what that means, I don't know. The man I am sitting with, my colleague and dear friend for 20 years, Mr. Robert E. Jones from Alabama, I say for the public record here not because he is here, but by far he knows more about all aspects of water utilization and preservation than any other Member of the Congress.

I have a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to extend and revise it. I am not an engineer, but my undergraduate background was chemistry and physics. My dreams years ago was to be a biochemical researcher. I do have a very keen interest in this problem.

Your opening statement was as pertinent and concise as I have heard. It is an insult to the testimony of what I hoped to be able to say, which is not nearly as complete as your statement.

A greatly expended research and development effort is needed if we are to solve our water pollution problems in an effective and economical manner. Our best efforts with the limited funds available have done very little more than to assess the magnitude of the problem and to demonstrate the harmful effects of pollution.

I think now we have at least an awareness across the country on the part of the people and a better understanding of the technical people and sanitation engineers and other hydraulic engineers on the need for more work in this complex and complicated field of pollution. I think one reason we are in this situation is merely through inadvertent neglect to water in its original relatively abundant form was taken for granted as much as we take air next to us for granted. Yet, if you are deprived of air for a few minutes, you are dead. You can live a little bit longer without water, but water is more essential than food and you can get along without food more than you can without water. Because we have this carryover, we think water is abundant. We don't realize that we have to do something about it. Too, in other areas where shortages have occurred whether it be in gasolines or propellants, fibers, food, you name it, you have always found a substitute or synthetic, but we find out now we cannot do anything with water. You can't find a substitute for it.

You can't do anything with this water. You can't squeeze a drop of water out of a glass of water, because we tried. We have one-half of all the peat in the States in my area. You can have cheap power if you can burn it, but you can't squeeze water out of it. The main problem is not that we can't do anything about it and that we shouldn't. We know that we should and can. The main problem we have now been stimulated to an effort and we are approaching that point now, stimulated to a point to exert an all-out effort. Any research requires an all-out effort if you apply human ingenuity long enough, and that means you can solve the problem of thermonuclear energy. You will solve the problems of space, or auto service mechanisms, complicated and fantastic alloys that didn't exist a few years ago, heat resistant alloys. All the matters of which you committee members are far more familiar with than we are.

In water, we are using processes today-they are mechanical improvements or refinements of basic processes of water pollution abatement. I am talking of municipal facilities for human waste, primarily. They are merely mechanical improvements in refinery or basic technics used half a century ago.

It is incredible that we let that long a lag develop in this area. We have pumps that pump more water at a faster rate per minute, more cubic feet per minute. We have filters that will filter faster and perhaps a little better but basically it would be as though you have a refined kerosene light or refined gasoline motor. We are already working on thermonuclear powered motors as you well know, using water and steam like the old Stanley Steamer. It is more efficient and smoother than the internal combustion engine. Let me give an example of what I mean, not only a need for concentrated effort, but new concepts of the situation. You have to have brains working to develop new ideas. In the field of iron and mining and I mention it because I see my friend from Michigan, Mr. Vivian, here who knows the problem in the Upper Peninsula of his State-we had the exhaustion of ores over the years and they run out of natural ores. That sort of broke up the monopoly that our part of the country had in the world, but we went to work a few years ago in tagonite. It is one of the hardest rocks that exists, harder than granite. As long as man has drilled holes into rock or made beads, he had to use the principle of a harder substance wearing down a relatively softer substance, and over the years we developed what is called the diamond drill. It is the hardest drill known, and that was a great achievement, but here we use mining the diamond drill for 50 years and we got a hold of this tagonite and it will take a whole day to drill a 2-foot hole. Obviously we are stuck. Technology, the best available engineering technology up to that time, 10 years ago had us right against the wall. We had this unlimited amount, billions of tons of tagonite, and we couldn't drill holes to blast it.

