356 



tions authorizations for water pollution control activities by $3.66 

 billion over the $245 million already authorized for programs under 

 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for fiscal years 1967-69.*^* 



The act also strengthened the enforcement powers of the Secretary 

 of the Interior, extended it to international waters, and provided in- 

 centives to States to impose water quality standards. Ceilings were 

 eliminated on individual grants. Grants were expanded for the con- 

 struction of sewage treatment plans, for research, and for demonstra- 

 tion projects. 



Sigmrficance of the 191^8 act for subsequent pollution control 



The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was tlie first Federal effort 

 to establish statutory controls to abate water pollution. It was experi- 

 mental and partial. An abundance of evidence by the Public Health 

 Service and others defined the scope, nature, and urgency of the need 

 to deal with water pollution. Yet, as passed, the act contained only 

 mild provisions for meeting the Nation's needs in research, regulation, 

 and treatment. Those interests who were presumed to be the target of 

 regulatory action, or who would have to bear the costs of effective 

 research and treatment, opposed the bill in such terms as States' rights 

 and belief in the effectiveness of State laws already in force, freedom 

 and value of industrial expansion, natural riparian rights, and the 

 harmless or even beneficial properties of particular pollutants for wild- 

 life and public health. 



Nevertheless, as passed, the 1948 act established the legitimaxjy of 

 the Federal role in coming to grips with the problem of water pollution. 

 It created an administi-ative mechanism to keep the Congress and the 

 public informed as to the growing seriousness of the problem. It served 

 warning on new industry to consider the possible implications of undue 

 reliance on streams as Avaste disposal outlets. It created a nucleus for 

 further amending legislation, as the need became better characterized, 

 and as administrative and technological competence became better able 

 to share corrective programs. It provided an organizational center for 

 the further coordinated study of such problems as permissible levels 

 of pollution, standards of water quality, identification of major sources 

 of riverine pollutants, and the like. 



However, the fundamental problem was not clearly expressed in the 

 hearings before adoption of the 1948 act, and still remains unresolved 

 in 1969. This is the question of relative national priorities of economic 

 values and noneconomic values. Senator Barkley touched on this ques- 

 tion when he suggested that human lives and safety warranted a higher 

 priority than dollar economies. Other noneconomic values, however, 

 received scant attention. 



It has long been possible to express in dollar terms the tangible costs 

 and benefits resulting from the activities that pollute streams and 

 also the tangible costs and benefits of pollution abatement. But the 

 incorporation into the cost-benefit equation of such noneconomic values 

 as the human satisfactions derived from a healthier, cleaner, and more 

 attractive environment, remains as intractable as ever. 



^^ Confrressional Qiinrterlv Almanac, 1966, vol. XXII (Washington, D.C., Congressional 

 Quarterly Service, 1967), p. 632. 



