Sew 28,400,000 persons receives treatment in public-sewage treatment works. age from a population of about 40,600,000 persons is discharged without any treatment." The following, quoted from the same report indicates the types of industries that have pollution problems and that are active in studying the treatment of their pollution wastes : INDUSTRY AND STATES REPORTING Byproduct coke: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio. Canning: Indiana, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, New York. Coal mining (acid water): West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois. Composition floor covering: Maryland. Cyanide: Michigan. Dairy products: Indiana, Texas, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio. Distilling: Indiana, Illinois, Maryland. Gas manufacturing: Illinois, Oregon, Rhode Island. Laundering: Maryland. Metal works: Connecticut, Illinois, Montana. Mining and smelting: Idaho, Nevada. Oil refining: Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Rhode Island. Meat packing: Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, Illinois. Paper: Pennsylvania, Washington, Illinois, Virginia, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland. Sugar: Iowa, Montana, Nebraska. Tannery: Pennsylvania, Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland. Textile Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina. Municipalities have in general given thorough study to the engineering of sewerage systems designed to get rid of their sewage, but have not always felt the necessity of treating it adequately prior to its discharge into streams, lakes, or coastal waters. As regards industrial waste, each industry presents its own pollution problem. For many of them there is no known method of waste treatment available, which makes the industrial waste problem more acute than the domestic sewage problem. However, according to Mr. H. R. Crohurst, sanitary engineer, United States Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, "Industry has not been entirely inactive in the prevention of water pollution." He states that, "In 23 States there are a total of 523 industrial waste-treatment plants of various types, providing varying degrees of treatment for a large number of different classes of industrial wastes." The investment by industry in pollution-prevention works in the States, according to Mr. Crohurst, is approximately $25,000,000. Mr. Abel Wolman, chairman of the Water Resources Commitee of the National Resources Committee, has ventured the statement that "to correct the domestic sewage treatment problem alone would cost in the neighborhood of $1,000,000,000 for installation of plants." There is little doubt, according to Mr. Wolman, that it would require anywhere from 2 to 10 times the figure for domestic sewage to cover the cost of industrial waste treatment. To these estimates should be added annual operating costs which make up a significant portion of the total financial load on the public. RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES It is not intended here to present details concerning the various froms of stream pollution, but rather to point out the national and local sides of this particular water problem. Pollution in some instances concerns more than one community and may even concern several States. This fact, plus extensive Federal financing through loans and grants under the emergency program for sewerage systems and sewage treatment works, is responsible for a considerable demand that the Federal Government should now assume responsibility for controlling stream pollution, and consequently bearing the greater part of the cost. There are bills befor Congress that embody sweeping proposals giving a Federal agency responsibility for initiation, execution, and administration of a national program dealing with pollution. Under one of these the country would be divided into several samtary districts. The Federal agency would be authorized to establish standards of purity and rules for the districts gov erning the discharge of sewage and industrial waste into navigable water, or into any stream that drains into navigable waters, and for the enforcement of those rules. These districts would receive loans and grants of Federal funds under such terms and conditions as the Federal agency would prescribe. Considering pollution control from the standpoint of the best policy, it appears obvious that local interest is paramount, and that any appreciable degree of control from Washington would only stifle that local interest. The time when a community's sewage disposal becomes a matter of public concern depends upon a combination of circumstances, most of which are local. Incorporated communities have debt limitations which might easily prevent them from financing sewage-disposal works that would be necessary to comply with some arbitrary law of general application. Communities depend upon their industries for subsistence and growth. To authorize some Federal bureau to dictate when, where, and how industries shall be located and operated, whenever the possibility of stream pollution is a factor, would seriously restrict the opportunity for development which every community should enjoy. To make general rules regarding waste disposal that do not take into consideration local economic factors would in many instances create serious local economic loss. In England, the general rule or blanket method was tried. That it was not successful in the opinion of Mr. Wolman is apparent from the following quotation from his paper before the recent North American Wild Life Conference, held in Washington, February 3 to 7, 1936. "Many laymen frequently point to the experience of England as an example of success in water-pollution control. The facts, however, point to the contrary. Prohibition of discharge of sewage was the earliest expedient tried in England. It was a complete failure. This was later followed by the effort to impose a universal form of treatment on all discharges. For obvious technical reasons this likewise failed. The third step in England's effort to relieve the problem was to place river