HOUSING ACT OF 1954

Air Pollution Prevention Amendment

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1954

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON Banking anD CURRENCY,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:20 a. m., in room 301, Senate Office Building, Senator Homer E. Capehart (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Capehart and Goldwater.

Also present: Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of California.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

We will resume the hearings which we recessed yesterday morning on the smoke elimination and air pollution amendment.

Our first witness-and let me say coauthor of the amendment with myself-is Senator Kuchel from California. Senator, we are delighted to have you. Why don't you proceed in any way you care to? STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. KUCHEL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in coming here today, I desire to express not only my own appreciation, but that of many groups and agencies in California for the opportunity to urge legislation that will give an impetus to and supplement the varied efforts of local governments, civic organizations, and industries to overcome the vexatious problem of air pollution.

Because this smog problem is complicated, I have been very happy to join with the chairman of this committee, Senator Capehart of Indiana, in sponsoring the proposals now before the committee.

I should like to make a general statement on the seriousness of this problem which is becoming more and more acute in many metropolitan areas throughout the country. With me today are officials from southern California and others who as witnesses will go into detail about the extent of this problem, the activities and measures in progress to reduce if not eliminate the costly and dangerous hazard to the health and welfare of our people and to both the growth and the economic development of our cities, and the mounting damage to agriculture, properties, and even day-to-day affairs.

As most of you undoubtedly are aware, air pollution-generally referred to as smog-has become a matter of great concern in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and is of growing concern to the areas of San Diego and San Francisco. A variety of bold steps have been

taken to counter the problem and at every level our citizens are facing this threat to their happiness and well-being.

ORIGIN OF PROBLEM

Smog is no new phenomenon. Back in the Middle Ages, London first became alarmed about the serious consequences of contaminated air. But, in the last few years, growth of industry and the rapid expansion of major cities have caused public officials and civic leaders to begin measuring the cost of atmospheric pollution which has a wide range of consequences.

With the concentration of people in large communities, we have appreciated the need for joint efforts to solve problems which the bringing together of large masses of workers and residents inevitably brings into existence. One of these problems, and one that nobody denies justifies substantial expenditures, is the collection and treatment of sewage. To safeguard the health of the Nation, to prevent destruction of natural resources, and to avert deterioration of our communities, elaborate systems have been laid out and built to gather and render harmless and less offensive wastes from industries, homes, and office buildings that used to flow into our streams. Disposal of garbage and trash in most communities is a municipal function made necessary to protect health and prevent unsightly situations that destroy property values.

Air pollution cannot be overcome by the same methods. Yet it is just as vital to check and then correct contamination of the atmosphere as it is to dispose of sewage, garbage, and trash in an effective manner.

Because the smog problem is complicated, I have been happy to join in sponsoring the proposals before you. This legislation calls for a three-pronged attack, and I feel is very pertinent to the deliberations of your committee. If we are to encourage more homebuilding and halt deterioration of neighborhoods liable to become slums, it is only logical to take and to encourage action that will lead to better environments in which our people live and work.

ATTACKS ON PROBLEM

As for the problem in Los Angeles which has become so widely known, our people are not asking the Federal Government to take on responsibility for its solution. They already have undertaken energetically and with determination programs that call for substantial expenditures of money and human effort. The California Legislature paved the way several years ago by forming an air pollution control district now policing the metropolitan area, investigating causes of air pollution, studying remedial measures. Our leading industries are participating vigorously; one in particular, oil producing and refining, has already spent over $15 million to control and reduce pollutants and in addition spent $1,250,000 for what then was called the most extensive and expensive research program ever undertaken. The aid of automobile designers and manufacturers has been enlisted in the hope of preventing more contamination of the atmosphere by the growing number of motor vehicles.

