avoid the idea of restricting the use of water. Most of our water utilities subscribe to the idea that our customers should have all of the water that they need and are willing to pay for. If water is priced at an amount that represents all of the cost of production, treatment, and distribution, there will be an economic balance between wastefull use of water and full use of water. In a full economy such as exists in the United States, there should not be a restriction on the use of this one natural resource, provided that it is properly priced, while, at the same time, there is free and unlimited use of other natural resources and products. We understand that the overall purpose of the act, as set forth in section 102, is to provide for demonstration programs in a limited number of river basins or parts of river basins in the United States, to serve as models and pilot plants for similar works on other river basins and provide lessons and procedures that could be adopted on other basins or rejected if found impractical or uneconomical. As we read the basic provisions of the act, we believe that it calls for local river basin planning agencies on which all local and interstate agencies would have representation or have the opportunity to express their viewpoints. We fully support the idea of river basin planning for the cverall management of water resources, and especially the thought that the local groups will have a substantial influence and interest in the preparation of the working plan. In subparagraph (b) of section 102, I point out again that the water industry subscribes to a plan to permit its customers to have unrestricted use of water. The industry believes that water should not be wasted. It also believes that waste can be controlled effectively without resorting to restrictions by charging a price for water and covers all the costs of providing water service. On the basis of our overall policy that local users should pay for the services which are rendered to them, we are especially pleased with the requirement in subparagraph (d) that local bodies will assume the full financial responsibility for the replacement and expansion of treatment works, and water and sewer facilities constructed under the act. We note that S. 2987 provides that the Secretary of the Interior assume the leading role and responsibility for water pollution abatement work and, in some cases, for water supply procedures. We know that the transfer of these functions to the Secretary of the Interior has been ordered by the President although it has not yet become effective. Although the water industry has had a generally happy relationship with the U.S. Public Health Service, it recognizes the reasons why the President has transferred many of the former functions of this agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior, and we support such transfer. We take this opportunity to suggest that water pollution abatement is a new function for the Department of the Interior and, though it has relation to some of the other divisions in Interior, this function is so important that it should be maintained as a separate agency. My only reservation about the transfer is that this function might become enmeshed with traditions and practices of other agencies in Interior that have no direct relationship to this vital problem. Subparagraph (b) of section 103 calls for the Secretary to select for planning purposes only those river basins where the Governors agree to seek any legislation which may be necessary to authorize local or interstate bodies to carry out the necessary plan. We would suggest that, in this section, the Governors not only agree to seek such legislation but also be required to provide it before grants are made. We are hopeful that the intent of paragraph (a)(3) of section 104 is to call for a plan to balance all of the uses of a river basin or part thereof, and for a solution that would be not only effective, but economic under all of the situations involved. This would permit different river basins to be controlled and managed in different ways, depending on the uses to which these rivers are put, or on the costs involved. Subparagraph (5) of section 105 contains several requirements which seem entirely laudable. The provisions for raising of capital by the sale of revenue bonds, levying of water and sewer charges to cover costs, use of metering systems, and establishment of equitable charges are all supported by AWWA policy. We support them in this act. We also note, in this paragraph, the apparent intent of the Federal Government to aid municipalities and other local agencies to catch up on a backlog of needed treatment facilities, but with the requirement that the replacement of such works and the expansion thereof shall be done without subsequent Federal grants. We support these provisions. We note that paragraph (b) of section 104 requires the planning agency in the river basin to give consideration to effluent charges on public and private entities which discharge wastes or raw or inadequately treated sewage into waters of the basin. We cannot object to this requirement, but it is our opinion that considerable work will have to be done in any river basin in the United States before such effluent charges can be established on an equitable basis. We would assume that, for the time being, required effluent standards based on a thorough study of the river basin involved should give the desired results. We note in section 107 the basic consideration which calls for the payment of grants not to exceed 30 percent of the cost, but without the dollar limitation provided by the Water Quality Act. The removal of the dollar limitation would seem to be essential if selected basins are to be encouraged to participate in the demonstration program. Section 110 permits the Secretary to pay such expenses of the planning agencies as he deems desirable. From my personal knowledge and contact with the Delaware River Basin Commission, which might be one of the planning agencies to participate in this demonstration program, I know that additional funds will be required to carry out the necessary planning. This section is certainly desirable. We note the limitation of $50 million in section 112 for funds to be used in the demonstration program for fiscal year 1967. In some river basins this full amount might be used as part of the demonstration program. On the other hand, much time will be needed to prepare the necessary programs and much of this money may go into the planning grants rather than into the construction grants. We are especially pleased with the definition of local or interstate bodies as contained in