3,46 



Many meetings had been required for the drafting of the legislation, 

 which represented a compromise among a number of views. It was a 

 difficult area in which to legislate, and the members made it clear that 

 they did not expect to dispose of it for once and for all in a single bill, 

 nor to impose sudden and drastic changes by legislation,-^ 



Industrial opposition to Federal pollution control 



Spokesmen for the industries held mainly responsible for the genera- 

 tion of industrial pollutants lined up solidly against Federal regula- 

 tion. They suggested that some degree of industrial pollution should be 

 tolerated because of industry's contributions to the economic health, 

 productivity, employment, and tax base of the Nation. State regulation 

 was adequate. The problem was a local one. Arbitrary application of 

 national standards vrould be inappropriate, would violate property 

 rights, and might hamper full utilization of resources. Some industrial 

 pollutants were harmless, moreover, and some were positively benefi- 

 cial. 



Speaking for the American Paper and Pulp Association, its execu- 

 tive secretary, E. W. Tinker, said that his industrial group had spent 

 much effort and many millions of dollars "trying to find practical ways 

 to treat or utilize their effluents." As to national regulation, experience 

 in Europe and in the State governments had shown that "the purely 

 negative method of restraints and controls is not fruitful." 



All but a half dozen of the States have enacted legislation which provides 

 ample funds and authority to study and, where appropriate, control municipal 

 and industrial discharges. The administration of these laws has become increa'*- 

 ingly effective. By what the State authorities have said * * * i judge they have 

 found their most effective tools to be, not the police power, but research and 

 education, and the cooperation they have been able to elicit from municipalities 

 and industrial establishments by personal acquaintance and daily contact."'* 



The Western mining industry presented similar views. On behalf of 

 the American Mining Congress, its director and vice president, Donald 

 A. Callahan presented a resolution which declared that — 



Water pollution is a local problem, varying widely in nature and extent, and 

 be.st dealt with by State and local agencies, supplemented where necessary by 

 interstate compacts. We oppose legislation vesting control over water pollution in 

 a Federal agency with power to set rigid standards and to force companies 

 [to comply?] through action in the Federal courts.^ 



He added that Federal legislation would "* * * create a threat 

 which cannot but seriously affect the continued production of metals 

 and minerals so essential to the security and prospevitv of our people." 

 In this same vein, A. W. Dickinson, also of the Mining Congress, as- 

 serted that maximum production in a complex economy required 

 "* * * balanced utilization of our streams by the individual, the muni- 

 cipalities, and bv industry." This, he said, was best attained by " * * * 

 cooperation, and with a minimum of State and national regulatory 

 legislation." ^° Another spokesman for the congress, Robert M. Searls, 

 warned that representatives of a bureaucratic agency in Washington 

 could not "appreciate the relative importance of local i^roblems" as well 

 as the local authorities in the Western mining States. Moreover, west 



27 RenatP hearinpg, 1947, op. clt., pp. 337-338. 



» Ibid., pp. 180-181. 



20 Ibid., p. 192. 



'" House hearings, 1947, op. clt., p. 2.S5. 



