The CHAIRMAN. In your reference to the great flood and what was done by the medical authorities, is it not a fact that you doubtless might have had a very great epidemic if it had not been for the treatment that you applied in dealing with that situation?

Dr. MCCORMACK. We knew perfectly well we would because with the same exact situation in 1913 we did have such an epidemic following the flood because we could not mobilize the necessary personnel. The knowledge was in existence but there was not anybody to carry the measure into effect until they were flooded out of their homes. In 1883 and 1884 when there was a flood that was a perfect holocaust, following the flood in Louisville in 2 years following the flood more people died from typhoid fever alone than now die from all diseases. The death rate was five times what it is now and 80 percent of it was from typhoid fever. The facilities that modern science needs to make our efforts succeed can be provided by the great organizations, although I will say that up to the present time the Federal Government and the States and municipalities have done much to build constructively the greatest nation, the greatest civilization in the world. We fuss a little about that but we move onward and forward and will get somewhere and I have been very happy to attend this hearing before this great committee. I think it is one of the greatest and most constructive hearings I have ever listened to and it is backed up by dignity and purpose that will merit rank along with the socialsecurity legislation of 2 years ago, and I believe that it as the result of this matter, your legislation along the lines of the Vinson bill will be as productive of good to the people of America and give other encouragement equal to what has ever previously come from the Halls of Congress.

Mr. SEGER. You spoke of cooperation between the Federal Government and States and municipalities. Such an experiment is going on in the Potomac River?

Dr. McCORMACK. Exactly.

Mr. SEGER. Do you know what they contemplate?

Dr. MCCORMACK. It is a very fine example of what we need to do in all the watersheds of the country.

Mr. SEGER. Have they reached a solution?

Dr. McCORMACK. No; not exactly reached a solution. They are on the way. Of course, there you enter into a somewhat different field. There is a thought all over the country of the development of authorities for river control comparable to the Tennessee Valley Authority. Whether it is better to exemplify what we formerly called sanitary and drainage districts in Kentucky, or not, there has developed an enthusiasm all over the country. Later, as soon as that dies out or goes bankrupt, it will all go back into weeds and there is no continuing support such as comes from organized government. After all, that authority in this country is taxes and is, therefore, responsible to public opinion as the authority that controls and rules the expedniture of public money. I believe that as long as you gentlemen are making appropriations, as long as you are in control, and I am very happy that Mr. Vinson is drafting this bill because he has arranged it so that everyone of the general suggestions that would be made for the cities of Cincinnati, Louisville, Paducah, would have to be approved by the Public Health Service and its engineers. It is

important for us to understand that there is a difference between engineers and sanitary engineers just as there is a difference between the specialty of public health and the other specialties of medicine. We have the important function to carry on that can only be done under status of law under our American form of organization.

Mr. CULKIN. This prophylaxis against typhoid fever gives you results.

Dr. McCORMACK. It does. We have made progress in that respect. The Army is able to announce progress now in typhoid fever prevention. You have a great Army center here that operates effectively. They recommend a series of inoculations twice within 3 years, not sooner than 2 years. There are three injections, 10 days apart, given twice at intervals of 3 years, which will provide permanent immunity. Mr. CULKIN. That has been operating in the flood conditions? Dr. McCORMACK. We have in the neighborhood of 1,600,000 people and they sent 80 gallons of typhoid vaccine to the State health department from the Army medical center. When I say that I pinch myself because it does not seem to be true when you think how little it takes for each individual, and that three-fifths of the people of Kentucky were inoculated for typhoid fever during this flood.

Mr. CULKIN. Do you have cases of typhoid fever now?

Dr. McCORMACK. We have been very fortunate. So far we have had nine cases, all of people who refused inoculation, openly and bitterly refused to take inoculation, and those who got it are those who raised the most fuss.

Mr. COLDEN. California cannot yield to Kentucky on climate nor in fruit growing. We do take off our hats in honor of Fred Vinson, of Kentucky, because he is most able, and a man of great integrity, and he is one of the men who has made this House what it is.

Dr. MCCORMACK. I am very happy to hear that.

