Therefore, unless we curb industrial as well as municipal pollution, our water will never be clean. Strict standards and strict enforcement are necessary not only to insure compliance but also in fairness to those who have voluntarily assumed the often costly burden which their competitors have not. Under existing law, the standards provide a poor basis for enforcement-without local effluent control it is difficult to prove standards are being violated. PRESIDENT's 7-POINT PROPOSAL FOR CONTROL OF INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL POLLUTION Jurisdictional limitations also hamper efforts. The President there proposed a seven-point program to enforce control of water pollution from industrial and municipal wastes and to give States more effective backing in their efforts: (1) Amend standards to impose precise effluent requirements on all industrial and municipal sources; (2) Violation of effluent requirements to be considered sufficient cause for court action; (3) Allow Secretary of the Interior to move more swiftly in enforcement actions and provide subpena and discovery power; (4) Failure to meet standards or implementation schedules to be subject to court imposed fines of up to $10,000 a day; (5) Provide Secretary with immediate injunctive relief in emergency situations; (6) Extend Federal jurisdiction to include all navigable waters, all interstate ground waters, U.S. portion of boundary waters and contiguous zone; and (7) Triple Federal operating grants to State pollution control agencies over next 5 years from $10 million to $30 million by fiscal year 1975. PENDING LEGISLATION Senator ELLENDER. What effort has been made up to now to implement those points; in other words, what specific steps have you taken toward carrying them out? Mr. KLEIN. Only by legislation submitted to Congress, sir. Senator ELLENDER. I understand that, but has anything been done to implement your requests? Has anybody introduced bills to carry out these recommendations? Mr. KLEIN. Yes. The bills have been introduced. They are in the Senate; S. 3468, 3470, 3471 and 3472. Senator ELLENDER. Have hearings been held on them that you know of? Mr. KLEIN. No. They are set for April 20 and 21, sir, before the Subcommittee on Water and Air Pollution. Senator ELLENDER. To what extent will the nonpassage of those bills hamper your work? Mr. KLEIN. The nonpassage of the financing bill, which is S. 3472 Senator ELLENDER. That is the $4 billion contract authorization. Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir. Nonpassage would leave us with no authorization whatsoever for the fiscal years 1972, 1973 and 1974. Senator ELLENDER. I presume that is the most important single item for the moment? Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Because there is no request for appropriations for fiscal year 1971. Mr. KLEIN. That is right, sir. Senator ELLENDER. You say that hearings have been scheduled. Senator ELLENDER. Have all those bills been sent to the same committee? Mr. KLEIN. Yes, they have. Senator ELLENDER. Is that the Interior committee? Mr. KLEIN. No. Senator Muskie's subcommittee. Mr. PILZYS. Public Works. Senator ELLENDER. Public Works. None of these bills are before the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee? Mr. KLEIN. No, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Proceed. RESEARCH ANd DevelopmENT Mr. KLEIN. There is a further provision in one of the bills and that is that the research and development section of FWPCA is to go forward for 3 years. At this time H.R. 4148, as amended, has it going forward 1 additional year, and if that passed fully and became law, this would provide for 2 additional years on that. It would, of course, require amendments to meet the new law. Senator ELLENDER. Since the introduction of these bills, have you had any reaction from any source, from the states or interested organizations? Mr. KLEIN. No, except unofficially. We have had certain reactions, and then we had some I guess they are more or less official-from the House Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday, sir, and today. FUNDING FORMULA Senator ELLENDER. I heard there was a little complaint about the fact that the local communities are being called on to put up much more than the Federal Government. You heard that complaint, I presume? Mr. KLEIN. It continues the same type of formula we had before on population and fiscal needs, sir, first; and second, it continues the 30-40-50 percent to the local government depending on whether the State participates in the program by putting up funds. Senator ELLENDER. Is it programed now on the basais of 60-40? Mr. KLEIN. No. It is 30-40-50. The Federal Government puts in only 30 percent to any community where the State does not put in any money. Senator ELLENDER. By way of State grants? Mr. KLEIN. By way of grants. If the State puts in 30 percent and does nothing more this is the present act, sir-if the State puts in 30 percent, then we up our share to 40 percent, and the community drops from 70 percent to 30 percent. If we got a little bit further and the State puts up 25 percent and meets certain other conditions, then we go to 50 percent. At that time it is 50 percent Federal, 25 percent State, and 25 percent community. So if we participate through this program, then we wind up with 50 percent and the State and the community wind up with 50 percent, half and half between them. Senator ELLENDER. That's under the present law? Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir. We are leaving that as it is, slightly changing the conditions. ANNUAL AUTHORIZATION Senator ELLENDER. Have you any authorization under present laws whereby you can obtain funds other than the money that will be authorized under the bill that you have just mentioned? Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir. The present act as passed by Congress in 1966 provides that the authorization for this fiscal year 1971 is $1,250 million. Senator ELLENDER. And that is under the same authority that we provided funds in the bill last year? Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. That is for the current fiscal year? Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. As I recall, these funds are appropriated on a yearly basis but the funds remain available beyond the year for which they were appropriated, is that right? Mr. DOMINICK. It is done on a yearly basis. The funds are available until expended. Senator ELLENDER. I understand that. Mr. PILZYS. The authorization is on an annual basis. Senator ELLENDER. That is what I am talking about. Authorization is on an annual basis, but the funds remain available until expended. Mr. PILZYS. The authorization is not cumulative. Senator ELLENDER. Yes. So that the act under which we are now proceeding for the next year provides an authorization of $1.25 billion and that ends the current authorization. Mr. KLEIN. That was the cutoff at the end of fiscal year 1971, sir. Senator ELLENDER. I see. Senator YOUNG. Does this involve both air and water pollution? Mr. KLEIN. Just water pollution, sir. Air pollution is with HEW, sir. INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION: COST AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Senator YOUNG. In the case of water pollution by a big industry, do they pay for the cost of taking care of their pollution? Mr. KLEIN. They pay their own costs, sir. The bill that is before you is just public money for public works. It is just for sewage treatment plants and inceptors, and that is all for the public. It is really for human sewage only, sir. Senator YOUNG. You don't get into the pollution by some industrial plants, such as a sugar beet factory? Mr. KLEIN. We don't pay for that at all. We just have the State set standards of water quality, and the States then go in and tell the sugar beet plant you must change your effluent in order to meet the water quality standards. You must change so that you do not pollute. Senator ELLENDER. There is no Federal assistance for that? Mr. KLEIN. There is no assistance to any industry except in the Revenue Act that you passed recently where you have a 60-month depreciation schedule for pollution abatement. Senator ELLENDER. Do we appropriate funds for that purpose? Mr. KLEIN. None whatsoever in here, sir, in either the old act or in the proposed legislation. Senator ELLENDER. In that connection I think this matter should be left more or less to the States to abate local pollution. If we do not try to stop pollution at its source, you would never get through with the demands for Federal assistance. That is why I believe that State laws should be enacted, if they are not on the statute books now. We have given authority to the States to prevent local industries from dumping their waste into rivers or lakes or bodies of water in which pollution may occur. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT VERSUS STATE ROLE IN ABATING POLLUTION Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir. I have been asked many times and what is suggested to me in forums is that the Federal Government should take over all of these functions, and I would point out to them that the Federal Government have a function to perform, and that the State and local governments have a function to perform, and if the Federal Government has to take over everything, it has to do the same functions that the State and the local governments are doing now, and it is no saving; you still have to operate through the same chain of command as you do now, and therefore it is not proper for the Federal Government to do this. Senator ELLENDER. Uncle Sam's arm is too long in some areas. By all means it ought to be done at the local level. With the assistance of the Federal Government I think we can abate many of these problems, and deal with them very quickly, particularly in the field we are now discussing. AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION-USE AND CONTROL OF Senator YOUNG. On page 2 you mentioned agricultural pollution. What kind of pollution do you have reference to? Mr. KLEIN. Well, sir, when you have feedlots and the like, this is almost an industrial pollution because it is a big business where you have a large output of pollutants in one place, and the trouble with feedlots is they always put them right next to a river and it goes directly into the water. The problem that we have run into, and I ran into it in Illinoisand I have been up at Fargo and that area, and I know that you have it there, but you don't have fall plowing for the same reasons we do, and we get a tremendous loss of soil from fall plowing. You don't in Fargo, N. Dak. This is one of the problems-sedimentation. We have leaching of fertilizer, and we have runoff of herbicides and pesticides. But the real problem is that there is an accumulation from small farms and the like and you cannot trace it back, and nobody has an answer for it yet. And you cannot stop it because you have to raise food. That is the big item. And we don't know the answers to it yet. and this is what I was referring to that is very, very complex. And I don't know of anybody who has any of the answers yet to the problems that are rising with smaller farms. Senator YOUNG. I have noticed an increasing concern over the use by farmers of insecticides and herbicides and various kinds of sprays. Of course, improperly used they can cause considerable damage. I don't know whether your State uses more sprays of various kinds, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides than we do in North Dakota, but I think we have the biggest songbird population we ever had. We have the best fishing we ever had in our history, much of it due to other reasons, of course the planting of a great many trees, and so on. But I know that there is a problem in these insecticides, if they are improperly used. I hope, though, that we don't go too far in prohibiting their use until substitutes are developed because if you eliminate the use of them at the present time you would cut the farm production severely. Mr. KLEIN. We have looked on this campaign to eliminate, for instance, DDT and instead have tried to work out controls in management. Dr. Stephan will tell you about our one contract with the Aerojet where they now in a laboratory can break DDT in 8 hours to practically nothing. Senator YOUNG. DDT isn't used nearly as much as it used to be. Mr. KLEIN. No. In Illinois they practically eliminated it on the farms before anybody got concerned because DDT no longer does the job it used to. Senator YOUNG. We now have other things to take its place. Mr. KLEIN. The Illinois Department of Natural History just said to the farmer it isn't worthwhile using it, and they stopped using it. You know as well as I do the farmer is an economic man. He is not going to use it if it doesn't work. Our big problem really in Illinois came from the urban and suburban areas that used twice as much as they should have, and then poured the balance down the sewers, and this really became a problem. Senator YOUNG. If it is improperly used, I think we should do as much as we can toward getting better control and proper use of them. Mr. KLEIN. We were trying to find you some other answers for it instead of just saying wipe it off the map. Senator YOUNG. We have about a $3 million metabolism research laboratory on the campus of the State university at Fargo. Their major purpose, is to find other means of killing insects rather than through the use of chemicals. The head of it is Dr. Bushland who found the answer to the screwworm problem other than the use of sprays. Senator ELLENDER. The discussion that I started here was primarily concerned with industrial plants. Mr. KLEIN. Yes. |