Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

approximately. I will get the correct figures, but we authorized $1, $2, and $3 million, and finally last year built up to $5 million.

Mr. MOSHER. And, you are asking for $50 million now?

Mr. BLATNIK. Right.

Mr. MOSHER. That would be a very significant increase. A lot of work could be done for that amount of money.

Mr. BLATNIK. That is right.

Mr. DADDARIO. We will be having Dr. Weinberger, who was Assistand Commissioner for Research and Development for that program before us on the 27th of July and we can go into that program with him.

Mr. MOSHER. One other clarification, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Blatnik alluded to one of the Great Lakes which he said was dying. I assume he is referring to Lake Erie.

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOSHER. Lake Erie is in my domain, and somehow I shudder at the use of the word, "dying." I think that is a little exaggeration. Nevertheless, it is a serious problem and what is going on there is very bad. You said there is a rough estimate that it would cost a billion dollars to reverse that process in Lake Erie.

Can you give me a specific reference to that estimate?

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. It would involve-these are preliminary, sort of somewhat speculative, but fairly accurate in dredging the sludge out of the bottom and getting the gook in fluid to settle to the bottom. The gook is settling and slowly moving up and that's why it is dying, and no oxygen-fresh water being lighter like milk being over cream merely floats like a saucer floating maybe 50 or 60 feet deep. So, the fresh water goes down into the Niagara and Ontario and so on, but whereas this gook getting higher and higher, inching up and over a few years you will have a dead lake on your hands. The process is getting worse year by year.

Mr. MOSHER. It is a very serious matter. Can you give me a specific reference to someone who has proposed this means of cleaning up the lake that you suggested?

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.

Mr. MOSHER. I would like to get that.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Jones tells me there is a survey resolution perhaps before this subcommittee, the resolution itself calling for a study of the problem. The study itself will cost $5 million. We will also get you the sort of preliminary information and judgment available now from the Corps of Engineers, and water pollution abatement people.

Mr. MOSHER. I'm going to ask the committee staff to get this information for me. There are several studies going on already as you know. (Information separately provided to Mr. Mosher.) Mr. DADDARIO. Any further questions, gentlemen?

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank and congratulate Mr. Blatnik for being our leadoff witness this morning. We are talking specifically now about water pollution in which he is more than well informed. I think he has set the stage for us to think in big terms about pollution abatement. I don't think anybody claims that we have the adequate technology now for the pollution

abatement in the area of water pollution or any other particular area. I completely agree with him that there is no reason or excuse to accept the status quo if we are going to even think about today much less tomorrow. He has certainly done more than his part to awaken people to the perils of all kinds of pollution. His committee has finally, I think, awakened the Congress to the needs of the country in water pollution. I just have one comment and that is that we in Congress and the people in the country have accepted Federal and joint programs wherein we can build water resource projects and watershed projects, but we have not given the proper attention to these God-given streams and lakes that have been ours through the years. We are more interested in developing new projects than we are in preserving and maintaining for future generations those which have been with us all the while.

So, I think that Mr. Blatnik has brought to this committee the leadership he has been exercising in his own committee through the

years.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Vivian?

Mr. VIVIAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has touched upon quite a number of items, some of very great interest in my own district. Lake Erie borders my district. The "deadest" part of Lake Erie lies just off of the shores in my district.

The comment you made that the layers of water below the surface of Lake Erie are growing increasingly stagnant, is most pertinent. When strong winds blow in from the east toward the beaches in my district, the beaches become littered with various and sundry forms of marine growth and sludge from the lower levels of the lake. Even on quiet days, the water is turbid. Along the beaches signs are posted year after year saying "Not safe for swimming."

Now the question which I really want to get to is what will it cost to clean this vast lake and its neighbors, and how can we reduce that cost by intelligent actions now? According to an estimate made for me by competent persons from Federal agencies, it will cost approximately $5 billion over the next 20 years to clean up Lake Erie. Part of these funds will be used for replacement of wornout sewage treatment facilities, and part for installation of new facilities. Extended to all the Great Lakes, the estimate was some $20 billion; extended to the entire Nation, the estimate rose to about $100 billion, an enormous sum. But, as you pointed out, that amount is comparable to the $40 billion we have spent on roads in the last decade, so the total cost and the rate are not at all unreasonable, in terms of our capabilities.

Now, let me ask, is there any evidence available to your committee that this great sum could be reduced to a more nominal figure by any research now in progress? Such as, for example, the research underway on the powdered coal sewage treatment process? I understand that the optimistic proponents of this process expect to reduce the cost of treatment of sewer wastes to about half; conversely, detractors dispute that claim, and argue that little or no money will be saved. Mr. BLATNIK. That is the expected gain, and the laboratory model suggests that reduction would be correct, but to prove it out, you have to build what we call demonstration or semicommercial or pilot models, larger models. You have a continuous flow and much larger

scale, then you can refine your figures as to cost more accurately and quite often they are quite a bit different than what happens on a laboratory model.

Also, it just won't work on that large scale. But, you have to get into that expensive effort to prove out because anything can be a massive program. You can't build highways or do thermonuclear stuff or space program on a small scale, so this too will be a billion dollar scale.

to

Mr. VIVIAN. One of the communities in my district is very deeply interested in this powdered coal process. They and I have had many, many talks with engineers on the subject. The savings expected seem grow less as the conversions go on. But, I think it is pertinent to point out that, considering that the potential cost of the total program will be something like $100 billion over the next generation, even a 10-percent savings through improvement such as the coal process may offer, could save us $10 billion, an amount enormously greater than the amount we are talking about for research.

Let me turn to another question.

