The matter of feasibility of the estuary as a supply source appears to rest primarily on water quality considerations. The salt-water front, even during drought conditions, appears to remain well below the vicinity of Washington. There are indications, however, that tidal action even in the upper reaches of the estuary may carry and disperse pollutants some distances upstream from their source. This is independent of the upstream movement of pollutants that would be induced by water withdrawal from the head of the estuary. No "in-depth" study of the hydraulics of the lower Potomac River has ever been undertaken by the Department or by any other Federal agency.

It is impossible, of course, to consider any program for protecting the water supply of the Washington Metropolitan area without considering quality as well as quantity. Secretary Hickel recognizes this relationship and he has committed the Department to an all-out effort to enhance and protect quality of the Potomac River's water resources. The Department has taken several significant steps to insure the future quality of the Potomac both in the Washington Metropolitan area and in the upper basin. Meetings have been held with the Maryland water pollution control agencies to insure that the aluminum smelter under construction at Dickeytown, Maryland, will not add significantly to present levels of pollution.

The interstate commission on the Potomac River Basin has been asked to document pollution control efforts, particularly in the upper basin. We are informed that public hearings have been arranged and that recognition is being given to the fact that upper basin communities and industries influence the quality of water in the Washington area. The Washington Metropolitan area pollution abatement conference was reconvened in April and May. The conference adopted, and Secretary Hickel approved, a series of recommendations calling for the virtual reclamation of all wastes in the Washington Metropolitan area. A progress meeting on that ambitious program will be held in November.

I have attempted in this prepared statement to give a factual recitation of current water supply conditions in the Potomac River and specific actions by the Department with respect to pollution control. Recognizing that there are other aspects of the Potomac River situation as related to the Department of the Interior, I would be very happy to answer any questions which the Committee would care to ask and to give the Committee the benefit of the technical knowledge of the Interior Department representatives who have accompanied me here today.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I would be interested in the comments and reaction of Mr. Jensen and others on the feasibility of the upper reaches of the Potomac estuary as a source of water on a continuing basis rather than just an emergency basis.

Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, there are two factors that have to be considered in that. One of these is chloride. This is the salt that moves up the Potomac estuary from the Atlantic Ocean through the Chesapeake Bay. If one pumps a very large quantity of water out of the upper estuary, this salinity of the salt will intrude up the river and eventually the river would reach a point where it would be too salty

to use.

We have constructed a hydraulic model, rather a mathematic model of the upper portion of the estuary, which tends to confirm the findings of Mr. Fosdick, that is that substantial quantities of the water could be removed and could be used.

The second factor is that of sanitary quality. The Potomac, as you very well know, is grossly polluted at the present time. Much of this is in the vicinity of Blue Plains and below the Blue Plains outfall.

I believe that the figures that have been given are probably correct, that short term, this 50 million gallons per day could be removed. On a longer term basis, of course, these pollutants would move up toward this new water intake, and it would be necessary that we get a very,

very high level of waste treatment in the Washington metropolitan area if there is to be substantial and continued reuse of water.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean a higher level of treatment than you have received to date?

Mr. JENSEN. A much higher level than we have now. That level which is recommended by the Potomac Enforcement Conference would suffice.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I interpret you properly to say the proper utilization of water in the years ahead to provide adequate water supply for the citizens of suburban Washington will require a much higher standard of sewage treatment in the Washington suburban as well as the Washington, D.C., area than is presently taking place?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir; it would require a level at least equal to that recommended by the Potomac Enforcement Conference.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is?

Mr. JENSEN. That is essentially total renovation of the Washington area waste.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, do you have any comments on my question?

Mr. SMITH. Only that tied into it is the psychological factor of whether the residents of America would accept that much reuse of effluent, that much reuse of water.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean with relationship to pumping from the upper estuary?

Mr. SMITH. With relationship to the total reuse of the waters of the estuary under the treatment conditions which have just been cited by Mr. Jensen.

I cite that only as a possible psychological barrier, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Psychological barrier?

Mr. SMITH. To that type of reuse of the waters of the estuary over a long period of time.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have to use water in the upper estuary as an emergency source now? It would seem to me it would be better as an emergency source if it were cleaner than it is now.

Mr. SMITH. Unquestionably, that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. During the past 3 years the Department of the Interior was a lead agency in the departmental task force established to make public model scenic and recreation values for the Nation. Does the task force still exist?

Mr. SMITH. The task force has not been reactivated under this administration.

The CHAIRMAN. So the Department of the Interior is not leading, if it has not been reactivated.

Mr. SMITH. The Department of the Interior is very anxious to take its role in the protection and in the development of solving of the problems of the Potomac River.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, who is taking the lead? What do you do, just drop the whole project? What has happened to it? What has happened to the departmental task force project which we worked on for 3 years to make the Potomac a model river basin?

What has happened to the task force? What has happened to the project? What has happened to everything?

Mr. SMITH. Within the Department of the Interior there has been continuing discussion of the role that we should assume in connection with the Potomac. As far as working with the other agencies, which I understand are involved in it, to my knowledge there have been no meetings of the task force since the new administration.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Secretary Hickel just going to drop this whole Potomac project?

Mr. SMITH. Definitely not.

The CHAIRMAN. What then is he going to do about it? He has been Secretary of the Interior for 5 months.

Mr. SMITH. This is one of the reasons we were anxious to appear before the committee to determine the desires of Congress in that connection.

The CHAIRMAN. I think if Secretary Hickel is just going to drop 3 years of work and drop the Potomac Interdepartmental Task Force, and completely drop the Department's leading role, he is letting the Nation down. He is certainly letting down the people who live in this region. I think it would be a great mistake and you could at least infer the thoughts of one Senator, I do not know how Senator Mathias feels but I think the task force is necessary, I think interdepartmental cooperation is necessary, and to just let 3 years of work drop does not make good sense.

