499 



sion helped the Congress to decide on its role. It did become evident 

 that responsibility was primarily placed on the individual physician 

 administering the vaccine, secondarily on State medical organizations 

 that distributed it, thirdly on PHS for licensing its preparation, and 

 finally on Congress for funding the distribution. Improved coordina- 

 tion of these shared responsibilities and an improved and increased 

 concern by PHS for the technical details of assuring vaccine safety 

 appear to have been among the outcomes of the case. 



CASE eleven: water POLLUTIOlSr CONTROL ACT, 1948 



Background. — Population expansion and industrial growth had 

 contributed to increased pollution in many U.S. waterways. Numerous 

 bills had been introduced in Congress since 1900 to provide Federal 

 anti-pollution control. None had passed. Demands for action came 

 from conservationist groups, presidential study commissions, and the 

 Public Health Service. 



Problem.. — To define the Federal role and determine the required 

 level of effort in pollution control. 



Access to Congress. — Kepresentatives of State governments, in a 

 1946 national conference on pollution, prepared a recommended pro- 

 gram which was the basis of a legislative proposal introduced in 1947 

 by Senators Barkley and Taf t ; it proposed to extend loans and grants 

 to States and municipalities for pollution control programs, and to 

 authorize the U.S. Surgeon General to promulgate regulatory stand- 

 ards and to exercise enforcement. 



The facts. — The issues were technical, economic, and political. The 

 teclmical issue concerned the relation of pollution to public health 

 and welfare, the measurement of pollution, establishment of pollution 

 standards, and the technology of reducing pollution. The economic 

 issue concerned the allocation of costs and benefits of pollution reduc- 

 tion in the light of costs and benefits from waterway uses that 

 caused pollution. The political issues involved the question of Federal 

 A^ersus State jurisdiction, the right to pollute, and the assignment of 

 Federal agency responsibility. Hearings were held on these matters 

 by the Public Works Committees of the House and Senate. 



Sources, hinds of technical information for Congress. — The debate 

 on pollution legislation reflected long-held positions. Interests that 

 might be considered targets of regulatory control, or who would be 

 expected to bear the costs of research and abatement action, opposed 

 the legislation. Their opposition cited States' rights, satisfaction with 

 existing State legislation, freedom of restraint of industrial expan- 

 sion, natural riparian rights, and alleged harmlessness or virtues ol 

 particular pollutants. Advocates of Federal control cited social and 

 economic consequences of pollution, public health hazards, and the 

 need for protection of esthetic and recreational values. Particular posi- 

 tions taken were : 



Public Health Service: Descriptive and statistical material on health 

 hazards, dislocation of industry, and ineffectiveness of State laws. 

 Analysis of legislation needed and long-term costs. 



Izaak Walton League (a conservationist group) : called for even more 

 stringent legislation based on comprehensive river basin planning. 