Many of us are aware that much of the water used in the United States are used simply for transportation. It is a convenient fluid in which to move various materials, from paper pulp to human waste.

In coastal areas, conceivably we could use ocean water for many such purposes, rather than wasting river water. Has your committee given any consideration to installing supplementary salt water distribution lines in coastal areas?

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. I believe Mr. Jones of Alabama, who will follow me, will discuss that subject.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Ryan?

Mr. RYAN. I would like to join with my colleagues in commending Mr. Blatnik for his very splendid statement before the committee this morning and his great experience and devotion to this cause. He is certainly one of the leaders in the country in this whole question of pollution abatement. I believe with Congressman Vivian and Congressman Waggonner that we must recognize that this is an area where we must pool our resources if we are to meet with this problem. Congressman Blatnik has been one bringing this to public attention over a period of time.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Conable?

Mr. CONABLE. I would like to thank Mr. Blatnik, too. I would like to follow up on some of the implications of what Mr. Vivian asked. As I see it, we have two problems. One is the problem of developing techniques and the other is the problem of investing the money in the necessary capital equipment to carry out and to exploit these techniques.

Now, apparently your committee feels that we need a substantially increased outlay on research at this point in the development of new techniques. Is there an implication that we should go a little slower in investing in the pollution hardware so to speak, before we are sure that we have arrived at the best techniques available? I feel the American people want something done now.

They are concerned about pollution as its exists right now, and yet apparently we have been neglecting the scientific aspects of pollution control and thought in terms only of existing techniques.

Now, what about the time table on this? What about the priorities. Do you have from your prospective as chairman of your subcommittee, any words of advice for us on this?

Are we ready to go ahead with a massive expenditure on water pollution or should we make our massive expenditures in research first? Mr. BLATNIK. It won't be quite that precise. It won't be like starting a race where you shoot a pistol and you are off to the race of a massive program. No. 1, you are spending on municipal waste alone about three-quarters of a billion dollars a year now on some Federal grants and primarily municipal grants, so you are already in the billion dollar range now and the spending will continue if nothing is done by the way of further research.

For instance, you don't hold back from buying new automobiles this year because 3 years from now a new jet-type automobile might come out. See, the need is there, and with more and more enforcement on the State and certainly the Federal level, whatever means are available for pollution abatement will have to be put into

use.

They may not be the best but they are the best we have, so the current facilities will be continued right along. We hope to greatly accelerate research and better refined methods on the continuing

program.

Mr. DADDARIO. The point you made earlier is that increased public awareness would allow us to use some of the techniques available to us now which are not being used.

Mr. BLATNIK. That is right.

Mr. DADDARIO. And, you go from there into more sophisticated areas of research over a period of time.

Any further questions, gentlemen?

Mr. Blatnik, thank you. We are pleased you took the time to come. Mr. Jones?

Our next witness is Congressman Robert E. Jones, Jr., from Alabama, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power of the Government Operations Committee.

He is well known to our committee because he represents the Huntsville area and therefore has been extremely close to us over the course of years. He has been in Connecticut as chairman of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power, holding hearings on occasion, calling attention to the people of my State of the importance of natural resources and power. We in Connecticut, are appreciative, Mr. Jones, of the work you have done in that area and the help you have been to us and to the entire country. I am sure that Mr. Roush, who was on that subcommittee, would like to say something further.

Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in welcoming one of my other subcommittee chairman to this committee and as a participant in these hearings. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity for several years now to serve under the leadership of our colleague from Alabama, Mr. Jones. Those years, for the most part, have been devoted to one of the subjects we are dealing with here today,

namely, the question of water pollution. Under Mr. Jones' leadership we have held hearings all over the country in such locations as Seattle, Austin, Chicago, Trenton, Hartford, Muscle Shoals, and here in Washington. On Friday of this week we go to Rochester, Toledo, and then to Syracuse. I'm sure that this committee will benefit greatly from the experience that Mr. Jones has had as the chairman of the subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power of the House Committee on Government Operations.

He is wise and knowledgeable on this subject, and I am delighted that he has voluntarily appeared before this committee to testify today.

Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Mr. Roush.

Mr. JONES. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Jones; please proceed.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ROBERT E. JONES, JR., CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND POWER, GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Roush and Mr. Blatnik, I don't believe a word that you said, but I would have been terribly disappointed had you not said it. It's a little bit refreshing, Mr. Roush, when you said invited to this committee; an invitation is a command, I'll assure you, sir. As the chairman has stated as long as Huntsville is involved in the space program to the extent it is, and I feel like probably this statement is sufficient and I should take my leave because I see with the interrogation that is taken place, people like Mr. Roush who are far more knowledgeable than I, are going to put me to task. I was pleased particularly, Mr. Chairman to hear your opening statement because it was exciting, it was a challenge to the committee, the subcommittee in exploring every possible potential of research and technical advancement in the water pollution field.

I am delighted to be here today to discuss some of the problems of water pollution control and abatement with particular emphasis on the vital role of research and development.

Your subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, is performing a signal service for the Nation through its study of the application of science and technology to the national program of water pollution control and abatement problem. You are getting at the heart of the critical problem which we face.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power, I have been in close touch with developments in the water pollution field. Our Nation today faces a water shortage-a shortage of usable, clean water. Water pollution has become the Nation's single most desperate natural resources problem.

This pollution threatens the public health, jeopardizes our water supplies, destroys aquatic life, sullies our environment. Almost all of our major streams and rivers and lakes are suffering from increasing pollution.

Many of our rivers and lakes today are nothing but wet deserts, There is abundant water present but it supports almost no life.

[blocks in formation]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »