430 



reason that we discussed or we introduced the $6 billion, 3-year match- 

 ing funds program for $12 billion total. 



Mr. Rogers. Give us a date for secondary, where we can skip pri- 

 mary if you don't think we should. Secondary or equivalent. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. We anticipate that in the $6 billion figure that 

 we will have — this is a 3-year program of $12 billion — that we will 

 have all of the projects underway and approved in 3 years, to be com- 

 pleted within 5 yeai^. This is our goal ancl again we have to constantly 

 reassess the amount of money that is involved, because it changes al- 

 most monthly as to how much is needed. 



Mr. Rogers, What I am saying is, should it be tertiarj- by 1976, 1978,. 

 or should it be secondary by 1974, 1975 ? What should be the goal ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. Again it differs widely depending on what area 

 you are in and just exactly what the standards themselves provide, if 

 we have water use designation, which we do have in most of the State- 

 Federal standards. 



Mr. Rogers. Of course, you laiow what this does, it changes the 

 theory of saying you are licensing a certain amount of pollution in 

 every river, which the Water Pollution Act does. It authorizes and 

 licenses pollution. To set a deadline change the whole philosophy 

 and says, "We don't want any waters polluted after a certain date 

 to this degree of treatment." Right ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. That is right. 



Mr. Rogers. Is that a good philosophy or isn't it ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. Our bill still provides 



Mr. Rogers. I know what your bill provides. What I am asking is. 

 is that a good philosophy ? We are going to write the bill. We want to 

 consider yours, but we are going to write the bill in the committee. I 

 want to know jowr thinliing, is it an equitable philosophy not to pollute 

 the waters or to license pollution ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. If you put it between those two choices, obviously 

 not to pollute is tlie better philosophy. 



Mr. Rogers. Of course, it is. And I knew that you would agree with 

 that ancl I think that is what the committee will do to try to be helpful 

 to you, to give you some tools to work with. Because his Water Pollu- 

 tion Act just says you can continue polluting and in certain rivers you 

 let them pollute tremendous amounts, as the chairman brought out, 

 even deadly chemicals. 



Now, my concern about allowing administrative decision as to dead- 

 lines, when certain things should be done now, is proved by your lack 

 of banning mercury when we know the effects. Yet they are making 

 administrative decisions and saying, "We will let a little go in here 

 and there", and so it is still being done. The Air Force base, that we 

 brought out the other day, putting cyanide into public dumping sys- 

 tems without being treated, and each one thinks that the other is treat- 

 ing it. And so what is happening, they are having a dead sea between 

 Catalina Island and the mainland and Westinghouse has been out 

 there with their submarines to take pictures to show what has hap- 

 pened. So I think it would be helnful if you could furnish to the com- 

 mittee suggested dates or deadlines on or before which primary, 

 secondary, tertiary, or equivalent treatment, or any other designation 



