Air Pollution Subcommittee and to the Congress as well that he who would clean up the world should first clean up his own doorstep. Dr. MIDDLETON. If that's your wish I would subscribe to it. Senator SPONG. Let me ask you if you are testifying conclusively that the nitrogen oxides would harm plant life. We have seen evidence of damage to tobacco and to pine trees. We have been told that there was $14 million worth of known damage to crops on the east coast last year as a result of this and about $10 million on the west coast. Do you feel conclusively that you can say that if this condition continues it will affect future beautification and shrubbery planting and tree plantings in the District?

Dr. MIDDLETON. Yes, Senator. Not only that, but it will also have a material effect on where agriculture is situated. It may be that agriculture can no longer be near urban areas unless there is an adequate air pollution control program. I am amazed by the appearance of trees in Washington, the fact that they do show all the signs of disease from air pollution. In an area where you are graced with open space, it seems to me that extension of the system of parks for recreational purposes, to provide open space, would also permit the dilution of air pollution. This would be part of the coordinated plan to try and use open space effectively for air pollution control.

Senator SPONG. You have stated, and I agree with you that a reasonable approach is necessary.

Under the present legislation, the Clean Air Act, a compact between States is necessary for any type of coordinated effort. Is that right? Dr. MIDDLETON. Yes, sir.

Senator SPONG. I believe you testified that in the entire United States there has been only one of these compacts thus far?

sir.

Dr. MIDDLETON. Only one has been brought to the Congress; yes,

Senator SPONG. Now, Senator Muskie's bill, the bill presently before the Congress, of course, provides for a regional approach. So I take it the plan that you have outlined here looking to your inventory report in June of the regionalization and then a regional conference, looks to the successful passage of the present legislation.

Dr. MIDDLETON. We would propose that the measures set forth in the administration bill are those additional refinements requisite to the implementation of regional interstate work. They will give us the first opportunity to deal with air quality on a regional basis and the restriction of emissions on a regional basis, so that there is not only a degree of fairness to the industries that may be involved, but a uniformity in emission controls throughout the basin.

Senator SPONG. Have your studies thus far looking toward your inventory put you in a position to make any estimate as to the percentage of air pollution in the Washington Metropolitan area coming from stationary burning and emission as opposed to motor vehicles?

Mr. GRISWOLD. No, we haven't obtained sufficient data on this. The calculation on motor vehicle pollution is dependent on the average amount of driving that is done and this is now underway. We are inventorying all the other sources. That would be one of the last things we would come up with.

Senator SPONG. The national figures-we heard from time to timeare about 50-50. Will you comment on that? .

Mr. GRISWOLD. These are very poor figures to use. They compare tomatoes and persimmons. They are all right for ball park estimates but they are constantly changing.

For instance, you could reasonably say that in Los Angeles, out of all the pollution that is put into the atmosphere, that automobiles put in 80 percent and stationary sources 20 percent. That is because of the control on stationary sources and the fact that there are 4 million uncontrolled motor vehicles in that particular area. But I would say each city, each city or area has a different air pollution problem for which you have to have a tailormade program.

In other words, you can't pick up something off the shelf and slam it on here in Washington, D.C., say something from Los Angeles will work in Washington, D.C., because I sincerely don't believe they have anywhere somewhat similar problems but they are not comparable. So each program has to be reasonably designed to accomplish the purpose for which it is being developed and this is why I think it is so necessary that there be an accurate inventory; accurate knowledge of just how much of what comes from where so that your regulations can be reasonable, can be equitable, and will end up by doing the job that you hope to have them do.

Senator SPONG. What you are saying is that the Los Angeles County ordinance which has been effective there would not necessarily be uniformally effective because of different conditions. They have, and they feel they have arrested stationary emissions in Los Angeles. Is there any enforcement of emissions and pollution in the present ordinance-you have a smoke ordinance.

Mr. GRISWOLD. They have a smoke abatement ordinance here. It is my understanding that when there are obvious violations, that the people are warned about it. I don't know of any cases where anyone has been taken to court in the District in connection with violation of air pollution ordinances.

