With your permission, however, I should like to discuss the publichealth aspects of this problem of stream pollution in the ways in which it appears, from a professional point of view, progress can be made in minimizing this serious menance to public health.

At the outset I will state very emphatically that the increasing pollution in our streams constitutes a very serious public-health problem. That is evidenced by the increasing growth of industry and urbanization, adding a larger amount of sewage to our streams. more concentrated.

More than that, the introduction of new industrial processes frequently brings new and as yet unsolved problems of stream pollution. A year ago when I took the office of Surgeon General, a number of bills were before Congress in reference to this matter. The Public Health Service followed its usual procedure of consulting with the State health officers in an effort to work out and arrive at the best group judgment for dealing with this problem. A committee of sanitary engineers representing the several State departments of health in various parts of the country met and considered the several proposals which had been made in connection with stream pollution. As a result of the deliberations of this technical committee, a committee of State health officers met and considered those recommendations and brought them before the whole group. Those recommendations were adopted unanimously. In brief the recommendations are as follows: That there be established in the Public Health Service a Division of Stream Pollution Control; that this Division should cooperate with the agencies of the several States authorized or designated by law to deal with water pollution; that the Division should encourage cooperative activities by the several States in the enactment of uniform laws relating to water pollution and in the formation of interstate compacts for its control; that provision should be made upon such estimates as the President may prescribe for grants-in-aid and loans to the civil subdivisions of States, and for loans to private corporations for the construction of the necessary remedial treatment works; that there be appropriated annually to the Public Health Service $300,000 for studies for the development of comprehensive plans for the administration of grants in aid.

The CHAIRMAN. How long under this bill does it require to study and investigate and prepare plans for remedies?

Dr. PARRAN. I am very glad you have asked that question because it seemed this morning that we were somewhat at sea concerning this matter of study. Of course, the studies of water purification, the study of sewage treatment, will continue under this bill and we hope to provide cheaper and better methods. On the other hand, science now has the necessary knowledge to prescribe methods of treatment. The types of studies which are proposed are not some long-range studies which would be necessary before action could be taken. The studies would primarily be directed to the consideration of each of the available plans most appropriate for given watersheds. In other words, the studies are in the nature of application of existing kmowledge to conditions which are found to exist on the particular watershed and in particular areas, so that remedial treatment measures could be started very promptly in any area as a result of study in that I hope I have made that clear.

area.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, in regard to municipalities along the river, those that would be dependent upon loans or grants in aid;

whatever might be determined, it might require some time for them to get ready for action, would it not?

Dr. PARRAN. It would. Some communities, however, are ready for action now. We have seen during the last 3 or 4 years a stimulus of Federal grants-in-aid, a great increase in the amount of sewage-treatment works which have been constructed. Some data regularly collected by the Public Health Service bear upon that point. It appears that at present 52 percent of the urban population of the country which is provided with sewers also is provided with sewage treatment, so that, roughly, one-half of the present job has been done already in whole or in part. In some instances, it is fair to state parenthetically, the extent of sewage treatment is not sufficient to meet the increasing load of pollution which is coming into the river.

Mr. DONDERO. Do I understand you to say 50 percent of the urban population are provided?

Dr. PARRAN. Fifty-two percent of the sewered population of the United States.

Mr. DONDERO. One-half of the population do not have any treatment to all with respect to sewage?

Dr. PARRAN. Exactly, the job is only half done. Since 1932 there has been an increase of 72 percent in the amount of sewage which has been treated, as the result almost entirely of Federal loans and grants to municipalities. The number of plants has increased from a total of 2,900 to 3,700, and in the case of some existing plants added treatment has been put into effect. That is, roughly, 800 plants deal with a population of approximately 15,000,000 people.