Mrs. HONEYMAN. I would like to extend an invitation the next time to visit our country in Oregon.

Dr. McCORMACK. The trouble about going out there is it ruins your reputation. The last time I went there I went fishing and got about 3,800 fish in about 15 or 20 minutes with a waste-paper basket and from that time on I have the reputation of being the biggest liar on earth. Those smelts were wonderful and the fishing is delightful. When I went to Oregon I immediately secured registration there as I have thought always if I have to leave Kentucky I could go to one of the great States of the Union where I would love to live.

The CHAIRMAN. In the tarpon fishing in Texas there is no pollution. (Thereupon, at 12:15 p. m. the committee recessed until 2:30 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vinson, do you have an idea how many more witnesses will go on?

Mr. VINSON. I have easily a dozen more.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you all stand up who wish to be heard?

Mr. VINSON. I guessed pretty closely when I said a dozen. There are 10 here. I know one other gentleman who will not be here until 4 o'clock, and I think that is the gentleman from Rhode Island. I present Mr. Rice, of South Carolina, sanitary engineer.

STATEMENT OF B. P. RICE, SANITARY ENGINEER, SOUTH

CAROLINA

Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, the only thing that I have to say is that we are vitally interested in stream pollution. The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand whom you represent?

Mr. RICE. The State of South Carolina. We are vitally interested in stream pollution in our State, and we are very much in favor of the Vinson bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; thank you, sir.

Mr. VINSON. Dr. Messer, of Virginia.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD MESSER, CHIEF ENGINEER, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear here for the State health commissioner of Virginia, Dr. I. Ć. Riggin. Dr. Riggin was here all day yesterday, but due to another engagement, he could not appear today. Dr. Ricgin wishes me to state that he and the members of the State board of health are favorable to the Vinson bill. We believe that the bill will be helpful in improving stream conditions in Virginia.

With your permission, I wish to file for the record a very brief statement prepared by Dr. Riggin.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will be glad to insert it in the record. (Document is as follows:)

VINSON BILL TO CREATE A DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

By Dr. I. C. RIGGIN, Commissioner, Virginia State Department of Health

The approach to stream pollution as a national problem, of vital concern to the people in its relation to health, industry, recreation, and agriculture, gives promise of ultimately arriving at a practicable solution in a manner which is equitable to all interests. Although a few States, acting individually, have made progress in some localities where stream pollution conditions have become acute, experience has shown conclusively that a more uniform policy is needed for dealing with the problem throughout the country.

The principal purpose of this bill, as I see it, is to entrust to a Federal agency, most qualified by technical experience and personnel, the responsibility of coordinating efforts in the several State, first, by collecting, analyzing, and making readily available to States, localities, and persons, basic data pertaining to the treatment of sewage and trade wastes; second, to carry on further research regarding certain wastes for which no practicable method of treatment is known; and finally, providing that the Government, through the Public Health Service, shall not only cooperate with State agencies in making studies and investigations, but shall pass upon the need and kind of corrective measures required in a given instance, with due regard to the principal uses of a stream or other body of water now and in the years to come. In brief, this bill means the inauguration of a planning movement for the conservation of all streams without regard to State boundaries.

That such a coordinating program is practically impossible without full cooperation of the Federal Government, is clear to all who have had experience in connection with local controversies relating to questions of pollution. It is only natural that opinions differ regarding what uses of a stream shall have priority, how the expenses of corrective measures shall be appropriated, and what policy shall be adopted concerning probable uses of the water in the future.

Indifference on the part of the public concerning the far-reaching consequences of the unrestricted use of water has been the chief reason for the delay in adopting sound conservation measures. However, it will be impossible to win public support for financing costly projects until there is a clearer understanding with regard to the needs therefor, and whether the proposed methods of handling sewage and trade wastes are practicable. Also the argument most frequently advanced is that conditions locally are not as bad, or at least no worse than elsewhere, so why should the people or corporation be called upon to pay for construction and maintenance of disposal works. The Public Health Service, under the provisions of this bill, can accomplish much in bringing about an agreement among the interested parties.