On the other hand, in Los Angeles you hear Mr. Fuller tell you that nearly 40,000 cases have been taken to court with a record of 96.6 percent conviction.

Senator SPONG. We have a record of that. He made that very clear to us.

Do you believe that once you have the inventory, assuming that the present legislation is enacted and that a regional agreement is entered into, a great deal of this pollution can be abated in the Washington metropolitan area?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I think Washington can be made one of the cleanest cities in the United States with relatively little effort and expense in a relatively short period of time.

Senator SPONG. I am inclined to agree with you. Thank you all. Senator TYDINGS. I would like to say that I appreciate the time and effort Dr. Middleton and Mr. Griswold and your associates have given us and we appreciate your testimony and hope we can call on you again perhaps.

Dr. MIDDLETON. It is our pleasure.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you.

Dr. Murdock Head, chairman of the Committee on Air Pollution of the District of Columbia Medical Society.

Dr. Head, we will go ahead and follow Senate rules strictly. We will introduce into the record your statement in its entirety and ask you to summarize it and emphasize those points which you feel most desirable to emphasize.

STATEMENT OF DR. MURDOCK HEAD, CHAIRMAN, AIR POLLUTION COMMITTEE, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. HEAD. First of all, I would like to speak informally and say that I feel I am well represented this morning as an individual. I live and work in Warrenton, Va. I also have a residence in Montgomery County.

Senator TYDINGS. You are surrounded.

Dr. HEAD. I think it is appropriate. It has not been mentioned yet specifically, that in our work which is not new in air pollution—and I have been interested in the subject for 8 years and produced a telecast here in Washington, that we know smoke is not a local problem and that smoke plumes are visable to us in low-level aviation when we do photography up to 50 miles, so I think we should specifically say that Baltimore, Md., and certainly Richmond, Va., are sources of air pollution to the District of Columbia and I think that this is something both you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Spong should be aware ofthat when they talk about regional control, that certainly these two major cities, one in each of your States are important in the airpollution problem in the District.

When we talk about cleaning up the District you have to remember that both of these major industrial complexes are contributing to the air pollution problem.

I might also say, Senator Spong, that we see in the morning the smoke pall out as far as Centerville, Va., which is 25 miles out. The work which has been done by the air-pollution control people over the last 10 years has been extremely important.

Mr. Griswold, who just testified here is one of the outstanding experts in the country and has done a tremendous job in Los Angeles before he came with the Government. Anywhere in the country or even in the world now that I go, I see editorials and editorial cartoons relating to air pollution almost daily in the local papers. I think that this is primarily because of the enormous visibility that has been given this problem by the Air Pollution Control Division of PHS and specifically Mr. Tom Williams, who is one of the outstanding authorities on this for mass media.

Incidentally, in terms of oil consumption, high sulfur content, I think some thought should be given to the high degree of sulfur content of the Venezuelan and Kuwait oil. This is something that should be kept in mind in terms of high sulfur content and where it comes from.

In summary, there has been a great deal of attention given to this subject. Johnny Carson the other night said he thinks New York is worse than Los Angeles and I think that for those of us who take this problem seriously, this comparison is dangerous, it is easy for us to say here in Washington we have no problem and that Los Angeles is much worse and so is New York and so are other cities.

But it may well be that this problem here in Washington will always be less than it is in New York or in Los Angeles. And in other cities across the country. However, our problem here is increasing year by year and whatever position we have in the air-pollution league of popularity today may well be the position that we hold 10 years from now. But in 10 years we may be as bad as Los Angeles or New York.

Now, we have spent great sums of money recording the cost of air pollution here in Washington. There is no need to repeat the testimony of Dr. Middleton. However, it might be pointed out that the cleaning of the Executive Office Buildings, the District Building, the Veterans' Administration Building, et cetera, range from $150,000 to an average of $50,000 apiece anually. Now, we also know that our ambient air quality far exceeds the recommended value of 0.1 per million.

