339 



(e) The timing of action to control^ haU, or correct pollution. — The 

 timing of Government action, or of private action with Government 

 sponsorsliip, depended on the resolution of a number of variables that 

 determined the comparative economic, ethical, and political costs and 

 benefits of action at various possible alternative times. Some of these 

 variables included — 



the advantage of early action to prevent a worsening of the 



problem, further increase in vested interest in opposition to action, 



or an enlargement in the costs of action ; 



the advantage of prompt action jnelding early benefits versus 



the advantages of postponing action until an economic recession 



occurred; and 



the taking of prompt action to prevent a worsening of national 



problems of pollution versus the deferral of action until public 



dissatisfactions became strong enough to provide an unmistakable 



mandate, including public willingness to defray the high costs of 



corrective action. 

 These were among the issues raised by witnesses and considered by 

 the Congress when the first Water Pollution Control Act was adopted 

 in 1948.^ The legislation enacted was explicitly temporary and experi- 

 mental. It was intended to be reviewed, after it had been implemented 

 for a 5-year trial period. Then it was to have been revised on the basis 

 of this experience. Greatest opposition had come from those parties 

 who would be compelled to bear the economic burden of cleaning up 

 their water — industries and local governments. Congress was aware 

 of these factors and recognized the imi:)ortance of these interests. 

 Justification for enactment thus was based on concern for only one 

 problem caused by pollution — concern for maintenance of pul^lic 

 health. Consideration of water ]iollution within the scope of national 

 effort to conserve and improve the Nation's water supply for multiple 

 uses had to wait until later. Eight years went by before a first perma- 

 nent measure became law. During this period, appropriations had 

 been substantially less than had been requested, perhaps insufficient to 

 provide a fair test of the provisional legislation, or of the advantages 

 of Federal water pollution regulation generally. 



HoAvever, once the legislation became pennanent. in 19.56, it was 

 thereafter progressively further strengthened by amendments in 1961, 

 196.5, and 1966.- Continued degradation of water quality helped 

 sharpen the congressional and national perspective as to the water pol- 

 lution problem. Passage of the Water Quality Act of 1965 ensured 

 that antipollution measures would legally have to account for many 

 other criteria of water quality. Creation of a Water Pollution Control 

 Administration and transferral of that agency from the Department of 

 Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior 

 indicated recognition of the need to coordinate water pollution activi- 

 ties with those of water conservation and water resources research. 

 The outlook is for a continuation of this process, in response to the 

 growing need for control and the growing technological and adminis- 

 trative capabilities for providing it. 



1 Publif Law 80-845. signwl June 30, 1948. 



2 Pnbllo Law 84-660. aiiproved July 9. 1956. amended by the Federal Water Pollution 

 Control Act Amendments of 1961. Public Law 87-88. approved July 20. 1961. Water 

 Quality Act of 1965, Public Law 89-234, approved Oct. 2. 1965, and Clean Water Restora- 

 tion Act of 1966, Public Law 89-753, approved Nov. 3, 1966. 