Under this bill, the rights of States for exercising control of streams. within their own boundaries, is amply safeguarded, and there is no reason to fear dictation from this Federal agency. It seems to me that the kinds of service which will be rendered to the individual States or localities or persons therein will be similar to the service now being rendered by the Public Health Service in the field of public health. Furthermore scientific studies which are needed for developing practicable methods of treating certain trade wastes can be carried on more effectively by a Federal agency having adequate funds, than by the individual States; and most important of all, the advice and endorsement of a given project or policy by a Federal agency, in which the public has confidence, will be helpful in each State formulating a constructive program of stream conservation.

Mr. MESSER. As for me, I have had some years of experience in stream pollution, and I am not going to impose on your time any more, except one or two points: The subject has been so clearly and fully discussed by the various speakers there is very little to add. But in my experience, I believe that the principal reason for delay has been the lack of concerted effort on the part of the various groups. The States have worked individually, some of them, and made progress. But more than that, the groups within the States have worked individually and with different objectives.

For instance, as you know, from these hearings, or can appreciate, the public mind is in a very much confused state, that particular persons or groups, wishing to defeat any legislation, can take advantage of this. I believe, more than that, that fear and more drastic legislation has really caused the delay. Whenever an acute situation arises, it is always because of the threat of some drastic legislation; and in Virginia, at least, it is not uncommon-it has been for the last 20 years to have large groups of people make it their business to come down and defeat legislation. That is one of the pastimes that come up at every session of Congress.

Therefore, I think the greatest need at the present time is some coordinated influence, so as to bring out clearly, for the benefit of the public, the essential facts in stream conservation and how the streams can best be used for the benefit of the people.

Judge Bland, this morning, in a very clear, concise statement of the conditions in our tidal waters, where the pollution is affecting the shellfish, affecting recreation, and may affect the beaches, and agree that the problem has to be studied from a technical standpoint; and now there is a commission trying to make the people understand the needs of this comprehensive improvement.

Major Robertson, who represents Virginia in Congress, has an intimate knowledge of the conditions in the inland streams, a knowledge gained by several years of practical experience, although the problems are somewhat different. So we do have those two problems and we have made some progress, but not as much as should be made. Now, this bill, in my opinion, meets the need of bringing in all of the factors relating to stream pollution. Although health is of primary importance, you cannot proceed with stream sanitation without taking the other interests into account.

Further than that, the bill puts into the hands of the Public Health Service the responsibility of coordinating the efforts to that end, which end will be more or less general throughout the country, so that the people will know that a policy is being worked out in a practical way, and that only practical recommendations will be made.

Now, the Public Health Service, for years, has worked with the States. The Public Health Service, at the present time, is playing a very important part in all health activities, whether it is county, State, or municipality. A health department, a full-time health department is established in every county. And the Public Health Service has taken a very active part in those matters, and more so at the present time than they have in the past.

The people throughout Virginia, at least, and I presume the same is true for the other States, know the Public Health Service; they have come to have a very high respect for the Public Health Service, and they respect the Public Health Service as being a body which will give impartial opinions, based on scientific facts, and with no particular motives behind them. Therefore, in the States which have had work done on stream pollution, the work has usually been done through the State department of health.

So, immediately, under this bill, if this leadership is given to the Public Health Service, you have an organization of Federal and State working together, and in the States, the counties and cities, and all of their personnel will be working for one objective.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, has the State of Virginia an effective law pertaining to pollution?

Dr. MESSER. We have no law. At intervals since 1916, and almost every since, one group or another tried to get a law enacted. The nearest that came in was after 3 years of intensive study, costing about $35,000, and we did draw a law, patterned after the Vinson bill-I mean after the Madison bill. That bill was never introduced, for the reason that another group came in with a radical bill-we call it a radical bill, a drastic bill-and a cooperative committee, which had made a study under the leadership of Major Robertson, decided that the time was not ripe for presenting that bill. So the matter has been postponed.

At the last session, there was a very simple bill introduced, but due to the previous hearings in the previous years I think there were about 75 representatives of industry and 2 or 3 proponents of the