One might ask at this point that if the past policy of Federal grantsin-aid through W. P. A. and P. W. A. was continued, why is it necessary to go into a long-range program such as this? There are several factors. First, a similar increase has not been recorded in treatment of industrial wastes in this period because there has been no Federal assistance in terms of loans. Second, there has been no consistency of policy as between adjacent communities either in the same State or in another, and particularly as between adjacent States of the same watershed. Third, communities, as the chairman has indicated, frequently will require months or even years to secure a bond issue or to perfrect other local arrangements for dealing with this problem, and up to now there has been no assurance that this Federal aid would be available a year or two from now. So there are several reasons why it seems desirable that we look forward to a long-range program. It should be borne in mind that it is not always necessary to treat the sewage to a high degree of purity. That is tremendously costly and ordinarily is not necessary. It is on that point that studies are recommended in each watershed to determine the amount of pollution or use to which the water is put, the character of the pollution, and other factors in order to prescribe the most economical or the most effective methods of treatment for such an area. It is that type of study which is needed on these watersheds rather than some longrange studies which, I fear, some of us may have gotten the impression were contemplated before any action could be taken.

Another question that might be asked is why is it necessary for the Federal Government to go into this matter of giving aid for prevention of stream pollution rather than in the building of schools or some other community improvement. The answer to that question, I think, is very clear if we consider the facts. The community

which discharges sewage into its streams itself personally is not affected by that pollution. It is the downstream city which is affected and therefore the taxpayers, the voters, are much less anxious, much less willing, if you please, to devote their funds to that purpose. They are more apt to spend money on water supply which, of course, is necessary for street and school and various other public improvements. It has been shown and I have emphasized that in recent years the encouragement of Federal grant in aid has been a tremendous factor in bringing about improvement in this situation.

More than that, questions arise as to why is it not possible for a city to purify its water supply sufficiently to prevent these conditions. It is true the science of water purification has been perfected very much in the past few decades. It is true that engineers are able to take a very badly polluted water and through the exercise of extraordinary measures and intensive measures make it safe for human consumption, but there are limits to which such purification measures may be applied, and that is particularly true of rivers in which the volume varies very much, the amount of turbidity, and the amount of pollution. I speak from intimate experience with the problem in the State of New York where in the Niagara frontier a serious condition has existed for years in the Niagara River. The amount of pollution has varied as much as 1,000 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the city of Buffalo a contributor?

Dr. PARRAN. The city of Buffalo has been the largest contributor to it. That fact bears on some of the discussion this morning. As a matter of fact, the State could not force action. The State of New York does have laws which presumably would prevent this, yet until recently there has not been the force of public sentiment to enable those laws to be enforced. During recent years, however, as a result of public education, public information concerning the facts, as a result of dramatizing these epdiemics which have occurred along the Niagara frontier, the city of Buffalo has undertaken to tax itself to a large extent and is now providing sewage-treatment works with Federal assistance. The determining factor in this situation was Federal assistance which has been given to the city.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any use in going into the matter along international lines?

Dr. PARRAN. Yes; as the result of the study of the international joint commission some 25 years ago, the United States and Canada entered into a compact that each would take the necessary steps to prevent the undue pollution of the Great Lakes.

Mr. DONDERO. That is the operation of our treaty with Canada. Dr. PARRAN. Yes; it is a matter of treaty obligation and yet there has been apparently no feasible way under which the Government could enforce this part of the treaty. In the instance of Buffalo, through the use of financial assistance, Buffalo has been willing to do its part and that situation is being cleaned up.

I would like to say in closing that the Public Health Service has been carrying out studies of stream pollution for the past 21 years. It has created a body of information which is being used by waterworks operators and sewage-treatment authorities the country over. Moreover, we have cooperated with State health departments by giving them advice and technical assistance in regard to this matter. In particular, studies have been carried out on the Ohio River and a

mass of information is now available for that river which would make it possible for construction work to be started with the assurance that the type of treatment that is proposed is the best which present day science has given.

Mr. DONDERO. What is the type on the Ohio River? Is it sewagedisposal or reduction plants?

Dr. PARRAN. The next witness is our chief engineer, who has studied this problem for the past 20 years and can give you that information better than I can.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as you know, those States are all willing and ready to cooperate with you?