Mr. SMITH. There is no intention of that, Mr. Chairman. The Secretary has been briefed on it in detail. There have been interdepartmental discussions.

The CHAIRMAN. You just said you had not had a single meeting with any of the other departments since the new administration went in. I mean, if he dropped it, you have dropped it. If you dropped it, you dropped it.

Did the task force recommend any immediate steps which you are taking? I know we have got the report. Now, what steps have Secretary Hickel and the Department of the Interior taken to implement the recommendations of the report.

Mr. SMITH. Part of my statement included what steps have been taken under the water pollution control recommendations of the task force. I think some of these other gentlemen who are here today could indicate some of the other activities which have also taken place since that task force report was published.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the position of your Department now on the Potomac National River bill?

Mr. SMITH. The studies that have led to the preparation of the proposal for the Potomac National River are still under review in the administration.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not taken a position one way or the other?

Mr. SMITH. The recommendations are still being worked on at the staff level; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the bill; was it not drafted and presented by a number of us as a result of your Department's official report on the Potomac, entitled, "The Potomac, The Nation's River"? And isn't it recommended in there?

Mr. SMITH. I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that that document is a document of the former administration, and I should like to

point out as a matter of policy that a thorough review of those recommendations has not been made by the administration, and there may be some things in there which we do not find are appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN. I gather you have dropped the entire task force idea on the Potomac

Mr. SMITH. I think it is perfectly evident the Secretary of the Interior has made his position very clear on his interest in the Potomac, the pollution aspect of it, on making it the Nation's river, and to preserve its inherent historic value. There have been utterances by the Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. I know there have been a lot of nice words and we love to hear them, but we would like a little bit of action.

The administration has been in there 7 months and you cannot yet determine whether or not you want to endorse a proposal which the Department of the Interior made a year ago. Well, October 1968, almost a year ago. How long is it going to take before you decide whether or not you are going to endorse it or not?

If you are opposed to it, we ought to know it.

Mr. SMITH. I did not say that. I do not think that inference should be drawn at all

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, you know this Potomac River is one of our national treasures. We consider it more than just a river. And I know you are busy in the Department of the Interior and you have a lot of things to do, but the Potomac is very important, it is particularly important to those who live in this Washington suburban area.

Mr. SMITH. We agree, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So I would certainly appreciate it if you would give your attention to this whole area and the problem of our river.

Congress is almost, legislative days wise, halfway over. If we are going to move on that bill, we ought to know the administration's position.

Mr. SMITH. I will check into the position of that bill within the Department.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you would be very helpful.

Senator Mathias, do you have any questions?

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate Secretary Smith's attitude, that he is here to find out what the Congress has in mind for the Potomac River, so that the Department of the Interior can cooperate in developing a coordinated plan.

I have some very definite, very positive ideas about that.

Now, Mr. Secretary, I deplore as much as the Chairman deplores the lack of action. I do not know that we can lay too much at the doorsteps of the new hands of the Interior Department all of the blame. We have gone only 7 months, not only 7 months, but a good many years without accomplishing goals that have been set there.

And it would rejoice my heart if within the next 7 months we would really do something, because it has been far too long.

In my lifetime I have seen the Potomac deteriorate and deteriorate and deteriorate. I am interested in a quantitative figure which you cite in your statement, I am concerned by the fact of what you say about the qualitative steps being taken to protect the river seem to be futuristic.

What year was it when we enacted the Water Pollution Control Act? Was it 1964 or 1965 ?

The CHAIRMAN. 1965, and the Water Quality Act was 1966, and this year the authorization is a billion dollars and the request for funding is $214 million. That is about the same as last year.

Senator MATHIAS. That is precisely the point I am getting to, Mr. Chairman. What were the goals for fiscal 1970, and how close to those goals are we?

This is not a question of assigning blame or pointing a finger, it is a question of trying to get a job done. I think it would be very helpful to us to have some sort of a box score as to where we are, and as to whether or not we could not give higher priorities than have been given to the programs for the Potomac.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the Senator is right. I think we ought to know.

It would be helpful to know where Congress has fallen down.

For instance, on the appropriations, and not coming through, and I think it would be helpful for the people in the region to know what has to be done in the way of sewage treatment.

I think one of the reasons why I was concerned with the task force report is that somebody has got to be in there leading or otherwise nothing is going to happen. Somebody has to be out there banging away and getting the facts to the people. That is why I think it is so important to have strong leadership. As it was, at least during the last 3 years, we did something legislatively, we funded it and got going. Now, I hope we do not drop that ball and lose what little momentum we had. The Congress ought to be brought to task where we had not done what we should.

Senator MATHIAS. That is absolutely right. The job is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and more difficult to do, because we are letting it slide.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Senator MATHIAS. Now, if that is the fault of everybody concerned, well, then, everybody has got to help bear the burden of responsibility and turn the tide here.

For instance, one of your basic qualitative problems originates with mine acids in western Maryland. There is a recent report which summarizes current research on mine drainage. There is an indication from this report, and I wonder if this is correct, that the Department is not supporting any efforts in western Maryland to reduce or minimize or eliminate the damage from mine acids getting to the Potomac.

Mr. SMITH. I have discussed this with Secretary Klein, and he is very concerned with it and I think on specifics, you may have more details than I do.

Mr. JENSEN. Sir, I believe that we have much of the existing technology that is needed to manage these problems of acid mine drainage. I met last week, last Monday, with representatives of the Maryland Department of Water Resources and with the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Agency, to discuss a specific action program for the north branch of the Potomac. One of the first things we have to do is find out exactly where these mine drainage sources are and how much comes out of them. There are thousands of them up there.