However, these efforts must be supplemented by help and encouragement from the Federal Government. Education and persuasion alone

will not solve the problem. Adoption and enforcement of regulations and ordinances are only a partial answer to the question of how we are going to clean up our atmosphere. Closing of industries would upset our economy drastically, and dispersal would bring at best only temporary relief and be exceedingly costly.

The damages from smog are so great they cannot be computed. No one knows the toll in the way of infection of humans. Agriculture has suffered greatly-the loss to crops in the Los Angeles area during one short period of serious smog last year was figured at $500,000and properties of all kinds, homes and automobiles and clothing, are affected.

PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT

All three phases of the proposed legislation will be of great value in furthering the attack against air pollution.

When we require industries to cut the output of smoke and fumes, we force them to make substantial outlays for equipment and construction changes. Floating roofs on oil storage tanks, precipitators for exhaust stacks, and intricate apparatus are very expensive. One feature of the legislation would permit accelerated depreciation of these capital expenditures. And I know many small industries, of which we have thousands in my State, cannot put out the money required to comply with antismog regulations unless they get help in the shape of tax relief.

The granting and insuring of loans for structural changes and new devices that will reduce the seriousness of air contamination is essential to encourage and make possible cooperation by homeowners and builders. In many communities, residences with furnaces that burn coal or oil contribute fumes and particles that could be reduced, if not eliminated, so the provisions of this legislation dealing with loans and insurance would provide practical assistance to property owners and further the efforts of local agencies of government.

The section of the legislation authorizing research and investigation is desirable to bring together the results of work previously and currently being done by Federal authorities and others and to make possible new programs that hold hope of showing the way for more effective results in reducing and wiping out air pollution. As evidence that the Federal Government is not being asked to do the entire job, I should like to mention that in Los Angeles there is just getting underway an ambitious and promising areometric survey by the Southern California Air Pollution Foundation recently set up with the backing of governmental bodies, industry, and civic groups.

The proposed legislation which I earnestly urge this committee to include in the new housing bill has been endorsed by several public agencies in California which feel it will promote efforts to deal with the smog problem. I should like to call your attention to the fact that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors only a week ago unanimously urged Congress to enact such a measure. Earlier the tax features allowing fast amortization of antismog expenditures was advocated by the Legislature of the State of California and the League of California Cities.

Before you hear the California witnesses who have come here to discuss these proposals, I want to tell the committee that I am deeply

44750-54-pt. 2- 6

grateful you are giving comprehensive consideration to this situation that has been plaguing our city, county, and State governments, private industry, and business organizations, and scientific institutions. In taking up these proposals and hearing testimony, you are giving badly needed encouragement to worried and perplexed officials and citizens who, I am sure, appreciate your interest.

Mr. Chairman, I don't care whether it is called smog as it is in California, or smaze as the New York newspapers referred to it when pictures on all their front pages some weeks ago indicated the same type of pollution which overcame the community. I do suggest to this committee it is in no sense a local matter. It is a matter for concern to all sections of the country, and the fact that you, as an able Representative of the State of Indiana, and I have joined in sponsoring in this legislation, I think, is some indication in proof of that fact.

I want for the record to offer a copy of a resolution of the legislative branch of the government of California, and ask you now to hear three representatives of the political divisions in California, the first of whom is a former member of the House of Representatives, now the mayor of the city of Los Angeles, the Honorable Norris Poulson, whom I would like to present to you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the joint resolution of the California General Assembly will be printed in the record. (The resolution referred to follows:)

CHAPTER

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. 6-MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO ENACT S. 2938 AND S. 3115, RELATIVE TO AIR-POLLUTION CONTROL

WHEREAS There is pending before the Congress of the United States S. 2938 and S. 3115 relative to air-pollution control facilities and research in the field of air pollution; and

WHEREAS S. 3115 would provide for a 60-month rapid amortization for tax purposes of facilities constructed by private industry for the control of air pollution; and

WHEREAS S. 2938, in addition to the accelerated writeoff provision, also would authorize insurance of loans to corporations or individuals to construct or install air-pollution control facilities and an appropriation for research in the field of air-pollution control; and

