390 



1 ROGER TOLLEFSON 



2 the other. 



3 The point is, though, the contention that 



4 you people are making in terms of cost-benefit ratio is 



5 not one that has generally been followed in the water 



6 pollution control concept. Supposing you had a danger 



7 that was harmful to health. I don't think that any of 

 g the legislators in any of the cases that we came before 

 9 pointed to a cost-benefit ratio. 



In other words, this concept--and I am 

 not deprecating it, but it is something that I don't 

 find in the Washington law statewise, I don't find in 

 the Federal law, and it is a concept--again I may be 

 looking at this as a lawyer--that has been proposed many 

 times but has never been incorporated by either the State 

 or Federal legislature. 



MR. TOLLEFSON: 1 hate to argue law with 

 you. But let me point out that for whatever bearing it 

 has today, the original 19A5 State of Washington Law says-- 



20 and I forget the exact wording, but in the introduction 



21 to it where it says that in effect pollution is not to 



22 be permitted, or to that effect, it also then goes on to 



23 say to the effect of "commensurate with", and then they 



24 introduce economic factors . 



25 I wonder if this same thing is not embodied 



10 



11 



12 



13 



14 



15 



16 



17 



18 



19 