Suddenly people in the Midwest who have been working with oxygen trying to sell more oxygen and then they developed a kerosene burner, simple cheap fuel, utilizing oxygen with three flames, similar to the old stip water sprinkler. You remember the old-we do, the older members, the three prong water sprinkler that we had that would sprinkle the lawn. They rotate this and it melts the rock at the rate of 20 feet 1 hour. It didn't have to grind it. It melts it just as smooth and efficiently and cheaply as anything that has ever been done. And, more than that, they found out that the rock being very hot, the core being hot, the rock would fracture by itself, and steam pressure blew it out and cleaned the hole out. That's a little example of what has happened to literally put the processing or manufacturing of iron ore over the threshold of economic feasibility as well as the technical feasibility. So, that's the type of thing we ought to be doing in water pollution, research in so many many areas. To give you an idea of the level of research just in the pollution control agency, I know there was research done by other agencies of the Government, about 16 or 22 of them. I think 5 years ago our committee authorized $5 million a year for-Mr. Waggonner was one of the early supporters in our program for research in different aspects of pollution abatement, but the appropriations came about first a million and then two and three and gradually last year it reached approximately $5 million which is far too low. We are now aiming in the current legislation around $50 million, and that in itself would not be enough, but if we utilize the knowledge that has been developed by the other agencies,

space, NASA is one, and research going out and coordinate it, other agencies on the Federal level, universities and industries, we can more efficiently utilize the research going on in other areas rather than duplicating inadvertently. We have to encourage new approaches, new ideas, consistent and persistent and concentrated attack on this whole problem.

I want to list very quickly some of the major problem areas. First, municipal wastes. That's what I had in mind when I said we haven't changed anything in the last half century.

You have industrial wastes, including thermopollution.

There is storm and combined sewer wastes. To show you what a frustrating problem this was, we have now I believe $20 million for demonstrations to help solve this enormous problem and we can't find anyone that will even apply for it. I think we have two applications for demonstration grants. One minor one was finally granted. It will cost roughly $2 million for the primarily larger cities to solve their storm and combined sewer wastes.

There is also wastes from boats and ships, household or isolated small system wastes, animal feed lot wastes and drainage.

There is agricultural runoff, acid mine drainage, silt from construction projects, quality changes in impoundments, and accelerated and natural eutrophication.

We were at that lake between Nevada and California-what is it? Mr. WAGGONNER. Tahoe.

Mr. BLATNIK. Tahoe, and I think Mr. Jones was there 8 years ago when a highway system, interstate, running north of it from Reno to Donner Pass. We drove around it and we were back early this year at the invitation of the California Congressmen, and we were shocked at what was happening to one of the only two Nation's lakes, or Alpine lakes as sometimes called, in the North American Continent. Perhaps there are only three in the world. Already the algae is beginning to grow and in a few years this deep, ice-cold, blue lake will become a mass of green and, when all the oxygen is gone, it will come a stinking mass of brown. It is already starting like it is in the early stage, and if anyone told me 10 years ago that recently when we first started with water pollution controls on rivers and harbors that one of the five Great Lakes, one of the largest bodies of water in the world, would become a dead lake and it is more than that now, I would say you are crazy. It will cost us about a billion dollars to undo the work that has been done there.

The same thing with the Hudson River. The Congressman from New York knows the problem pretty well. There is plenty of water, but not a drop to drink. It has been fouled up so we have a tremendous great job to be done. It will require the coordinated joint effort in the Federal, State, local and industry. I know this sounds like nice words. It sounds like sort of a passing away. But, it has been done, I am saying. It has been done in the highway program, the largest public works program ever undertaken in the history of mankind. Largest multibillion-dollar peacetime tax program ever sustained, ever adopted by Congress and supported by the citizens of America.

Today we come up with a highway bill running into a couple billion dollars on the floor of the House, and it almost passes by unanimous

consent. It shows the people will support a program of magnitude running in the order of billions of dollars and that program can be worked out in a joint effort as has been done in the highway program. You have got to concentrate-I am trying to summarize very quickly. One more new process.

