conferees have agreed to. I believe that it's quite a
practical solution.to the problems which we are faced with here
today. I would like to make their thoughts or ideas unanimous.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, sir, and I would like to
again suggest that what we have done in other conferences that
we've conducted and that we do at these interim meetings, and
that is have progress reports at periodic times, and I would
.suggest tha.t t he,;.Pub lie .Health Service" representative prepare
-------
162
such periodic reports. This is something that we would need,
to prepare progress reports at intervals not longer than every
three months,
Now, I would like to say, before we summarize, that
this has been very productive, and I would like to give the
States an opportunity to make any final statement they wish to
make.
Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: We want to certainly express complete,
one hundred percent agreement with Mr. Wendel's statement as
made earlier, and that we feel this conference has been most
helpful and most productive. We've learned a great deal and
have a great deal of evidence and information that we didn't
have before.
I think that one thing has come .out here that should
be of interest to the general public, and that is that there is
no fundamental difference of opinion whatsoever between the
authorities in the State of Oregon and the authorities in the
State of Washington. I think that's a very good place to start
from. I'm certain that we can meet on common grounds and adopt
common objectives of mutual benefit to the States. I think
the participation and offers of assistance from other agencies,
both State and particularly Federal agencies, that have been
made here at the conference, are most encouraging because a lot
of these problems involve the total problem of water manage-
ment, and the assistance of Federal agencies and State agencies
for that part of the picture is going to be extremely beneficial.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Everts, do you want to make a concluding state-
ment?
MR. EVERTS: We certainly appreciate the cooperation
and the assistance of the Public Health Service in dealing with
this problem, and the Sanitary Authority of the State of Oregon
certainly has every confidence in/ the cooperation of the two
States to bring about and maintain the desired results.
Do you have any more comments?
MR. WENDEL: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I'd like to say that on the basis of
the national viewpoint we believe that both States will have
-------
163
excellent and dedicated men and active programs to meet these
problems. As^a matter of fact, I hope the repercussions of
this won't be too much in other States. I think that the pro-
grams and the. attitudes and competency of the staffs that you
have in both State agencies are among the best in the United
States, and I think that is something that you should be proud
of and recognize as a tremendous resource here in this area.
I might say that goes for the folks who are working very closely
with us -in the State health departments too.
In order to summarize the conference, I think the
conferees have agreed that there are problems of pollution of
interstate waters in the lower Columbia River, which need a
further evaluation and development of an action program by the
State agencies to meet; that these problems consist of bac-
terial contamination associated with the discharge of untreated
or inadequately treated sewage, mixed with incidental wastes
from these communities, which contain coliform organisms and
which is associated with disease transmitted which today is a
potential hazard or may create a potential hazard to recreation,
boating,., swimming, water skiing, fishing, trapping, water fowl
hunting, and other waterfront activities; that this also re-
sults in a deterioration of the quality of the waters of the
lower .Columbia River so as to interfere with its use as a
potential public.water supply; that discharges from industries
in the lower Columbia River, notably pulp and paper industries,
have caused the growth of slimes, nominally sphaerotilus, which
cause conditions which are deleterious to commercial and sport
fishing, and to persons engaged in these activities.
The conference takes full cognizance of the progress
made to date by both municipalities and the industries in try-
ing to meet the problem. In its recognition of the large re-
search program engaged in by the industries, it takes cogniz-
ance of the fact that the industries have spent substantial
amounts of money'putting in measures to achieve remedial action
at the request or suggestion of State agencies.
Also, the conference recognizes that slime growths
still do occur in the river, and that these .create a deleteri-
ous condition to commercial and sport fishing. The conference
believes that, while taking cognizance of this or of these
.measures, it should a.lso point out that .the measures taken to
date have not been completely adequate to control bacterial
contamination, in the river and to control industrial dis-
charges in amounts which affect and cause the slime growths to
be there.
The conferees agree that the nature of delays has
-------
164
been due to the fact that the municipalities have not taken
action in some cases to install known remedial measures, but
the conferees also take cognizance of the fact that many muni-
cipalities have constructed or are now in the process of con-
structing adequate treatment facilities.
The conferees take cognizance of the fact that in-
dustrial wastes are still causing a slime growth problem in
the stream, and that these delays may be due to a lack of an
evaluation of stream conditions which are necessary to stop
the slime growths and possibly a method of treating these
wastes.