section 113. The American Water Works Association includes in its membership not only water utilities, which are owned by municipalities and other public agencies, but also a large number of water utilities which are investor owned. This definition will permit all water utilities to have some part in the planning in the river basins in which they operate. Under title II of S. 2987, we are interested in the provision in section 201(b) which calls for the elimination of the dollar limitation in the Water Quality Act if the State agrees to match all Federal grants for pollution control and abatement projects in that State. Under the overall AWWA policy, which calls for local participation as much as possible, we would support this provision if it would encourage other States to do the same thing which New York has done in the matter of providing State funds for pollution abatement work. Under title III, we support the provision in section 303 for the continuation of grants to States to assist them in formulating and enforcing water quality standards. Many States have real or imagined problems in finding sufficient funds to support normal supervisory and regulatory water pollution programs, and this money should help in enforcing standards within the States. It would ordinarily be outside the province of the American Water Works Association to comment on the judicial procedures set forth in title IV. We are concerned, however, with the provision in section 401 which would permit an individual to bring suit in the U.S. District Court on matters relating to pollution and without regard to the sum or value of the matter in controversy. This could result in a multitude of small nuisance-type suits which would cause considerable trouble to those who are engaged in the work of trying to prevent pollution. We feel that there must be better ways to assure adequate remedies if persons are harmed without causing needless delay. I would like to comment personally on the overall problem of abatement of pollution in our rivers and streams. This comes from my own experience in pollution abatement work and that of others in the water utility industry who are responsible also for pollution abatement procedures in their own communities. This comment comes also from a wide acquaintanceship and knowledge in the water and pollution abatement industry pertaining to professional and operational manpower, equipment, construction costs, and government procedures. At the present time, there is a definite shortage of engineering and scientific manpower to do the work necessary in providing research studies and preliminary investigations, and in the actual design and construction of pollution abate ment and water purification facilities. There is no perceptible increase in college enrollments and, if an increase would occur, these men would not be available for several years. While the manufacturers of equipment can accelerate the present production, there is a limit to such acceleration. Some time will be necessary to provide for increased production of equipment and any accelerated program will certainly increase costs. Actual construction costs have been rising within the past year or two, and the rate of increase within the past year is more than 4 percent. We should be aware of the fact that a large scale increase in construction work in connection with pollution abatement and water purification facilities will result in higher construction costs. The several acts which are now under consideration will require governmental action in local communities. This action will take considerable time since various legislative bodies will be involved and provision must be made for local financing. All of these factors will give us one huge case of pollution abatement indigestion unless the new plan is carefully thought out and balanced against all of the manpower, and organizational and physical facilities which are available. I would suggest that all organizations and persons, both government and private, who have knowledge of the work, be consulted. The American Water Works Association will be happy to provide any information and help which the Congress or the executive branch may desire. STATEMENT OF AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION POLICY- Determined that the ever-increasing needs of the public shall be met, American Water Works Association vigorously supports efforts to (1) preserve highquality water supply sources and (2) restore to reasonable standards the quality of presently polluted water supply sources. For this statement, pollution of water may be defined as degradation of quality by anything added to the normal constitutents of a water source that tends to make the water less desirable as a source of water supply. The American Water Works Association believes that the most desirable source of water for domestic supply is one that is unpolluted and urges that such waters be kept free from pollution. To permit efficient and economical utilization of water sources already polluted or threatened with pollution, the association urges control over waste discharges and land uses that affect water sources; accelerated programs of basic and applied research; continuing education for water and waste water utility employees; and public information to develop public awareness of the pollution problem as it relates to water supplies. A primary objective of the association is "to consider and deal with the problems involved in the production and distribution of safe and adequate water supplies." These problems are to a large extent dependent on the quality and quantity of the water source. Therefore, close control of waste discharges is absolutely essential to the economical production of safe and esthetically acceptable water for the consumer. Progress is being made in the control of water pollution by many municipalities and industries. Many water resources that are being or will be required for drinking water supply purposes, however, are still being degraded by waste discharges. As a result of technologic advances made by industry and the growth in population, many sources are being increasingly degraded by wastes of widening variety and of possible significance to health. Thus the availability of water of good quality is being reduced. Continuation of efforts to improve public water supply sources toward the goal of no pollution is a major objective of the association. To further the goal of conservation and protection of water resources for public supply, it is the policy of AWWA to promote actively the support of the following positive objectives: 1. Close control over waste discharges and land uses that would have degrading effects on water resources, including precipitation, surface waters, and ground waters. AWWA strongly supports legislation at the local, State and Federal levels to implement this control. 