Maryland: R. H. Riley, M. D., State director of health, Baltimore. Massachusetts: H. D. Chadwick, M. D., State commissioner of public health, Boston. Michigan: C. C. Slemons, M. D., State health commissioner, Lansing. Minnesota: A. J. Chesley, M. D., secretary, State board of health, St. Paul. Mississippi: F. J. Underwood, M. D., executive officer, State board of health, Jackson. Missouri: H. S. Parker, M. D., State health commissioner, Jefferson City. Montana: W. F. Cogswell, M. D., secretary, State board of health, Helena. Nebraska: P. H. Bartholomew, M. D., director of health, Lincoln. Nevada: John E. Worden, M. D., secretary, State board of health, Carson City. New Hampshire: T. P. Burroughs, M. D., secretary, State board of health, Concord. New Jersey: J. Lynn Mahaffey, M. D., State director of health, Trenton. North Carolina: Carl V. Reynolds, M. D., State health officer, Raleigh. Pennsylvania: Edith MacBride-Dexter, M. D., secretary of health, State department of health, Harrisburg. Rhode Island: E. A. McLaughlin, M. D., State director of public health, Providence. South Carolina: J. A. Hayne, M. D., State health officer, Columbia. South Dakota: P. B. Jenkins, M. D., State superintendent of health, Pierre. Tennessee: W. C. Williams, M. D., State commissioner of public health, Nashville. Texas: G. W. Cox, M. D., State health officer, Austin. Utah: J. L. Jones, M. D., State health commissioner, Salt Lake City. THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH OF MISSOURI, Hon. FRED M. VINSON, Jefferson, March 12, 1937. DEAR MR. VINSON: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 6 and a copy of the stream-pollution bill which you have introduced in the Congress. I regret to advise that it will be impossible for me to attend the hearing on this bill before the Rivers and Harbors Committee. However, I am taking advantage of your invitation to give you my views, by letter, concerning my reasons for supporting this bill. 1. Your bill places the investigation and administrative control of stream pollution in the hands of those agencies, Federal, State and others, which for a number of years have been studying and wrestling with this serious and important problem. 2. Your bill, as I understand it, gives full recognition to the interest and rights of the various States concerning stream pollution, and, in agreement with other Federal legislation concerning State problems, sets up a practical and effective means of solving the problem of stream pollution with maximum aid from the Federal Government, yet in accord with accepted views concerning State autonomy. 3. It appeals to me as being practical, first, because it makes provision for comprehensive and careful studies of stream pollution, and I feel that a thorough knowledge of the problem is the first essential to its solution; second, it presents a practical incentive and aid to cities in the construction of such works for the control of stream pollution as are deemed necessary, after careful study. In conclusion, your bill seems to me, after due consideration of other measures, the most logical and intelligent approach that has to date been presented for the control of stream pollution on a Nation-wide basis. Further, and all important from the standpoint of those of us who in a large measure must bear the brunt of securing the prevention of pollution of our streams, your bill appeals to me as being workable in practice as well as theory. Very truly yours, HARRY F. PARKER, M. D., State Health Commissioner. STATE OF NEW YORK, Albany, March 10, 1937. Hon. FRED M. VINSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN VINSON: I regret that circumstances are such that I shall not be able to attend or be represented personally at the hearing before the Rivers and Harbors Committee on March 17, 1937, at which time H. R. 2711 introduced by you on January 12, 1937 will be considered. However I should like to be recorded as in favor of this bill. We have considered the provisions of this bill very carefully and believe that its passage would be the most important and constructive action ever taken in the interests of water pollution abatement. The essence of the bill is cooperation with and aid to States, municipalities, and industry, which is exactly what is needed to accelerate the work of streampollution control and solve as quickly as possible the many and varied waterpollution problems of the country. The bill is wisely conceived and makes a sound approach to these problems. Control over water pollution vested in the various States will be reinforced by the cooperation and aid extended by the Federal Government. It properly provides for administration over such cooperative aid arrangements by the United States Public Health Service, already carrying on work of this kind and with a long record of successful performance in the field of streampollution investigations and research, all of which has been of immense value to the different States. Passage of the bill will greatly broaden the type of work. It takes proper account of all the various interests involved in water-pollution control work (health, fish, recreation, agriculture, and industry) and establishes a procedure by means of which each one of these interests will be adequately considered in the development of comprehensive plans for the improvement of the sanitary condition of navigable waters and their tributaries. One of the immediate benefits to accrue to this State as a result of passage of this bill would be the encouragement and aid which would be given to the work being undertaken by the interstate sanitation commission under the terms of a formal compact already entered into by the States of New York and New Jersey. Helpful aid in the formulation of other interstate compacts, two of which are now in progress, would also be secured. The collection and dissemination of information relating to pollution studies, investigations, and research, provided for in the bill, would make available to us data from other States of immense value in the consideration of plans for sewage and waste treatment submitted to us for