If industry alone is asked to find new waste-disposal methods and municipalities are not required to do their part, the pollution question would still remain unsolved. Since it is not practical to attempt by force to make municipalities spend enormous sums, it would seem evident that the cooperation suggested in the "study and grant-inaid" type of bill, such as the Vinson bill, would be more likely to produce results. In the oil industry we have the double problem of caring for the manufacturing or refinery wastes with which great progress has already been made and on which the industry is now spending vast sums of money with much promise of continued improvement, and a proper disposal of natural brines which are produced with our oil. This latter has proven a most perplexing problem and for which as yet little solution has been found although it has had the combined attention not only of our own industry but of State and Federal Governments as well. Until this problem is solved we would on passage of a "force bill" be confronted with serious crippling of our production program or have to continue to produce oil and at the same time violate our laws. Such a bill would throw consternation into the operators of more than 330,000 oil wells, many of whom would not be able to install waste disposal plants even if they or anyone knew what type to install. The Vinson bill (H. R. 2711), belongs to that type of measures which would promote cooperative effort looking to the solution of the stream pollution problem. It recognizes the difficulties to be met and does not propose any ready-made solution of all the pollution problems but, instead does propose a serious plan to study the whole question. It is encouraging to note that this bill does not carry an ultimation addressed to industry, ordering it to obey some mandates unspecified in the law iteself under penalties which might easily (and would often) be equivalent to closing down many wells and plants. On the other hand, we believe a program of cooperation between the Federal Government, the several States, and the industries concerned, such as is set forth in this measure, will command the confidence and the voluntary support of every phase of our industry. The interstate compact policy which is one feature of the Vinson bill is the same policy which, applied by the petroleum industry, has been found helpful to the oil producing States without trespassing on the sovereign rights of any of the participants in that compact. It may be of as great value to industry in general in finding the answer to some of the more difficult phases of the pollution evil. The Independent Petroleum Association of America is therefore in favor of the passage of a bill of the type of the Vinson bill, H. R. 2711. INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, By RUSSELL B. BROWN, General Counsel. The CHAIRMAN. Do you represent the petroleum industry? Mr. BROWN. No; I represent the Independent Petroleum Association. That is an association throughout all of the oil-producing States. The membership is largely the producing element, although we have many refiners and others. But our membership is largely from the producers. The CHAIRMAN. The question of oil pollution is one of the most serious things to solve, is it not? Mr. BROWN. We recognize that. Not only the oil, itself, but in the production of oil, there is a natural brine, which is nothing more or less than salt water, that gives us a very serious problem, and we have worked on that for years and have not found the solution. solution has not been found yet. Mr. CULKIN. Do you people own any ships in your group? Mr. BROWN. No. The Mr. CULKIN. Are you familiar with that problem, the sludge that is thrown off in the streams, in cleaning out the boilers, and so on? Mr. BROWN. We do not have so much of that as some of the larger companies. Mr. CULKIN. You know that is quite a problem, and recognize it? Is it under solution now? Mr. BROWN. They are working on it. I do not know how far they have gotten with it. I do know they are giving a lot of thought and direct methods are being employed, but just the details I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Down in my country they will take a tanker of oil, for instance, to New York, and they will come back in water ballast, and when they empty that water, it is bound to have a more or less amount of oil mixed with it, and that causes a great deal of pollution. Mr. BROWN. Yes. We have had a committee-when I say "we" I do not mean our particular group, but the industry has had a committee working on that particular problem, and have made a considerable advance. I think they are approaching it. Oil itself seems to be easier solved than sulphur. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, sir. Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a telegram from Mr. Harry Walter Hutchins, president of the Southwestern Ohio Sportsmen's Club, which I would like to incorporate in the record. The CHAIRMAN. It may be so incorporated. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, MARCH 6, 1937. Chairman, Wildlife Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Southwestern Ohio Sportsman Club vigorously supports Vinson stream-purification bill as most practical approach to this problem. We should make a definite start in this business and the Vinson bill is big step in right direction. Please file this telegram in hearing record. HARRY WALTER HUTCHINS, President. Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce, at this time, a very patient gentleman from the Bureau of Fisheries, Mr. Elmer Higgins. STATEMENT OF ELMER HIGGINS, REPRESENTING BUREAU OF FISHERIES Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Elmer Higgins, and I am chief of the division of scientific inquiry, United States Bureau of Fisheries. I must say that the Secretary of Commerce has not secured a clearance for his report on the bills which are before your committee from the Bureau of the Budget, but I have authorization from the Secretary to present the views that have been developed among the investigators and officers of the Bureau of Fisheries, with regard to pollution, with regard to the effects of pollution on the fishlife, and with regard to the particular measures before the committee. Fish have been left until the last in this hearing. We recognize that they are of minor consideration in the problem of pollution, minor with respect to the protection of the public health which is, by all odds, the major problem before the country. The interests of wildlife, including fish, are by no means inconsiderable, however; they cannot be ignored; they are real. The menace of pollution to our wildlife need not be argued here, because it is generally recognized. Certainly, I voice the feelings of 10,000,000 anglers in this country when we plead for the correction of polution in our streams. Certainly the 480 hatcheries that are operated by the States and the Federal Government would fail utterly to maintain fish in the more polluted waters of the crowded sections of the east, and even in some of the