WHEREAS Air pollution creates blight, deters development of homesites and home building, contributes to the production of slums, injures health, damages and destroys crops, and is a hazard to the well-being of any community; and WHEREAS Both the industries and local governmental agencies of California, which create part of the problem of air pollution and whose interests are adversely affected by air pollution, are in agreement regarding the necessity for construction of air-pollution control facilities and equipment and for research in the field of air-pollution control; and

WHEREAS It is becoming increasingly difficult for private industry to finance construction of these facilities since most such devices are nonproductive, and it may be necessary to restrict industrial production at a time when added production is essential to the economic stability of the Country: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California (jointly), That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully memorializes the Congress of the United States to enact S. 2938 and S. 3115; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly is hereby directed to transmit copies of this resolution to the Chairmen of the Senate Committees on Banking and Currency and Finance and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mayor, we are delighted to see you.

STATEMENT OF NORRIS POULSON, MAYOR, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mayor POULSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my experience in Congress has taught me that you want to be concise in what you have to say. Therefore, I am going to ask that while submitting my statement for the record, I am likewise submitting a statement by Mr. Charles Bennett, the director of planning of the city of Los Angeles, in which he has very ably brought out the matters under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Mr. Bennett's statement will be printed in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. BENNETT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ON AIR POLLUTION AND HOUSING

Of all the many conditions which tend to create slums and blighted neighborhoods, air pollution is one of the foremost. Air pollution includes such factors as smoke, dust, odors, gases, and related airborne irritants. The term "smog" is generally applied to this condition, especially in those areas such as Los Angeles where these irritants combine with fog to form the dirty, grayish-brown mixture becoming all to familiar during certain months of the year.

Air pollution is ordinarily most acute and noticeable in the areas immediately surrounding large industrial establishments; particularly those which do considerable burning in their operations and expel both smoke and gases. Housing in or adjacent to these districts deteriorates rapidly, and soon drops into the blighted or slum category. People who are able to move out; vacancies occur; the property return diminishes; the owners fail to maintain the structures, and the housing gets worse and worse.

Studies of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission reveal that the worst of the blighted housing in the city closely parallels the location of the principal industrial districts. These are the districts where, as previously mentioned, there is the greatest predominance of air pollution and "smog." The elimination of this nuisance would not in itself eliminate the slums, but it would certainly improve the existing situation by removing one of the most annoying and unhealthy conditions. Many other steps are presently being taken to rehabilitate the blighted neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Our first community redevelopment project presently under consideration involves the removal of blighted housing from an industrial district. The encouragement of the installation of smog abatement equipment would be another significant move in the right direction. Of even greater concern than the physical housing is the health of the people. Air pollution is a health menace. It adversely affects the environment of a neighborhood, making it less and less desirable in which to live. At a national air pollution symposium held in Pasadena in 1949, Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, M. D., director of the Kettering Laboratory of Applied Physiology at the University of Cincinnati, stated:

"The experience of urban communities *** has demonstrated that the pollution of the atmoshpere with airborne industrial wastes *** is capable of causing respiratory irritation and distress on the part of large proportion of the residents and * * * fatalities among the older segment of the population with special reference to those afflicted with cardiorespiratory impairment."

In 1951, the county board of supervisors made a survey among the members of the Los Angeles County Medical Association. Of the 2,803 replies received, 2,561, or over 90 percent, said that smog definitely affects health in some fashion. The majority agreed that the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs were most generally affected, but many included such other bodily functions as nervous system, heart, liver, teeth, and many others.

Health department records reveal that the incidence of tuberculosis is greater in the blighted than in the good areas of the city. Air pollution in the blighted districts undoubtedly is a contributing factor.

The foregoing data tend to substantiate the fact that air pollution is generally most severe within and adjacent to heavy industrial districts, and that air pollu