350 



would have principal responsibility for implementation. However, in 

 the conrse of both Senate and Plouse hearings, an alternative plan was 

 advanced by Administrator Fleming of the Federal Works Agency. 

 He otfered the committee a draft of a substitute bill which proposed to 

 deal with the problem of water pollution as an ingredient of a large 

 public works program; FWA would share administrative responsibili- 

 ties with the PHS for its imi)lementation. Echoing the earlier pro- 

 posal of Abel Wolman, Fleming suggested that the public works 

 spending envisioned under the legislation might he deferred until it 

 would be useful to help alleviate a depression. He saw pollution control 

 as primarily an engineering problem — 



* * * requiring the services of professionally qualified and exi>erieiiced sani- 

 tary engineers who have actually been engaged in building sewage-disposal sys- 

 tems, in preparing or reviewing plans and specifications therefore, in making 

 engineering surveys, in evaluating the engineering feasibility of various types of 

 treatment plants, and otherwise in supervising and inspecting the day-to-day 

 construction activities both above and below the ground * * *. Personnel qualified 

 to perform these technical engineering functions are not available in a public 

 health organization.™ 



It would be a waste of "money, time, and personnel" he said, if the 

 FWA were not given shared responsibility for administration of the 

 program." PHS would have to retrain its staff to provide for the func- 

 tions needed. In a subsequent House appearance, Fleming presented 

 a 24-page document detailing the educational and professional quali- 

 fications of his staff, outlining the history of the agency, and giving 

 an overview of projects undertaken.^^ 



In opposition to the Fleming proposal. Senator Barkley said he did 

 not concur that water pollution abatement was primarily a matter of 

 civil engineering. Nor did he agree that projects should be deferred 

 until some future depression in order to save money. "* * * It seems 

 to me [said Senator Barkley], we ought not to consider necessarily 

 the amount of money involved when human life is involved." A wit- 

 ness for the Izaak Walton League suggested that the Fleming pro- 

 posal was intended to "perpetuate the life of the agency," (and, in 

 fact, it was shortly to be reorganized out of existence by the creation 

 of the General Ser^dces Administration).^^ Moreover, he challenged 

 the idea that water pollution was neither a public health nor a con- 

 servation matter, but a public works matter. Said this witness (Mr. 

 Reid) : 



AVhile we have long contended that treatment plants for the correction of 

 water pollution represented a perfect natural for public works projects to relieve 

 unemployment, and wherever needed should have top priority over any other 

 public works, we strongly disagree with the theory that the need or lack of need 

 from an unemployment standpoint should be the determining factor in the loca- 

 tion and timing of treatment plants * * *. a Federal works agency * * * has no 

 expert knowledge of the problem, or the means of orderly program for its cor- 

 rection." 



Swmmary of fOH^f'wn^ of grovj)^ for and agaim^t the leghlat'wn 



Support for stringent antipollution legislation came primarily from 

 38 States, regional, and local public health and sanitation officials, and 

 from spokesmen from the Izaak Walton League. Although several 



" eo Ibid., p. 217. 

 »i Ibid., p. 219. 



" House hearings, 1047, op. cit., pp. .305-.330. 

 •3 Senate hearings, 1947, op. clt.. p. 1S7. 

 •* House hearings, 1947, op. cit., p. 194. 



