349 



If, due to local laws or other reasons, revenue bonds could not be issued by a 

 municipality, or district, to finance the costs of treatment facilities, and tax 

 bonds or public assessment bonds must be issued, a Government loan in an 

 amount not exceeding one-third of the estimated cost of the project might 

 be made * * */' 



Louis Aiierbaeker, counsel of the Passaic (New Jersey) Valley 

 Sewage Commission, also opposed Federal enforcement. Existing ar- 

 rangements for court action relating to the formation of interstate 

 compacts were already prescribing and enforcing methods of treat- 

 ment and proper standards for allowable effluent. He expressed the fear 

 that, under the new legislation, the Surgeon General might issue regu- 

 lations that would be prohibitive in cost to the taxpayers of an area : 



Our concern is lest a new agency come in, with headquarters in Washington, 

 that will say that these standards [already enforced locally] are not proper 

 for handling the waters of that river, and that they do not think it should be 

 treated in that way. That would mean all the local sewers would have to be 

 rearranged and reconstructed for all these municipalities, and it would impose 

 a staggering cost upon the inhabitants and taxpayers of that district." 



Others, echoing industry users, wanted Federal intervention limited 

 to "coorciinating and stimulating and planning function (s),*^ or to 

 researcli.'*'' Richard ]\Iartin, director of the Connecticut State "Water 

 Commission, said the Federal Government could materially assist in 

 the pollution abatement program by enacting legislation to give Fed- 

 eral tax credits for industry's expenditures for pollution abatement.'*'' 

 Walter J. Shea, chief of the Division of Sanitary Engineers, Rhode 

 Island Department of Health, objected to the provisions requiring 

 promulgation of uniform regulations : 



* * * we can't require the same degree of treatment in any sensible way, 

 because in some instances the same waste from the same industry would require 

 very little treatment due to the large dilution, and in other cases it would require 

 extensive treatment.^* 



The New Jersey State Department of Health presented to the House 

 hearing a chart illustrating the number and types of sewers and sewage 

 treatment plants in that State, as of May 19-i7. On the basis of the 

 chart, the State's attorney general told the committee flatly that the 

 States were better qualified than was the Federal Government to con- 

 trol pollution from local sewage effluent. He said : 



stream pollution is of local concern. It can be abated by State and interstate 

 action. The bad effects of stream pollution are local and thus responsibility 

 for controlling it rests upon the localities concerned. In this respect, it is likt' 

 Dolice and fire orotection. 



The enforcement of stream pollution laws oftentimes necessitates a balancing 

 of advantages and disadvantages requiring discretion which can be exercised by 

 local authorities. Sometimes a decision must be made whether to force the 

 closing of an industrial plant or the suspension of its operations * * * [or] to 

 embarras.s a municipality financially * * *. Such measuring of relative advantages 

 and disadvantages can best be done by a State or interstate authority * * *.^ 



Interagency contest over pollution control jurisdiction 



Sponsors and supporters of the water pollution bills generally agreed 

 that the Office of the Surgeon General and the Public Health Service 



« Ibid., p. 51. 



" Ibid., p. 77. 



*5 Statement of Edwin R. Cotton, engineer, secretary of the Interstate Commission on 

 the Potomac River Basin. In Ibid., p. 223. 



^« Statement of Walter J. Shea, chief, division of sanitary engineering, Rhode Island 

 Department of Health. Hearings, 1947, op. clt., p. 105. 



« Ibid., p. 131. 



«Ibid., p. 105. 



« Ibid., pp. 365-366. 



