The data assembled during this period indicates that at times the bacterial loading is far in excess of that recommended by the United States Treasury Department for water filtration plants employing coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination. The highest bacterial counts originate at times of first rise of the river. The following table indicates the maximum B. coli index that has been reported in the raw water at Indiana filtration plants along the Ohio River and the percentage of the time when this raw water exceeds 6,000 per 100 cubic centimeter:

A glance at the above table demonstrates conclusively that only constant vigilance on the part of the personnel operating these water plants has made it possible to produce a safe water at all times.

In addition to the constant threat of an unsafe water passing the existing water purification works, tastes and odors at times make it difficult to produce a potable drinking water. The cost of producing a taste-free water certainly becomes a major item of operation during times of drought or low-flow conditions.

The experiences of Indiana filtration plants located along the Ohio River shows very conclusively that treatment of domestic sewage and industrial waste is absolutely necessary if the Ohio is to be used as a source of drinking water. Consequently, legislation which provides for interstate compacts as a means of control of this and other similar streams must be enacted and some means of financing necessary treatment works projects developed.

Now, we, as these other gentlemen have remarked, have also been working on the mine-sealing program. We have a slightly different proposition out there along one line. We have strip mines. We have discovered that by damming up these little pits and keeping the air from coming in contact with the gob piles in the water, we not only keep out pollution, but we make some very nice lakes.

We have been very successful in the last few years in dealing with industry. It may have been rather impudent, but we were able to interest Mr. Walter Chrysler in a couple cases in Indiana. Mr. Kraft of the Kraft Cheese Co., has also been personally interested, and Ball Bros., the fruit-jar magnates of the world, are quite active at the present time in constructing a plant for strawboard waste at one of their paper mills.

Altogether, it looks favorable in Indiana toward solving stream pollution, but the financial side of it is very important. If it would not be possible to get the grant side of this through, it would be quite advantageous if there would be a source provided for the disposition of revenue bond securities.

Mr. DONDERO. Do you mean by the Federal Government?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Here is the difficulty, that we can build plants and operate and maintain them, by issuing so-called revenue bonds, but the public is always hesitant in buying new types of securities, as you well know. But I believe that the experience thus far in Indiana has been rather good, in that some market has been developed by the P. W. A. purchasing those securities, and that has had quite a beneficial effect. However, I believe that perhaps certain changes might be made in the Federal assistance, whereby the cost of these projects might be greatly reduced and still have very excellent plants constructed, strictly according to plans and specifications.

Mr. BEITER. I am interested in that statement. In just what way would you recommend it?

Mr. FRAZIER. In granting these loans and grants to the various municipalities, the State, of course, must approve that type of treatment, works, plans, and specifications and so forth, but heretofore the State has not been consulted as to which places should receive preference. In other words, we have certain cities that need treatment works first, and others should follow along in order. That has been absolutely disregarded.

Mr. BEITER. That would be very difficult to administer, because you would say that your State needs it, and I would say that my State needs it.

Mr. FRAZIER. No; this is within the State, where we have probably a better idea of what should be done.

Mr. BEITER. But somebody from one city would contend that their city needs it more than another.

Mr. FRAZIER. I believe that a proper State agency would be fair enough and intelligent enough to judge in those matters, and not leave it up to the various municipalities to decide.

Mr. BEITER. Would not the basis of the P. W. A. contributing 50 percent of the cost be the proper procedure?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is very fine, but we have a peculiar situation in Indiana.

May I say this off of the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Conversation off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Who is next, Mr. Hollister?

Mr. HOLLISTER. I think that that completes the list.

I would like, with the permission of the committee, to submit several resolutions which different people wanted to put in the record, one from the United States Chamber of Commerce, one from the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and a telegram from the Secretary of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. If you have no objection, I will give those to the clerk later.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The resolutions and the telegram referred to are as follows:)

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OHIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON APRIL 23, 1936, ON THE SUBJECT OF CONTROL OF STREAM POLLUTION

Voted: That the Ohio Chamber of Commerce should oppose S. 3958 (Mr. Lonergan), S. 3959 (Mr. Lonergan), H. R. 11064 (Mr. Pfeifer), H. R. 8992 (Mr. Mansfield), S. 4342 (Mr. Copeland), and S. 4349 (Mr. Barkley), on the

ground that they would remove control of the pollution of the Ohio River and its tributaries from the States and localities affected and would attempt to develop a general plan to prevent such pollution that would be comparatively expensive and unsatisfactory because so much of the problem is definitely local and its solution will require the application of different methods to different streams and different parts of streams. We point with pride to the accomplishments of the States tributary to the Ohio River in freeing that river of phenol wastes with the cooperation of the industries involved, practically without public expense, as the best method for the satisfactory solution of this problem. We oppose S. 4349 because we feel the United States engineers will not be able to cooperate with State departments of health as satisfactorily as would the office of the Surgeon General of the United States.

We heartily approve S. 4350 and S. 4351, introduced by Mr. Barkley, which are designed to give authority and force to an Ohio River compact between States. These bills, together with existing law, would provide all the necessary steps at present required to abate the pollution of the Ohio River and its tributaries.

Hon. JOHN B. HOLLISTER,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

COLUMBUS, OHIO, May 19, 1936.

We find that special session Ohio Legislature which will meet Wednesday will consider legislation of vital interest to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce which fact prevents my joining with group of prominent business men from southern Ohio under the leadership of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce who will appear before the River and Harbors Committee of the National House of Representatives to advocate measures making for satisfactory control of stream pollution. We hope however, that this telegram may be read into the record of the meeting of the committee. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce after thorough study and official action has declared against Federal control of stream pollution believing that this matter can be handled most effectively and satisfactorily under the direction of the various State departments of health. We heartily approve S. 4350 and S. 4351 and the companion House bills which are designed to give authority and force to an Ohio River compact between States with the Surgeon General's Office of the United States acting as a cooperating agency. We believe these bills together with existing law will provide all necessary steps at present required to abate the pollution of the Ohio River and its tributaries. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce is the largest business organization in Ohio having in its membership representatives of all classes of business including agriculture.

