351 



public health and sanitation officials were opposed to the bill, the prin- 

 cipal opposition, in part, or whole, came from industrial and profes- 

 sional association spokesmen. Ten industrial and ])rofessional associa- 

 tion witnesses and four State, local, and resrional sanitation officials 

 opposed the principle of Federal enforcement in the courts. One in- 

 dustrial spokesman proposed that State consent be made a prerequisite 

 for Federal enforcement in any instance. Five industrial spokesmen 

 opposed extendinof Federal loans and grants to public bodies; six State 

 and local officials and engineerino; firms, took the same position. Un- 

 qualified rejection of the proposal in any form came from three State 

 and local officials, two coal industry spokesmen, and one engineering 

 firm. 



Final coi\qre^HW7\al aofion on 19J^8 irnfer pollution control hill 



In reporting favorably on S. 418, July S, 1947, the Senate commit- 

 tee told that l)ody that the hearings had abundantly shown that water 

 pollution had in many areas become "a matter of grave concern." 



* * * Its damaging effects on the public health and national resources are a 

 matter of definite Federal concern as a menace to national welfare * * *. The 

 Federal Government should take the initiative in developing comprehensive plans 

 for the .solution of water pollution problems in cooperation with the States.^ 



The controls proposed, said the report, were purposefully gradual 

 and ^progressive — 



* * * Enfor^-ement procedures are to b" initiated only after reasonable time is 

 given to a State or interstate agency or industry to comply with the remedial 

 measures recommended by the Surgeon General to abate the pollution and then 

 only with the consent of the water pollution agency * * * of the State in which 

 the agency or industry is located.^" 



However, the report reflected some lack of confidence that a real 

 solution had been found; it recommended that the legislation should 

 be regarded as experimental, reviewed after a trial period, and revised 

 on the basis of experience with its operation. But — 



Unless the cooperative measures, and what the committee deems to be very 

 reasonable enforcement procedures provided for in the bill, bring about the 

 recoernized needed results, it is reasonable to anticipate that a later Congress will 

 enact very much more stringent enforcement legislation.^^ 



The report also attributed Senate amendments in financial aid au- 

 thority to the recognition of "the present favorable financial position 

 of most political subdivisions * * *'" and to the beliefs that loans would 

 be sufficient to stimulate construction and that Federal grants-in-aid 

 were not justified if there were other available sources of financing. 

 Amendments in committee lowered the grant authority, and also gave 

 a share of responsibility to the Federal Works Agency. With little 

 debate, the Senate then adopted S. 418, as amended by the committee 

 July 16, 1947. 



Almost a year later, April 28, 1943, the House Committee on Public 

 Works reported S. 418 with its own amendments; the House commit- 

 tee version eliminated loans to private industry, increased the total 

 funding, restricted grants to the States, authorized construction of a 

 research center, and limited the authority of the act to 5 years. Later, 



^U.S. Congress. Senatp. Committee on Public Works. Stream pollution control. Report 

 tto accompany S. 418]. July 8, 1948, 80th Cong., 1st sess. Senate Kept. No. 462. (Wash- 

 Insrton. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947), p. 2. 



6« Uiid., p. 1. 



" Ibid., p. 6. 