remote sections in the west, in the national parks and forests and mountains of the West, where the industry is not concentrated. It is only in those sections that you can still have satisfactory fishing, with a few shining exceptions in some of our eastern streams that are heavily stocked. My anxiety to present a few considerations to this committee, however, rests upon the fact that the water-purity standards for fish protection differ, both in character and degree, from the standards of water purity that are the chief consideration from the viewpoint of public health. Fish can live in polluted water. On the other hand, fish cannot live in pure water. Mr. Wolman, I think, said it was not aimed to secure complete purification of the streams, or the complete elimination of pollution. He doubtless alluded to the fact that the enrichment of our streams comes from the drainage from the soil and from the organic wastes that enter the streams, and a large portion of that is from domestic sewage. Domestic sewage can be purified from the bacterial standpoint and made perfectly potable, as some of the witnesses have mentioned, but complete purification of sewage, in many cases, produces a kind of effluent in which fish cannot live, and purification in that degree may be inimical to fish life. For example, it reduces the oxygen supply and may result in killing the fish. There came across my desk the other day a clipping from the Herald, of Grand Rapids, Mich., which contains a quotation illustrating the conflicting points of view of wildlife and the sanitary treatment of sewage. The Isaak Walton League, of Grand Rapids, the Dwight Lydell Chapter, in referring to a decision of the court, is quoted in this clipping as follows: The court ordered discontinuance of river pollution and, the people voted bonds to produce that result, which is not affected by settling out from the sewage 40 to 60 percent of the solids and permitting the untreated fluids and balance of the solids in suspension to flow to the river. In the digestion process the oxygen is destroyed. Chlorination, which is disinfection, more or less effective in killing harmful bacteria, some in highly concentrated form, does not restore the life-giving oxygen. There is a later quotation: We believe the combined membership of Dwight Lydell Chapter, Izaak Walton League of America, and the Kent County Conservation League, numbering more than 1,200 persons, represents an accurate cross section of our population, and that as organized sportsmen we fairly represent those buying fishing licenses. As anglers, these people understand the effect of pollution, not only as it applied to fish life but to the public health as well. The CHAIRMAN. Now, the pollution that destroys fish is industrial pollution more than the city sewage, is it not? Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. I want to distinguish between the two classes of pollution, the organic pollution and the nonorganic pollution. Among the organic pollutions, sewage is the most important constituent; and nonorganic pollutions are, roughly, the result of industrial processes. Now, these two classes of substances affect the problem of stream purification of pollution in two different ways. I should like to read a very brief extract from a monograph prepared by Dr. M. M. Ellis, professor of physiology of the University of Missouri and an investigator for the Bureau of Fisheries for the past 5 years in the pollution problem. This monograph is now in the Government Printing Office and should be published this week. The CHAIRMAN. Could you make your statement in the morning? Mr. HIGGINS. I will be very glad to. I have one essential thought which I am leading up to and can be concluded in a short time, but I feel it should be included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. We will be happy to have you back tomorrow morning. So the committee will recess until 10:30 tomorrow. (Thereupon a recess was taken in the hearing until 10:30 a. m., Friday, Mar. 19, 1937.) POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1937 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Joseph J. Mansfield (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, please. I do not know how many more witnesses we want to hear from. Mr. Vinson cannot be here today, because he is with the Committee on the Reorganization of the Government and sent word he could not possibly be here. We did not finish with the Bureau of Fisheries yesterday, and I suppose we might finish your statement, if you are ready. STATEMENT OF ELMER HIGGINS Resumed Mr. HIGGINS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, resuming my testimony where I left off yesterday, I want to read a brief paragraph which summarizes this question of the differences in the point of view and in the technique as between fishery protection and health protection. I am reading a paragraph of part 1 of a monograph on stream pollution, prepared as the result of a 5-year investigation by the Bureau of Fisheries, by Dr. Ellis, professor of physiology of the Medical School of the University of Missouri, and who has served for many years in the investigation of fisheries in the interior waters. This report will be issued, doubtless, during the present week by the Government Printing Office, and I am sorry it is not available now. [Reading:] The various effluents, municipal, industrial, and otherwise, which comprise, collectively, stream pollutants may be detrimental to fishes and other aquatic life either indirectly through quantitative alterations in those substances which give fresh waters their inherent characteristics, as dissolved oxygen, carbonates, and hydrogen ions, or directly because of specific physiological and toxic effects on the aquatic organisms themselves. Many effluents are of complex composition, however, and are harmful to aquatic life through both changes in the aquatic environment and through definite toxic actions. Therefore, in determining the effects of stream pollutants on aquatic biota and particularly on fishes, it has been necessary to study both the modifications in the environment and the specific physiological actions attributable to the different pollutants. The many substances which are carried in solution and suspension by a stream, collectively determine whether the waters of that stream in themselves present conditions favorable or unfavorable for fishes and other aquatic organisms; and any individual fish in the stream is affected, not only directly by these substances, but indirectly through their action on other forms of aquatic life which comprise in a very restricted environment the food, the enemies, and the competitors of the particular individual. The definition of the amounts of these substances which should be present in water in order to maintain a suitable environment for fishes, or which may be tolerated by fishes under favorable conditions, is therefore much more involved than the designation of standards for water for human consumption, which concern but a single, air-breathing, nonaquatic animal—man. 139603-37-18 265 |