391 



ROGER TOLLEFSON 

 in the Federal Water Act. 



CHAIRMAN STEIN: I can tell you what the 

 Federal Law says, and that is it has to be physically 

 and economically feasible. Now, Roger, again, we have both 

 been in this field a long time. The difference between 

 a concept like that and a cost-benefit ratio is tremendous 



I think Mr. Thieme pointed this out, in the 

 system that they used in the Delaware, and this was in 

 the chart he put in, you get alternative A, B, C, D, and 



you can go on, and to each of these alternatives you can 

 assign a cost or a benefit. This is the concept of the 

 cost-benefit ratio. 



The concept, I think, that is embodied 

 in the State of Washington Law and in our law is the 

 economic feasibility test. The test here, as far as I 

 can see, and I said this many tiroes, that anyone can 

 clean up pollution by putting any company out of business, 

 but the challenge is to keep you in business and keep you 

 in a competitive position and allow you to grow and yet 

 clean up pollution. This concept is not, as I see it in 

 our water resources field, co-equal with that cost-benefit 

 alternative we used. 



I appreciate the views here, but I think 

 for the people who are sitting on the panel we have the 