We talk about the concentration of automobiles in WashingtonDr. Middleton touched upon this but I think it is interesting to note that it is higher than any other city in the country. There are some 4,000 automobiles in Washington per square mile. Now these are statistics, and we are constantly being bombarded with statistics, by newspapers, television, but these statistics don't really mean much to the public. They read about billions of dollars and they have the Vietnamese war on their minds and other things and I think that the only way that we are really going to do anything about this problem-that is, from our last 8 years of experience in moving around the country-is that if the average citizen really has some understanding of how serious this threat is so that he can get behind the thrust to spend the effort and money that must be invested to come back. We need some statistics really, not in general terms, but in terms of what is actually being done here in Washington-what is the actual progress being made?

The National Conference on Air Pollution held here in December 1966 was a highly informative conference. A great deal of it was devoted to educating the professional in air pollution. Words that have been used this morning, "control," "abatement," these terms refer to really a reduction in intensity. However, I think the time has come in the District to include another term in our usage and that term is "elimination." I think that we should think about elimination rather than using the words "abatment" and "control." After all, I think that here in the Nation's Capital because it is our showcase, this is a city that we will need to think about cleaning up.

Now, the daily sampling over the city here in Washington really charts a seasonal rise and fall in air pollution. The trouble with this sampling is that the temperature remains constant over a number of years. But the rise of air pollution over the same period is rising substantially and frightfully. This will exceed any observed fall in these charts.

We are not going to do much about this unless the citizens are motivated to do something about it.

We tend really as has been mentioned before to be complacent about our Washington. It is supposedly a clean city, and we are told that our abundant plant life or rainfall will cleanse the air.

What we are not told is that when the rain falls, that we are washing the pollutants from the buildings, from the trees, from plant life into our soil and into our watersheds and that we are not only endangered by breathing air pollution, but also endangered by consuming the food that is grown in this polluted soil and the water that is taken from these polluted streams.

One of the great problems in arousing people to the dangers of air pollution is, frankly, that it lacks urgency. It is really a very undramatic problem. If you have a fire in Southeast Washington it is not hard, as the bodies are being brought out to understand-it is not hard to understand something about the hazards about fire. If we have a plane that goes down at National Airport or Dulles or Friendship and we lose people, we also are acutely aware of the problems involved in aviation. But what people in the District of Columbia and greater metropolitan area don't realize is that people are dying daily here from emphysema, heart disease, tuberculosis and cancer of the lung, but it is really difficult to prove that air pollution is a really important factor in these deaths.

Now, it takes a great deal of money to study and remove the sources of air pollution and again in the long run the only way these can be removed is by the backing of an irate citizenry. We have seen this in other communities-Chicago-and I am going to Chattanooga tomorrow to talk with people there where some of the outstanding citizens have joined together to really make a meaningful thrust against this problem, both the professional people, the industrialists, and the ordinary citizens who in the end has to be behind us.

These groups that are being formed not only here but around the country, should be listened to and encouraged. This committee that I speak for today has just been newly formed. But its very formation is indicative that this problem and its importance is viewed seriously by the physicians of the District. This community of physicians is decidedly interested in the total environment of the Nation's Capital. After all, we are only talking about one ecological problem that is facing us, but we are very interested in this problem as it relates to our total environment and we are indeed adding our professional voice to aid and alerting the metropolitan area to this ever present growing and insidious danger to our health, happiness, and general well-being. Now, toward this end, the George Washington University Airlie Center has developed a special telecast in cooperation with the Medical Society of the District of Columbia on March 20 on WRC and we will look at this problem, not only in Washington, but as it pertains to cities from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Naples, Italy.

Following this 22-minute program Senator Muskie and the president of the society will pinpoint this problem as it relates to the District.

This is only the first of a series of telecasts which are planned by the medical society toward not only informing the citizens of this community about this problem but hopefully in terms of motivating, to not only recognize, but to move against this danger to life and property.

Senator TYDINGS. I certainly congratulate you on your leadership and the efforts of your committee in the Medical Society of the District of Columbia for making this, Dr. Head.