General DUNN. Yes, sir, we have issued some preliminary instructions, and we are preparing more detailed instructions.

Senator MUSKIE. Those, I assume, would come under both the Water Quality Acts?

General DUNN. Very definitely.

Senator MUSKIE. Will there be procedures for public hearings to take environmental values into account?

General DUNN. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. When those instructions are available I would appreciate it if you would submit copies to the committee.

General DUNN. We will do so, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. On page 5 of your testimony you refer to the six-member Environmental Advisory Board. Where will the members come from, will they come from other agencies, or simply from the Corps, or will they come from private industry and so on?

General DUNN. None are from the Corps, sir. I have the list of names if you would care for me to enter them into the record, of the people we have requested. Each have indicated informally their willingness and are acceptable to serve. We have not completed this appointment in that we do not have official confirmation yet, and they have not been sworn in, but the six individuals are: Dr. Linton K. Caudwell, who is a professor at the University of Indiana, an author of a number of books and papers on political and institutional aspects of environmental problems; Mr. Roland Clement. Ecologist and vice president of the National Audubon Society; Dr. Charles H. W. Foster, Executive Director of the New England National_Research Center in Boston, and a former commissioner of natural resources for Massachusetts; Mr. Harold Gilliam, author and environmental reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle; Mr. Richard H. Pough, an engineer and a conservationist, chairman of the board of the Oakland Space Action Institute, and America the Beautiful Fund of New York, and Mr. Charles H. Stoddard, an environmental consultant from Duluth, former director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior, and former executive director of the Citizens Committee on Outdoor Recreation Beauty.

So, we have tried to get not only a wide range, but people of national stature, and we do intend to give these people a mission and to look very carefully at their advice.

Senator MUSKIE. Those names that are familiar to me measure up to that. I think it will depend on how much authority you give them, and how much they are allowed to influence your decisions. I shall follow that with a great deal of interest. I think it is an excellent move on the part of the Corps.

General DUNN. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. In General Clark's press conference, and I put in that New York Times' story in the record, he indicated he would like to get much deeper into pollution abatement, preferably river basin control, and I would like if I could to get some indication as to just what that means. Does the Corps for example, intend to seek prosecution of major polluters on a national scale under the 1899 Act and recent legislation?

General DUNN. To anwer the last portion of your question first,

sir, we are to the limit of our available resources in terms of manpower and ability to investigate cases. Within our ability to investigate we are turning cases over to the Department of Justice which, of course, has the responsibility for prosecution, since we directly have no prosecution power at all. We can only report.

Senator MUSKIE. And in evaluating those cases you are going to take into account not only the navigational values?

General DUNN. But other values as well, that is correct, sir. We are very frankly considerably limited to our inspection staff. We do depend in many cases, particularly on the coastal waters, for the Coast Guard to report to us any violations which we then try to investigate, and if they are particularly deliberate things to report these and encourage the Department of Justice to prosecute.

We are also establishing procedures with the Department of the Interior and the FWQA so that our action so that they can be coordinated with action being taken and action they are taking under their own authority where they may have already reached an agreement with certain industrial processes where there may be an agreed procedure already under way, so that we do not run into the question of two Federal agencies going in diverse directions.

Now, in other areas that General Clarke had reference to, and I referred to the Susquehanna study, we feel very strongly that we have got to look in our plans and in our regional studies much more carefully into the total use of water. One of the available uses, including the availability of water for municipal industrial uses, is frankly the reuse of water. This has not always been considered.

We have a study under way, as I am sure you are aware, right now as to what is the availability for use of the Potomac estuary for water supply requirements for Washington that would reduce the requirements for upstream storage to meet periods of low flow. So, we feel that there is coming a regional approach, in many cases, because no longer does what one community do have no effect on others, these things cross State lines. As we look at things like the Susquehanna study and we feel we have to look not only at the water requirements for water uses, but the availability of water in its natural state, including reservoir storage, for low flow augmentation, but also what can be done to improve the processing of used water so that it can be reused. This really is the field that he was indicating and had reference to.

Now, if so assigned the mission we feel that we have the capability to include regional sewage treatment plants. Forinstance we even could construct and operate under appropriate conditions as a service, as we now operate some powerplants, forinstance, as part of our hydrodevelopment. What the future holds in that regard I think we have to wait and see.