The conferees, I think, also believe that joint
action by both State agencies is necessary as a prerequisite
of determining the quality of water considered desirable for
the lower Columbia River and for the people of this area.
The conferees agree that, as soon as practical after
the conclusion of this conference, both official State agencies
of the State of Oregon and the State of Washington will take
joint action to determine an action program to provide an ade-
quate water quality management program in the lower Columbia
River. This joint action program will include the quality of
water that is considered to be needed for legitimate water
uses, what is to be done to get the river clean, and when this
taction is to be taken. I think the conferees agree that this
will be considered as the first session of the conference, and
the second session to be called not more than one year from
now, but as soon as practicable after this joint action pro-
gram has been developed, to review the program and to evaluate
it and come up with definitive recommendations by the conferees.
The conferees also agree that the representatives of
both States and the Public Health Service will make themselves
available for interim meetings in the development of this joint
action program at a frequency considered desirable in order to
develop this program. The conferees also agree 'that the Public
Health Service will prepare progress reports concerning the
development of this joint program at intervals of not to ex-
ceed three months, but as often as required to record signifi-
cant developments and reports of meetings which have been held.
Are there any suggestions, corrections or amendments
to the statement that I made?
MR. MILLER: I have none.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Everts?
-------
165
MR. EVERTS: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, If not, I would like to say
that we've appreciated all of you coining, your patience, your
participation in this meeting. We of the Public Health Service
have learned a lot, and I know perhaps you possibly have learned
a little bit about how we work too, and with that I'm not
saying adjourned we will recess the first session of the
conference until the second session is called.
...Whereupon, the First Session of the Conference
was recessed at 12:10 o'clock, p.m., Thursday, September 11,
1958, sine die...
oOo
...Because it is felt that it will be of interest to
those concerned, there is quoted below a letter received by the
Portland office of the Public Health Service on August 18,
1958, from William A. Pearl, Administrator, Bonneville Power
Administration, Portland, Oregon...
111 appreciate your invitation to the conference on
pollution of the lower Columbia River because of my work on
air and water pollution problems when I headed the institute
of Technology at Washington State College. Here at Bonneville
Power Administration, however, we are not directly involved
with pollution. We do have a section on the subject in the
standard provisions which we attach to our industrial power
contracts which may be of interest to you. This provision
reads as follows:
"15. Conservation of Natural Resources. The
Government will not be obligated to deliver power pur-
suant to this contract whenever, in the judgment of the
Administrator, the Purchaser's plants or operations
would harm or detract from the scenic beauties of the
Columbia River Gorge, or the waste products from such
plants or operations would harm or destroy the fish or
other aquatic life, or otherwise pollute the waters of
drainage basins of the Pacific Northwest.
"No problems have arisen under this contract provi-
sion, and so far we foresee none at the present time.
"Accordingly, I will not plan to make any statement
at the conference although I shall try to attend."
oOo
-------
Appendix A
ATTENDANCE ROSTER
CONFERENCE ON INTERSTATE POLLUTION
Portland, Oregon
September 10-11, 1958
Araberg, Herman R.
Anders, Floyd S.
Arntz, William C.
Bacon, Vinton W.
Baker, Raymond E.
Barnes, Francis M.
Barber, Lawrence
Beatty, R. 0.
Benson, Donald J.
Blackerby, L. H.
Blankenship, Chas. F,
Bowman, Quentin
Boylon, F. 0.
Bresee, H. 0.
Bucove, Bernard
Research Specialist, Crown Zellerbach,
Camas, Wash.
Fishery Management Biologist, U. S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, Portland, Ore.
Budget Examiner, U.S. Bureau of Budget
Washington, D.C.
Exec. Secretary, Northwest Pulp &
Paper Assoc., Tacoma, Wash.
Mgr. of Mfg. Pulp Division, Weyer-
haeuser Timber Co., Tacoma, Wash.
Asst. Secretary, Crown Zellerbach
Corp., Camas, Wash.
Marine Editor, Oregonian, Portland, Ore
Western Kraft Corp., Portland, Ore.
Assoc. Sanitary Engr., Ore. State
Sanitary Authority, Portland, Ore,
Western Editor, Pulp & Paper, Portland,
Oregon.