drainage areas under control of continuing administrative bodies. The experience has been favorable, but none too rapid. The problem plagues them today. "Even in England where States' rights did not add an additional problem as in this country, the correction of water pollution has not proceeded with any too striking advantage. What little evidence may be gathered from the English experience points in the direction of avoidance of statutory blanket regulation. It retarded rather than hastened the elimination of domestic and industrial wastes." The difficulties experienced by England would be accentuated here because of State political boundaries and also because of the relatively large area of some of our drainage basins. The Ohio River Basin, for example, is 30 times the size of the Thames Basin. There is opportunity as well as need for a greater local interest in the subject of stream pollution. In the very nature of the problem, pollution control is inseparable from, and made necessary by, such water resource problems as municipal water supply, recreation, wildlife, rural, and agricultural water supply and navigation. These give rise to a series of competitive demands, most of which are local and can best be reconciled through local control. The injurious effects of stream pollution need greater publicity. The value of a much wider protection of the quality of water in our streams needs a larger place in the public's attention. Furthermore, existing State agencies need larger financial support, and, in many instances, additional State agencies are needed, with ample authority and financial support to carry on the work of stream purification. This need, however, can best be met when supported by a virile local interest in the subject. The interest taken by the States in the pollution question and in the measures and activities to meet it has varied greatly. Among the States that are recognized as having made such progress in this matter are Maryland, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. There naturally arise situations where a successful solution of a pollution problem requires the joint action of two or more States through mutual agreements. The efforts of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania are an example. Wisconsin and Minnesota present another, while still another is found in the cooperative action of the Great Lakes States. It may be desirable that Congress should recognize this type of agreement in which the Federal Government might well be a party to the compact (as was the case in the Colorado River compact). The opportunity for coordinated action between the Federal Government, the States, and the localities in meeting the pollution problem is everywhere recognized, as is the fact that the Federal Government is in position to render valuable aid in gathering essential information and encouraging action by the States and localities. Existing Federal agencies have, in the past, contributed to the prevention of stream pollution through their scientific investigations, such as have been carried on, for example, by the United States Public Health Service. This agency has authority to study and investigate health conditions, including sanitation and sewage, and the pollution either directly or indirectly of the navigable streams and lakes of the United States. This work has been carried on along rather distinct lines. First, the pollution of coastal waters has been studied with special reference to contamination of oyster beds; second, the treatment of sewage and industrial waste was considered; and, third, the pollution problems of the Ohio Diver was extensively studied, this stream having been selected because it presents a fair composite of the problems encountered in any study of stream pollution. The work on the Ohio River resulted in the establishment of definite quantitative relationships between 'the pollution of the steam and the basic factors-population, waste, stream flow, and temperature. This kind of Federal assistance is desirable, especially where much original work, the results of which may have rather wide application, is necessary. What the Public Health Service, and possibly other established Federal agencies, need to expedite their research work is ample financial support rather than more new laws. POLICIES For two very distinct reasons we are of the opinion that this great undertaking of preventing and controlling stream pollution is not properly one for the Federal Government. In the first place, by leaving responsibility upon the States and communities there will be best recognition of local economic needs, and encouragement of initiative, efficiency and economy in planning, executing and administering projects. Thereby is preserved, also, the integrity of local government. Aside from the fundamental principles just mentioned, efficient policing is dependent upon local sentiment and local enforcement. In the second place, if the Federal Government assumes the responsibility for meeting the Nation's pollution problem, it will surely be called upon as a permanent policy to pay the entire expense. As a matter of permanent policy we cannot see why the Federal Government should pay all or part of projects that are so peculiarly local in character. There is such urgent need of economy in Federal expenditure in order that progress may be made toward a balanced national budget that the emergency policies of Federal contributions should be abandoned. Our conclusions are that Pollution control, because it is essentially a local problem, should be dealt with by the individual States and communities, or where two or more States are concerned, by compacts. The policy of Federal contribution for pollution-control projects applied during the emergency should be abandoned at the earliest practicable time. States should enact appropriate laws for dealing with pollution through agencies vested with authority to program, authorize, enforce and administer suitable regulation, In all governmental activities with respect to pollution, there should be full opportunity for local industrial representation and participation. X |