338 



control measures than industry upstream. Industry upstream impaired 

 the property right in water of industry downstream. 



Plant management might feel an obligation to the public to mod- 

 erate the pollution it caused in a stream — to invest in bjqoroduct 

 research, in treatment facilities after use of the water, in settling 

 ponds, and other appropriate measures — but there were practical 

 limits to what the individual company could do without destroying 

 its competitive position and itself. 



In the issue of water pollution, tliere were many rival claimants — 

 tliose upstream and those downstream, those having an economic 

 interest in streams as sources of process water or as waste disposal 

 systems and those having an ethical or social interest in preserving 

 the relative purity of water for swimming, boating, fishing, recrea- 

 tion, and general environmental satisfactions. There were also tliose 

 having an economic interest in real estate whose value depended on 

 the preservation of the adjacent noneconomic values. 



The Congress also was faced with many other complicating factors. 

 Some of these were: 



(a) The issue of national governmenfaJ authority versus States'' 

 rights. — Although river systems frequently involved several States, 

 the i]idividual polluter could be considered as operating within a 

 single State. Regulation of pollution accordingly posed a thorny 

 problem of State versus national legal jurisdiction. 



(5) The Issue of admmlstratlve jurifidictwir among Federal agen- 

 eles. — Pollution related to public health, civil engineerino' and con- 

 struction, conservation, agriculture, url)an problems, industry, and 

 commerce, among other elements of public concern. Assignment of ad- 

 ministrative res]ionsibility for implementation of programs or formu- 

 lation of policy had inescapable complications of agency jurisdiction. 



(c) f'onf/'et of local Interest and national pollej/. — ]Many local 

 communities had a parochial interest in the prosperity of their own 

 local industry, as source of employment and income, and as a tax 

 base to support community services. Some local communities had a 

 parochial interest in the quality of adjacent waters. Proposed national 

 policies or actions respecting pollution invariably had a wide range 

 of possible different local impacts, making inescapable a conflict of 

 national and local interests as to type, direction, level, timing, pay- 

 ment, and management of corrective action. 



(d) Assignment of costs for preventing or tolerating water pollu- 

 tion. — Costs were involved, both economic and noneconomic, regardless 

 of whether pollution was corrected or tolerated. Manv kinds of eco- 

 nomic and intangible costs were involved. Competitive position of 

 industry, construction of facilities, loss of tax revenues, alternative 

 methods of disposal of wastes, and additional processing arrangements 

 were all factors that could be measured in quantitative dollar terms. 

 Factors like odor, bacterial content, reduced game fish population, dis- 

 coloration, oil slicks, sediment, and the like, were less amenable to 

 measurement but yet constituted costs. However, at some point the load 

 of pollutants would foreseeably become so heavy that a stream would 

 lose not only its intangible recreational value, but also its economic 

 value. Determination of the allocation of costs and benefits, and estab- 

 lishment of quality standards, were among the most difficult and 

 controversial aspects of pollution control. 