M. D. Regional Medical Director,
USPHS, San Francisco, Calif.
Field Representative, Water Resources
Board, Salem, Oregon
Resident Mgr., Crown Zellerbach,
Camas, Washington
Regional Vice Pres., Oregon Wildlife
Federation, Portland, Oregon
M. D. Director State Dept. of Health,
Olympia, Wash.
-------
A-2
Burt, Gordon L.
Bullard, William E.
Busby- Ronald R.
Carter, Glen D.
Cellars, James H.
Charlton, Dave B.
Childs, Rex
Clare, Herbert C.
Coe, Earl
Crown, Arnold W.
Cuyler, Clarence E.
DeCoss, Gordon
Dunlap, R. C.
Dupuis, R. A.
Dworsky, Leonard B.
Eldridge, Edward P,
City Engr., Portland. City Hall,
Portland, Ore.
Forester, U.S. Forest Service,
Portland, Ore.
Crown Zellerbach, Camas, Wash.
Aquatic Biologist, Ore. State San.
Auth., Portland, Ore.
Exec. Sec., Columbia River Salmon &
Tuna Packers Assoc., Astoria, Ore.
Charlton Laboratories, Portland, Ore.
Pacific Bldg. Materials Co., Portland,
Ore.
Officer in Charge, USPHS, WS&WPC
Activities, PNW, Portland, Ore.
Chairman, Wash. Pollution Control
Commission, Olympia, Wash.
Chemist, Reynolds Metals Co., Trout-
dale, Ore.
Assoc. Sanitary Engr., Ore. State
Sanitary Authority, Portland, Ore.
Ind. Field Rep., Ore. State Dept.
Planning &Dev., Portland, Ore.
Parks Planner, Ore. State Parks,
Salem, Ore.
Res. Mgr., Crown Zellerbach, St.
Helens, Ore.
Sanitary Engr. Dir,, USPHS, Kansas
City, Mo.
Physical Science Admin., USPHS,
Port;land, Ore.
Elliot, A. S.
Cdr., U.S. Coast Guard, Portland, Ore.
-------
A-3
Everts, Curtlss M. Jr..
Fisk, Garry L.
Gellman, Isaiah
Gibbs, Charles V.
Gleason, R. J.
Harris, Robert R.
Hirschborn, George
Holland, Gilbert A.
Howard, Mark
Huff,. Don H,
Inman, Lloyd'
James, M.C.
Jensen, Emil C.
Kachelhoffer, P. .G.
Kittrell,-Frank-W.
Koski, Reino 0.
;Sec.,'Oi?e. State San. Authority,
Portland, Ore.
SA San. Engr., USPHS, Portland, Ore.
,Reg.Engr., National Council for Stream
Improvement, Portland, Ore.
Pollution Control Engr., Wash. Pollu-
tion Control Comm., Olympia, Wash.
Dist. San. Engr., District Public
.Works Office, Navy Dept., Naval
Station, Seattle, Wash.
Chief Construction Grants, USPHS,
Washington, D.C.
Aquatic Biologist, Ore. Pish Commis-
sion, Clackamas, Ore.
Biologist, Wash. Dept.of Fish,
Seattle, Wash.
Health Info. Cons., State Board of
Health, Portland, Ore.
Chairman PNW Field Com., Dept.of
Interior, Portland, Ore.
Water & Sewer Superintendent, Long-
view, Wash.
Research Coordinator, Pac. Marine
Fisheries Commission, Portland, Ore.
State San. Engr., Wash. State Dept. of
Health, Seattle, Wash.
Chem. Engr:, Portland, Ore.
Sanitary Engr. Center,'Cincinnati^ 0.
Chief Liberations Biologist, Fish
Div., Ore. Game Commission, Portland,
Ore. '
Leaver, Robert E.
Sen.Public Health Engr.,Wash.State
Dept. of Health, Seattle, Wash.
-------
A-4
Loftin, William E.
Maclntyre, James
McColloch,.Frank.C.
McGrath, Robert L.
McPerson, William E.
Miller, Harold E.
Moored, G. W.
Neale, Alfred T.
Nelson, N. 0.
Ogle, Charles E.
Parkhurst, Zell E.
Perry, L. Edward
Peterson, Donald R.
Pischer, Ernie R.
City of Gresham
Plant Engr., Reynolds Metals Co.,
Troutdale, Ore.