approval. Under the provisions of the bill it would be possible for this department to secure the assistance of the United States Public Health Service in carrying on many needed investigations relating to the problems of water pollution which have been impossible in the past because of limited personnel. The provisions of the bill which relate to the extension of financial aid to municipalities and industries through grants-in-aid and loans appeal particularly to us. In this State, in the few years since Federal aid has been available through such administrations as the Public Works Administration, Works Progress Administration, etc., we have built nearly as many sewage-treatment plants as in the preceding 30 years. Sewage-treatment plants in New York State financed with Federal aid, including those under construction, provide for the treatment of a greater total volume of sewage than that treated by all the plants previously constructed in the State and financed by the municipalities themselves. Almost without exception, all municipal sewage-treatment-plant construction in this State during the past 4 years has been as a result of the financial aid extended by the Federal Government. It is our well-considered opinion that unless some form of Federal financial aid to municipalities is continued there will be little further progress made during the next 10 years in the construction of municipal treatment plants where these are needed to abate existing objectionable water pollution. The aid that would be forthcoming to this department under the provisions of section 9 would make it possible for this department to extend its promotional and investigational work and expand its pollution control procedures, all of which would accelerate the pollution abatement program in this State. Aside from the many specific benefits of the various provisions of the bill, some of which I have commented upon, there are certain indirect benefits. One of these, and which is as important as all others combined, relates to the favorable public sentiment which would be created and wider appreciation which would develop of the benefits accruing to the country as a whole when polluted waters are reclaimed and clean waters are preserved in a sanitary condition, useful for all the various purposes which natural waters serve. Progress in the control of stream pollution can be made only in about the proportion that public sentiment and public opinion will permit. All of the investigations, planning, and similar activities contemplated under the provisions of this bill, together with the wide dissemination of information resulting therefrom, cannot help but give a tremendous advance to the creation of favorable public sentiment which will support efforts to abate and control water pollution. Sincerely yours, EDWARD S. GODFREY, Jr., THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH Carolina, Hon. FRED M. VINSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. VINSON: Please accept my thanks for your letter of March 12, enclosing a copy of the stream-pollution bill, H. R. 2711, which you introduced this year, forwarded at the request of Mr. Warren H. Booker, director of the North Carolina State Board of Health. I am glad, indeed, to have a copy of this bill. I am vitally interested in the matter and have followed with interest the splendid efforts of yourself and others during the last and present sessions of Congress. I shall be glad to do anything possible in behalf of a measure of this kind. Cordially yours, DEAR MR. VINSON: Would gladly accept your invitation to appear at a hearing before the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House of Representatives, on the stream-pollution bill which you introduced as H. R. 2711, same being, I believe, a companion bill to one introduced in the Senate by Senator Barclay, but, unfortunately, pressure of business at home will not permit. However, I am extremely interested in this phase of public health work, for, as you know, Oklahoma is growing rapidly; and unless a definite program for the control of pollution is placed in effect, we will be in a serious position, for the streams of this State have very low flows during most of the year, and we must preserve them for our water supplies and for recreational purposes. Already industrial pollution has cost the people of this State many millions of dollars in replacing their water supplies. As the health authorities of the country and the United States Public Health Service have been for many years interested in stream pollution, I am fully in accord with your recommendation to place the responsibility for the operation of this act under the jurisdiction of the Public Health Service, with authority to cooperate with the respective State health agencies. It is also worthy of note that you do not make the Federal Government an enforcement agency but leave this phase of the work to the respective State agencies. This arrangement permits the service to devote its efforts to research and investigations, and depending upon education, good judgment, and public opinion in order to secure the full benefits of this act. The recent experience of the Public Works Administration is convincing evidence that the cities and towns of this country are more receptive to a construction program if financial assistance is forthcoming from the Federal Government. With the provisions in your bill for grants-in-aid to governmental agencies and loans at low rates of interest to industry, you have silenced one of the most effective arguments always advanced; that is, funds cannot be obtained for the necessary improvements. Then again, in Oklahoma, while we can issue an order for the construction of sewage-treatment works, it is practically impossible to enforce such an order, for the funds must be raised by a bond issue, and the city officials as well as the public are hesitant about voting such issues for this type of utility. With the possibility of securing aid on these projects, little difficulty should be experienced in carrying out recommendations for the construction of sewage-treatment works. With