Carbon is a very effective filter and although very expensive, they are reducing the cost now. Carbon will filter gases and the scientists will appear next week to find out whether finely powdered coal will work. Some of the new ideas, such as carbon absorption, the use of coal for filtration and absorption, new coagulants, sludge disposal in strip mine areas, electrodialysis and reverse osmosis should be subjected to field study as rapidly as possible. The Federal Government, through Interior, is subsidizing on a larger scale than before, and what works very well in the laboratory will not necessarily work too well in the field. The solution of water pollution problems will require not only the development of adequate techniques, but also their application. Research and development activities generally progress through a series of steps ranging from exploratory to laboratory research to field evaluation and demonstration. Field evaluation and demonstration studies require that new type facilities be constructed and operated under actual field conditions, which is generally very expensive. I am not advocating this particular process, but in short, here is someone suggesting or attempting a new type of idea, merely using plain pulverized coal in which you have an abundance and it has an economic need as the Appalachian program showed.

They can skim off the contaminated top layer of coal and burn it up in a furnace and generate power and steam so municipality or industry will get its money out of coal or the organic material absorbed. So, Mr. Chairman, with the fund of knowledge we have today there is no reason and no excuse for permitting what is an absolute necessity, the water in abundance for effective and efficient reuse of what water we do have, as you stated in your very fine opening remarks. Here we have today more than 95 percent of all the scientists that ever lived in the history of mankind alive today, and I think my interest in medical chemistry, I believe I am correct in using these figures, 75 percent of all the prescriptions used to date were not in existence at the close of World War II, about 20 years ago.

Talking about the volume of knowledge that is being found today, a new communication concerning chemistry is published somewhere in the world every minute, a report on physics every 3 minutes, and a report on medicine, biology, and electronics every 5 minutes. To give an idea of the rate information is being made available, I read recently that if a man started at the first of the year to read everything new in chemistry as it was published, by the end of the year he would be 10 years behind.

To show you the availability of this knowledge around us and it can be done systematically and effectively, using all the knowledge found in these different agencies, so I strongly urge this inquiry. I hope and know it will be a productive one. I strongly urge support to both the basic science and research and to the applied research and demonstration programs in the field of environmental problems, more particularly to water pollution.

The problem can be licked and will be licked-remember in the highway program they said we couldn't afford it-and the economic savings will be $5 million a year on the program which the Federal Government is putting about $4 billion, plus saving about 10,000 lives each year on the highways. In the last 2 weekends on Christmas and New Years combined we killed more American people on our streets and highways and byways at home than were killed the whole previous year in Vietnam in the war. We have that type of slaughter in 2 weeks.

In Vietnam we would be ready to drop the atom bomb, there would be such a furor. Yet it happens at home and you are lucky to get 3 inches of space on your newspaper.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of the members putting up with me, and the chairman for giving me this time.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Blatnik, you have given us a very exciting and helpful statement. I wonder if you might comment on your trip to Germany this year when you accompanied the Secretary of the Interior. I am particularly interested in the way the technology development is funded.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jones made that trip; although I was asked to go along at that time with him, I couldn't.

Mr. DADDARIO. I know Mr. Jones was on the trip and I thought you were too.

Mr. BLATNIK. No; I couldn't make it.

Mr. DADDARIO. Fine. We will wait to hear from him.

Mr. BLATNIK. You were working with desalination on arid areas which is extremely important, but at the same time we also ought to be working in these arid areas where we have an abundance of gas and petroleum on burning, you know, human waste which can be done very effectively. All you will have left is steam and dry ash that goes up into the air and here we are working at great expense to get water through desalination which is important and needed, but to use that expensively produced water as merely a conveyance to carry away human waste and then build other plants in addition to remove that waste doesn't make sense.

Getting back to this idea for needs of new concepts and breaking away from the old stereotypes is another matter I would like to mention.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Blatnik, did I understand you to say your committee is asking for $50 million?

Mr. BLATNIK. It is not that our committee is asking for it. It is legislation before us and also has been before the other body that calls for that amount of money.

Mr. MOSHER. How would this be administered?

Mr. BLATNIK. Through the water pollution administrator which is now in the Department of Interior.

Mr. MOSHER. Is the Congress likely to appropriate $50 million for this purpose?

Mr. BLATNIK. I hope. Speaking only for myself, I shall urge it, and I think we have good enough case to support it.

Mr. MOSHER. How much has that agency been using in the past? How much is it using this year?

Mr. BLATNIK. Under $5 million. It was authorized about 5 years ago, but your appropriations were at a low level beginning at a million,