February 24, 1967
Page 4472
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ON INTERSTATE STREAMS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, one of the major features of the Water Quality Act of 1965 was the provision which requires States to establish water quality standards on interstate streams by June 30, 1967.
Typical of the interest which the establishment of these guidelines has aroused throughout the Nation is an editorial published in the January issue of American Forests magazine. In this editorial, James B. Craig, the editor, warns industry that it is time to stop delay tactics and to take constructive action now to abate industrial pollution. Mr. Craig also points out an intriguing proposal by the Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, Ohio, to develop a mathematical model of a typical river basin for possible use by industry.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial, entitled "Time To Fish or Cut Bait," be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT
Hottest subject in conservation today is water – the use, re-use, management, pollution, and the future needs of water. The country seems filled with committees, work shops and organizations holding meetings to discuss this vitally important subject. Following a nationwide survey, the respected Louis Harris Poll stated, "a majority of Americans report that most of the rivers, streams and lakes where they live are polluted, and they are boiling mad about it." Nor are voters diverted when they are told what pollution cleanup is likely to cost. They know what it costs to wage modern war or send a rocket to the moon and both air and water pollution are much closer to them than either of those things. A pollution control referendum is yet to know defeat – where state electorates have been given an opportunity to voice their views.
Out of this swamp of discontent over the way Americans are fouling their own nests great reforms are almost certain to emerge. And the next six months are likely to prove crucial in terms of the direction the effort will take.
The force generating much of this activity is, of course, the Water Quality Act of 1965 which calls for the setting of standards on interstate waterways by June 30 of this year. All states will comply. Hearings are now being held. Conservationists can take the major credit for this legislative 11th Commandment based on the premise "Thou Shalt Not Pollute!" While pollution laws were enacted in 1948, 1956, and again in 1961, stressing the technical aspects of water pollution, professionals and decision makers largely failed to produce a program that met public demands. The National Water Pollution Congress of 1960 gave conservationists their opportunity to move into a yawning vacuum and they made the most of it. In giving the whole subject needed visibility, they took pollution to both the Congress and the public. They put their stamp on the Water Quality Act and anyone who thinks this is not so need only compare the Act and the more recent ground rules released by the Department of the Interior with the 1960 Pollution Congress address of Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson. The Act was a major conservation victory.
"What's the situation today?”
AMERICAN FORESTS asked leading conservationists in Washington in December for a major strategy session. With all 50 states indicating they will come up with standards, the states, municipalities, citizens and particularly industry face a great challenge and opportunity, conservationists reply. Is industry meeting this challenge? While conservation still has hope, evidence of the old blocking tactics is now showing up at hearings.
This is a pity, for industry with its vast technological capabilities can and should make a real contribution to the cleanup. In too many cases final word rests with "management people" and not with top level thinking executives and researchers, conservationists say. Consequently, conservationists are now watching state hearings for evidence of "real desire" as well as for know-how. Members of organizations like The American Forestry Association can be of real help in the formulation of state Standards, conservationists add, not as experts but as sincere citizens interested in pollution cleanup.
People of this caliber can strengthen the hands of state officials beset by special interests. (The booklet "A Citizen Guide to Action For Clean Water" prepared by the Izaac Walton League and other conservation groups is recommended for all lay citizens. Copies can be obtained from AMERICAN FORESTS upon request.)
What if the state standards don't measure up?
While no one at this juncture wishes to see a federal crackdown – and this includes federal people as well as conservationists – leaders of the great national groups are convinced that neither Secretary Udall nor Congress will flinch from doing their duty. But fully cooperative action without resorting to the mailed fist could do the job much more economically. One way or another, the job is going to be done, conservationists say quietly. And they mean it. The presence of a two-fisted Pollution Boss at Interior in the person of Frank C. Di Luzio adds weight to conservation conviction.
What can industry do to show good faith – "real desire?"
Admittedly, water management is an extremely complex problem. The aim should be to get the job done as economically as possible. Standards will be set – that is now the law of the land. What is most needed, it seems to us, is a fact base from which decision makers can work. The overall aim must be water quality improvement but objectives will vary in different regions of the country. Some streams should be returned to trout stream purity and kept that way. On others the facts of economic life will dictate that this is impossible and here the aim should be as much improvement as is consistent with the economic welfare of the inhabitants. Guidelines based on solid scientific fact therefore become a real necessity.
The highly-respected Battelle Memorial Institute at Columbus, Ohio, is one scientific fact-finding organization that believes technology can provide industry a way to go. Battelle has proposed to industry a research program whose objective is to develop a mathematical model of a typical river basin. Such a model would have within its framework the multitudinous variables that relate to the management of water. The variables include such things as the biological considerations, the ability of the river to cleanse itself, the impact of standards on the economy of the region, its employment, the needs of .the public for recreation, and many, many more. There could well be from two to three thousand interrelated mathematical equations in such a model.
Once created, the model, which would be in the form of a computer program, would provide the ability to examine the trade-offs. The model will not be a decision maker in itself, but it will provide decision makers with a way to ask "what if" questions of almost limitless complexity. Accordingly, it offers a way to determine the best economic choices in the management of water. The model, which would simulate a river basin, would be applicable to any other river basin or even to a single reach of a river.
At a time when there is not the slightest doubt that industry as a user of water will soon face a day in court, the industry should not hesitate a second in making a most intensive effort to improve its public pollution image and place itself in a position where it will be able to intelligently defend its procedures in handling and returning water to a stream in front of many possible standard setting bodies. And judgments presented should be based on the best possible scientific fact finding.
It should be evident to all by now that inertia and the old defensive tactics are not going to work in the case of both water and air pollution. The public is not at all dismayed by the possible costs of this cleanup. Senator Muskie, of Maine, believes that $100 billion will be required by the year 2000 just to clean up the waterways. The Harvard Business Review recently estimated that total expenditures of at least $275 billion will be required over the next 34 years to ensure the availability of clean air and water. This cost dismays the public not at all. Meanwhile, the possibility of establishing a Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution is being carefully considered.
Industry should get off the dime in this mounting groundswell of public action and place itself once and for all in a "for" position on the subject of pollution by initiating constructive and scientific action that will show the public it means business. The time has come to fish or cut bait. Leadership proposals such as those advanced by Battelle would be a good place to start.
Five hundred industries in 50 states, or 10 companies a state, could make the Battelle project a reality by contributing the modest sum of $1,000 a year for three years. Nor should industry hesitate to move vigorously and affirmatively on similar projects in a concerted effort to improve its public image and assist those admirable companies that are carrying on the fight alone.
In view of the stakes, this cost does not seem excessive. Most important it would show "real desire" at a time when all users of water are under a very high-powered public microscope. (J. B. C.)