the United States Public Health Service as the directing agency, cooperative programs between the States can be more expeditiously placed into operation, and the complicating problems now created by State lines will not be the serious obstacles that they appear to be at present. Your interest in the matter of stream pollution is sincerely appreciated, and I wish to express my thanks for the opportunity of presenting these few remarks concerning the matter of stream pollution as it affects the State of Oklahoma. Respectfully, CHAS. M. PEARCE, M. D., Commissioner of Health. Hon. FRED M. VINSON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN VINSON: I have your letter of March 6, enclosing copy of the stream-pollution bill, and am sorry, but it will not be possible for me to attend the hearing before the Rivers and Harbors Committee on the morning of March 17. This bill, if it becomes a law, apparently would enlarge and strengthen cooperative efforts of the United States Public Health Service with the various State departments of health. Yours very truly, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, Hon. FRED M. VINSON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Providence, March 12, 1937. SIR: Your letter of March 6, 1937, to Dr. McLaughlin, bringing to his attention the matter of a hearing on the stream pollution bill introduced by you this year, has been handed to me for reply. Please be advised that I am planning on attending the hearing as a representative of the Rhode Island Health Department and will go on record as supporting this bill. Yours very truly, WALTER J. SHEA, Division Chief. SOUTH DAKOTA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, Hon. FRED M. VINSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN VINSON: This will acknowledge receipt of you letter of March 6 enclosing a copy of H. R. 2711, a bill to create a Division of Water Pollution Control within the United States Public Health Service. The South Dakota State Board of Health would like very much to see this bill passed in preference to any others which are now pending. It is my opinion that the United States Public Health Service, due to their previous connection with stream-pollution problems, and due to the special training of personnel necessary for an intelligent study of these problems, is better qualified to handle such matters than any other governmental agency. Likewise, in the States, the State health agency is generally charged with the control of pollution. This bill provides for cooperative action between these two agencies. It is felt, however, that the State should maintain the authority over water pollution within its borders as the State agency is more intimately acquainted with the various problems concerned. It is also our belief that more effective work can be accomplished over a period of time by full cooperation between the authority charged with the control of pollution and the person or persons causing the same. Here again the State health department, or other agency charged with pollutional control, has a knowledge of the local problems which is necessary for an amiable and satisfactory solution of the problem. In South Dakota there has been created a committee of water pollution of which the State Health Officer is ex-officio chairman and the State sanitary engineer is secretary and executive officer. The Division of sanitary engineering is charged with the duty of making all investigations to determine the source and remedy of water pollution. Since the passage of this State law, the funds for this work have been inadequate. This bill provides Federal assistance whereby an effective program of waterpollution control could be carried to completion within the State of South Dakota under the present statutes. Provisions are also made in H. R. 2711 whereby drainage basins lying within two or more States may be controlled through the cooperative action of the various States affected. It is our sincere hope that H. R. 2711 will receive favorable action by the Seventy-fifth Congress. Very truly yours, Mr. FRED M. VINSON, P. B. JENKINS, M. D., STATE OF TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Nashville, March 9, 1937. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. VINSON: We were encouraged to learn that the Rivers and Harbors Committee has scheduled a hearing on the stream-pollution bill for March 17. I regret it will not be possible for a representative of our department to be present at the hearing and present such supporting data as are available to show our need for this specific legislation. While Tennessee is not strictly an industrial State, we have for a number of years recognized the increasing need for the formation of a legally constituted body of experts for the specific purpose of cooperating with the various official agencies and industries directly concerned with the study, control, and correction of stream-pollution problems. After a rather careful study of this bill, House Resolution No. 2711, we are fully convinced that its enactment would be of inestimable value to the State of Tennessee and industrial plants therein. There is no doubt but that the formation of such a board would be a most progressive step in the amicable solution of present and future problems, which we, because of our limited resources, have been unable to adequately study prior to this time. May I assure you of our active interest in behalf of this legislation and place at your command such resources as we may have available. Sincerely yours, Hon. FRED M. VINSON, W. C. WILLIAMS, Commissioner of Public Health. STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, United States Congressman, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We regret exceedingly that we cannot attend the hearing on your water-pollution control bill, H. R. 2711, next Wednesday, March 17, because of some very urgent appointments and hearings here before our own State legislature on health matters. In the event that further hearings will be held please notify us as we consider this bill of such vital importance that 139603-37--13 |