Dr. PARRAN. We have a fine background of that type of cooperation. Since 1880 the Public Health Service has been working with the States in the solution of health problems of mutual interest. It is particularly gratifying to us in these days when there are so many complicated problems of Federal and State relationships that arise, to find that they are having no such difficulties now as a result of 56 years of work. We have evolved practical means by which the States' rights are not infringed and better health since is being attained. Congress met this situation last year in the passage of the health section of the Social Security Act, under which we are now giving the States grants-in-aid and technical cooperation in solving many health problems.

Senator Barkley this morning referred to the fact that one could not lay down a track from our present situation to a far-off ideal goal, and may I say that with our technical knowledge as to the first few sections of the track it appears that means are available as a result of this long-time Federal and State cooperation. That device has seemed to us to be a sound device rather than federalization of this matter, even though its constitutionality were settled. The Federal and State cooperation seems to be a more appropriate method based on past experience than attempting to give the Federal Government full and complete and regulatory authority over all the stream pollution in the country.

Mr. SMITH. The purpose of this legislation is twofold; first, to enable the Federal Government to furnish the scientific direction to the municipalities and States; and, second, to provide funds in order that they may actually do the work themselves, instead of having the Federal Government do it.

Dr. PARRAN. That is correct, and I may say that the provisions of the Vinson bill, H. R. 2711, seem to carry out all the recommendations made and adopted by the State health authorities of the country last year.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, for your very good statement. Dr. PARRAN. I thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF J. K. HOSKINS, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

Dr. PARRAN. Mr. Hoskins is a senior sanitary engineer of the Public Health Service in charge of stream pollution investigations.

Mr. HOSKINS. Surgeon General Parran stated the Treasury Department has not reported on this legislation, hence the information that I

am able to give you will pertain to the facts concerning stream pollution as we have studied them in our research work at the sundry stations of the Stream Pollution Investigations, and also information pertaining to the general procedure throughout the country.

The problem of stream pollution, of course, is Nation-wide. The population of the whole country was in 1935 about 127,500,000, of which a total of 68,000,000 lived in urban communities.

Of this total population, approximately 71,000,000, or about 56 percent, discharged sewage into the water courses of the country.

Approximately 65 percent of the urban population are located in the area north of the Potomac River and east of the Mississippi River, which area is only 14 percent of the total of the area of the United States. Hence, problems of water pollution are most acute in that

area.

I will not take the time to present figures in detail but I would like to introduce in the record this résumé of the stream pollution conditions in the United States.

Mr. VINSON. Could this statement and the various other statements that Dr. Hoskins may wish to submit be printed in the record in the ordinary type?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

RÉSUMÉ OF STREAM POLLUTION CONDITIONS

UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE

The following facts are of interest:

1. The population of the United States as determined by the 1930 census was 122,700,000. The estimated population of the United States as of July 1, 1935, was 127,500,000, an increase of 4,800,000 since 1930.

2. The urban population of the United States in 1930, that is, persons residing in communities having a population of 2,500 or over, was 68,500,000 as determined by the United States census. If the increase in urban population for 1935 is assumed to have been at the same rate as the total population increase, the urban population of the United States in 1935 would be 71,300,000; an increase of 2,800,000

in 5 years.

3. Information recently obtained from the several State health departments of the United States indicates the following:

(a) Fifty-five and seven-tenths percent of the 1930 census population, or a total of 71,000,000, are served by sewers. This is about equal to the 1935 estimated urban population.

(b) The sewage of 34,000,000 people receives some degree of treatment or purification in sewage treatment works, or approximately 47.7 percent of the estimated 1935 urban population. In other words, the sewage of less than one-half of the population of our cities receives any kind of treatment before discharge to streams, lakes, or tidal waters.

(c) Further analyses of these data indicate the sewage of 15,400,000 people, or approximately 21.6 percent of the estimated 1935 urban population, receives treatment or purification to the extent that the process may be termed complete treatment (something better than