2. An accelerated program of basic and applied research to include the determination of what components of waste are harmful, in what concentrations they are harmful, and how these harmful components can be counteracted or removed. 3. An accelerated program of continuing education for water and waste water utility employees to keep them aware of, and capable of coping with, the everwidening spectrum of pollutants. 4. An accelerated public information program to develop public awareness of the pollution problem as it relates to public water supplies, the measures being taken for its solution, and the need for public support of these measures. The association endorses the principle that no individual, organization, industry, or Government unit has the right to add anything to a source of water supply that will cause any other individual, organization, industry, or Government unit to spend an unreasonable amount of money for its removal to provide a usable water supply. Senator TYDINGS. I would like to ask you a question. Do you feel that there is a need for better training for those public servants on the local municipal level who are charged with the responsibility of maintenance and operation of sewage disposal plants? Mr. BAXTER. Very much so. Both the American Water Works Association through its recognition of the need for training waterworks operators and also through my own knowledge and work in pollution abatement plans know that there is a continuing need for this kind of person. You will recall that I said earlier that if we could operate our present plants at the designed level we would already improve a lot of pollution problems. Therefore the need for trained people is important. Senator MURPHY. Mr. Baxter, what would you say roughly at the present time would be the percentage of efficiency, as to the operation of the present works as compared to the design level of capability? Mr. BAXTER. Obviously this varies all over the country, Senator Murphy. But when we consider the normal drop below the design standards and the number of days in which perhaps sewage is bypassed because there is not enough equipment or it is not operating properly, my own guess is that it would be somewhere between 20 and 33 percent. Senator MURPHY. In other words, if we had the proper people available and made proper plans in order to keep the equipment operating at top speed, we could improve efficiency by 20 percent. Mr. BAXTER. At least this-it is not only the training of people. You would have to make certain that those people had a plant which was properly maintained, spare parts available all the time, old parts replaced before they actually broke down. These are the things that in my opinion are definitely needed. Senator TYDINGS. We have an amendment proposed, S. 2636, which would provide as an amendment that some $500,000 a year be allocated for matching grants to any town or municipality which wished to send any of their municipal sewage employees to a shortterm training program in treatment, works operation, and maintenance. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at that. I gather from your testimony that you feel that such an amendment might be desirable? Mr. BAXTER. This kind of training is going on at the present time but it could be increased. Of course there is now another factor in it in terms of obtaining the right men. That is, those of us, and this is everybody who operates pollution abatement plants and the people who appropriate money, should see that those people are paid properly. If not we get the poorest type of operators. Senator TYDINGS. In connection with subdivision (b) (4) you state that when the Federal Government does not receive matching funds or help from the State the State in a sense should still have the certification authority over what a municipality does within the State, even if the State, itself, does not match or does not take part in the program. Mr. BAXTER. The problem which is facing us is this, that in every State we operate both our waterworks and pollution abatement works under a permit from the State and under the State's supervision. And it could be an awkward thing, although I recognize why that provision is in the bill, for the State to be completely bypassed in the consideration of construction of works. In fact, under State laws, we would still have to get permits to operate these facilities. Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Baxter. We certainly appreciate your effort, particularly in view of your laryngitis and your temporary disability. Your testimony has been most helpful. On behalf of Senator Muskie and the subcommittee, I express our sincere appreciation to you, sir. Mr. BAXTER. Thank you for inviting us to be here. Senator TYDINGS. I would like to enter into the record at this time a copy of a letter from Senator Edward V. Long, U.S. Senator from Missouri, together with a statement, a letter addressed to Senator Muskie on April 2. (The letter and statement follow :) Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR ED: Regret that I was unable to make a personal appearance when hearings opened on the pending legislation related to water pollution. Would appreciate having the enclosed statement made a part of the hearing record. Kindest regards. Sincerely, EDWARD V. LONG, U.S. Senator. STATEMENT BY HON. EDWARD V. LONG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE State of MISSOURI I appreciate this opportunity to express my support of S. 2947 as the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution conducts hearings on pending legislation. Congress has already made significant progress in providing programs by which we can work to save America's valuable water resources. The Water Pollution Control Act and its 1965 amendments offer much encouragement to those concerned about the cleanliness of our rivers and streams. More is needed. If we are to halt the pollution of our waterways, bold new legislation must be provided. While my State of Missouri is proud of its many clear-flowing Ozark water ways which are widely known and which annually attract thousands of visitors, there are other streams and rivers of which we are not so proud. Most are victims of rapid industrial and population growth. Because S. 2947, one of the bills under consideration at this time, provides an opportunity to increase our national efforts toward remedying this problem, I was most anxious to join as a cosponsor. |