Attorney, Publisher's Paper Co.,
Portland, Ore.
Public Health Engr.,USPHS, Portland,
Ore.
Field Engr., National Council for
Stream Improvement, Ore. State College
Eng. Exp. Station
Director, Wash. Pollution Control
Commission, Olympia, Wash.
Treasurer, Rainbow Anglers Club,
Vancouver, Wash.
Wash. Pollution Control Commission,
Olympia, Wash.
Operations Mgr., Calif. Packing Corp.,
East Portland Sta.
Managing Dir,, Assoc. Ore Industries,
Salem, Ore.
Reg. Super., Fishery Management Ser-
vices, Bureau of Sport Fisheries &
Wildlife, Portland, Ore.
Program Dir., Columbia Fishery Program,
U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Portland, Ore.
Suprv. Survey & Research, Wash. Pollu-
tion Control Commission, Olympia, Wash.
Commercial Fisherman, Columbia River
Fishermen's Protective Union, Portland,
Ore.
Petrey, A. E.
Chief Chemist, Aluminum Co. of America,
Vancouver, Wash.
-------
A-5
Poston, Richard P.
Asst. Reg. Engr., USPHS, San
Francisco, Calif.
Pettengail, Howard -H. Newberg Rod & Gun Club, Newberg, Ore.
Porter, B. D.
Pratt, S. Kepple
Prichard, A. T.
Puustinen, W.
Richards, Rowland Jr.
Richardson, W.. R.
Rosson, Roy S.
Rystrom, Ken
Santos^ John P.
Schenck, C. C.
Schroeder, Marvin H.
Shenk, Harry.
Smith, Daniel C.
ALCOA, Vancouver, Wash.
Vice Pres. Tech. Com. NWPPA, St.Regis
Pape'r Co., Tacoma, Wash.
Game Commissioner, Wash. State Dept.
of Game, Cathlamet, Wash.
Chairman, Legislative & Conservation
Committee, Columbia River Pishermens
Protective Union, Rt.l, Springfield
Jr. Asst. San. Engr., -USPHS, Port-
land, Ore.
Mgr.,. Pacific Northwest Public Rela-
tions, Crown Zellerbach, Portland,
Ore.
Sanitarian, Cowlitz & Wahkiakum
Health Dist., Kelso, Wash.
Newspaper Representative, Vancouver
Columbian, Vancouver, Wash.
Chemist, U.S. Geological Survey,
Portland, Ore.
Sec., Columbia River Sports Council,
Portland,- Ore.
Dir. Utilities, City of Vancouver,
Wash.
Asst. Dirc, Ore. State Dept. Planning
& Development
Attorney, Weyerhaeuser Co., Tacoma,
Wash.
Smith, Madison R,
Chairman Migratory Pish Committee,
IWLA, Portland, Ore.
-------
A-6
Spies, Kenneth H.
Stackhouse, Lloyd
Steward, Henry
Terry, Allen G.
Van Santen, George E.
Vollman, H. W.
Walker, John D.
Walker, William G.
Wende.l, Harold
Wendler, Henry 0.
Westerholm, William
Williams, Jack E.
Wilson, James A.
Wilson, John
Wollenberg, R. P
Dep. State San. Engr., Ore. State
San. Authority, Portland, Ore.
Pir. Public Relations Dept. Cole &
Weber, Seattle, Wash.
Interstate Pollution Abatement Comm.,
Milwaukie, Ore.
Chief, Op. & Main. Br., Corps of
Engineers, Portland, Ore.
Civil Engr., Bureau of Reclamation,
Salem, Oregon
Area Manager, Calif. Packing Corp.,
Portland, Ore.
Engr;, Corps of Eng'rs., Portland,Ore.
Pacific Power & Light, Portland, Ore.
'Ore. Sanitary Authority, Portland,Ore,
Fisheries Brot.,Wash. Dept.. Fish,
Vancouver, Wash.
Exec. Sec., Columbia River Fisher-
men's Protective Union, Astoria, Ore.
Western Rod & Reel
Vice Pres. & Mill Manager, Publishers
Paper Co.,- Oregon City, Ore.
Biologist, USPHS, Portland, Ore.
Vice Pres. Operations, Longview Fibre
Co., Longview, Wash.
oOo
------- |