Certain bills have been introduced into the Congress on this subject and as a part of the study of the Environmental Act by both the President's Environmental Council and the Water Resources Council, I am sure that there will be additional national policy statements made which will better determine what, if any, part we will play. In any case, we do feel very strongly that no comprehensive study can any longer be made without giving serious considera

tion to this question of proper treatment of waste coming into a stream as it may affect the use of that stream for beneficial uses.

Senator MUSKIE. Well now, you, of course, have many river basin projects under construction now.

General DUNN. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. That have been authorized over a period of the last quarter of a century. Are you taking another look at those in light of the environmental considerations?

General DUNN. For each one, before it is started or when it is in the design phase the environmental aspects are being looked at very carefully. I think one of the best examples we have is the Libby Dam out in northwest Montana where we went very carefully into the effect on the environment and fitting it into that very wild, natural environment and included architectural treatment of the powerplant, a visitors' facility and other things to give it a treatment that frankly, under past practices and authorizations we have not been able to do.

We now can spend money to improve the environmental aspects and we so intend to do.

Senator MUSKIE. With respect to section 21 of the Water Quality Improvement Act will you actually refuse licenses on the basis of that section if the State water quality standards are such as to deny State certification?

General DUNN: I think the answer would be, yes. Whether we do it directly under the provision of that act, or simply because of State objection, there may be an argument as to which comes first. The net effect is that we would certainly deny the permit.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, you would treat State approval as a precondition?

General DUNN. That is right. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Now, in future projects that you are asked by Congress to consider, I assume from what you have said that you will include environmental values as well?

General DUNN. Very definitely, and in fact for those which we have already processed and which have not yet been acted on by the Congress, we are adding a statement on the environment as required by the Environmental Act.

Senator MUSKIE. You know, it would be hepful if at the time you fully have developed your policy if you could give this committee the implications of this new policy approach for all of the activities in which you are engaged, not only with respect to section 21, but application for permit to discharge into streams, whether from powerplants or industrial plants and so on. We would be interested in knowing what procedures are established, what provisions for public hearings are provided and so on.

General DUNN. We will do that.

Senator MUSKIE. All right.

Does the Corps make or has the Corps made any national study with respect to each river estuary or water area within your jurisdiction? I assume the answer to this is, no.

General DUNN. Not national.

Senator MUSKIE. But, on each environmental hazard?

General DUNN. We are engaged now, forinstance, in a quite extensive study of the Nation's shorelines we are including a discussion of the environment in each comprehensive study that we report on after the period of the Environmental Act.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, thank you very much, General. I am delighted to see the Corps moving in this direction. We will follow that movement with a great deal of interest and encouragement. General DUNN. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee adjourned.)

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION OF POWER DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION ACT

MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Boston, Mass.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in Faneuil Hall, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Muskie.

Staff members present: E. Winslow Turner, general counsel; and Robert E. Berry, minority counsel.

Senator MUSKIE. The meeting will be in order.

We have a lot of work to cover and not too much time. We want to have some opportunity for questions, so I think we should get under way.

May I begin by just a brief outline of what it is that we are seeking to explore this morning. The principal task is to consider the merits of S. 2752, Intergovernmental Coordination of Power Development and Environmental Protection Act, which I introduced in July of last year. This legislation would establish a cooperative intergovernmental approach to sound planning and development of reliable electric power supplies within the requirements for protection of public health and the conservation of esthetic and other environmental factors.

I have a statement which I am prepared to read, but because of the time pressures and because I forgot to bring my glasses with me this morning, I will not read it. If I were to read it, I would read it vigorously and with appropriate emphasis on the points on which I think you ought to concentrate. I'd like to especially call it to your attention because this does outline our concern about the problem of power development in New England; whether or not we have adequately planned our power requirement in New England in the past, whether we have for the future, whether or not in planning for meeting our power requirements we have established appropriate institutions, mechanisms and safeguards, and to protect the environmental values which concern us so much in this beautiful northeastern part of the country. So I do commend that statement to you and I hope, because I saved you from listening to it, that your interest may be enhanced.

(499)