GROGE B. CHANDLER, Secretary, Ohio Chamber of Commerce. (After an informal discussion, off of the record, as to the time required to print these hearings:)

The CHAIRMAN. We have had so few members of the committee present that we would like to get them printed in a hurry, so that they could read them.

Mr. HOLLISTER. I think that all of the witnesses would be only too glad to waive the reading over of their remarks. I think that their remarks have been such that they will not be quoted incorrectly.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. If we have to send them all out, it will take several weeks at least to get them back.

Mr. HOLLISTER. I do not think that enough errors will be made to justify that.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if you could look over the record and assist in that way.

Mr. HOLLISTER. I would be very glad to.

Would it be possible to include in the printed hearings a copy of that diagram which Mr. Dykstra submitted?

The CHAIRMAN. It would delay the printing.

Mr. HOLLISTER. I do not want to delay the printing.

Mr. DYKSTRA. There are copies of it for every member of the committee. They were passed around this morning.

Mr. HOLLISTER. I want to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for the very patient and courteous hearing given to the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and I think that all of the members of the committee are thankful to the witnesses for the information that they have given us.

Mr. BATTLE. May I ask for 2 or 3 minutes?
The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name.

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. BATTLE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION

Mr. BATTLE. My name is John D. Battle. I am executive secretary of the National Coal Association, and am speaking for the bituminous coal industry of this country. I want to be very brief. Pollution has no friends, and I had intended to say a good deal more than I will say, but the gentleman from Charleston told you some of the things that I had in mind..

Just so long as the Federal Government proposes to investigate, to look into this question of pollution, I think you will find our industry more than willing to cooperate in every way. Just as he pointed out, they are doing it in West Virginia and other places..

But I do want to call your attention to this fact, that some weeks ago, before the Senate, we had experts to discuss this whole matter in great detail. That record is not yet available, but you should have it before you. I was told that it would probably be printed in a week or 10 days. It is important, I think, because every question, I believe, that has been asked here was answered in that hearing, even to the legal phases of it.

I am not prepared to discuss the technical side of this matter to a very great extent. I do not think it is necessary, because these bills merely provide for investigation and study, and I think that you will find our industry willing to cooperate fully in that respect. But we do hope that it will be kept localized just as much as possible, and I think that the success of this whole undertaking depends largely on that phase of the question.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe, Mr. Battle, do you not, that the coal industry will be glad to do its part to help solve this problem? Mr. BATTLE. Unquestionably.

I would like to add this, that I think that you will get far better results if in the set-up of the machinery, which we estimate in our industry will cost us at least $300,000,000 a year to go on with this job, we will get some kind of recognition; and I think that you will get far better results if in the working out of this plan some method is adopted whereby industry such as ours will be invited specifically to name technical men to sit down with the other fellow and try to work it out.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir, very much.

(Thereupon, at 3: 40 p. m.,. the hearings were concluded.)

3:40

APPENDIX

Hon. J. J. MANSFIELD,

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, May 19, 1936.

Chairman, Rivers and Harbors Committee,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In connection with hearings on bill H. R. 12102, and other bills relating to controlling pollution of streams, I should like to call your attention to the views of the member organizations within the national chamber with respect to this subject. At our recent annual meeting here in Washington, April 27 to 30, the membership approved a resolution on water resource policies that contained pronouncements of principle directly applicable to the subject of pollution control. These pronouncements are

"Pollution control-a local problem should be dealt with by individual States and communities, or, where two or more States are concerned, by compacts. States should enact appropriate laws for dealing with pollution through agencies vested with authority to program, authorize, enforce, and administer suitable regulation. In all public activities with respect to pollution there should be full opportunity for local, municipal, and industrial representation.

"By cooperating with States and State compact agencies, the Federal Government should assist in assembling information on control and use of water resources, and in carrying on scientific investigation. Appropriate State agencies to deal with State and local water control and use problems, where not already created, should be promptly authorized."

The above declaration, made at our annual meeting, followed consideration by the membership of a report respecting policies which should be applied to water resources, their control and utilization. I enclose a copy of this report. A discussion of the problem of pollution will be found on pages 14 to 20.

Very truly yours,

POLLUTION

HARPER SIBLEY, President.

NATURE OF PROBLEM

Stream pollution is a water-resource problem of great significance. In the face of present population trends and forecasts along with the evident tendency of industry to decentralize, we may inquire whether or not the stream pollution problem in the aggregate has not reached its speak. Shifts may occur which might transfer from one area to another the crises in pollution, but it is probably more rational to assume that as a whole the country now faces the task of recovery of stream quality rather than the likelihood of greater evils in the future. Nevertheless, the problem demands study. Urban water supply, sewage disposal, industrial-waste disposal, wildlife and recreational values of streams, are important phases of water use that call for a proper solution of this problem. Pollution, like flood control, is a matter of degree. The maintenance of absolute purity of water from the time it falls to the ground until it reaches the ocean is neither a social necessity nor an economic possibility. On the other hand, this generalization does not lessen the imperative need for greater public attention to the purity of our streams. For convenience the types of stream. pollution may be divided into two groups-municipal sewage and industrial waste.

The Special Committee on Water Pollution of the National Resources Committee is authority for the statement that, "About 68,000,000 persons, equivalent to over half of the total population of the United Staes, discharges sewage through public sewerage systems. The sewage from approximately

57