practicable, conform to the areas of watersheds not wholly contained within the boundaries of one State. (b) The Board shall fix standards of purity for the waters of each such district; shall establish minimum requirements as to the treatment of polluting material before it is discharged into such waters; and shall promulgate regulations governing the discharge of any matter or materials into such waters. DISTRICT BOARDS SEC. 9. (a) In each sanitary water district there shall be a district board. The number of members of each such board, and the method of selection or appointment, terms of office, and compensation of such members shall be fixed by the Board in its discretion, except that not less than three-fourths of the members of each district board shall be bona-fide residents of the district, and shall be apportioned among the States comprising such district as nearly equally as may be. (b) It shall be the duty of each district board (1) To prevent the pollution of waters within the district by voluntary methods insofar as practicable; (2) To investigate the desirability of making loans or grants in such district for the construction of sewage-disposal plants and works for the treatment of trade wastes and to recommend the making of such loans or grants to the Board; and (3) To institute proceedings for the prevention and abatement of water pollution in such district. LOANS AND GRANTS SEC. 10. The Board is authorized to make loans or grants, or both, to States and political subdivisions and municipalities thereof, and to make loans to persons or corporations for the construction, enlargement, or improvement of sewagedisposal plants and plants or works for the treatment of trade wastes. Such loans and grants shall be made upon such terms and conditions as the Board shall prescribe subject to the following limitations: (1) Loans or grants shall be made only upon the request or recommendation of a State agency or the district board of a sanitary water district. (2) No grant shall be made in respect to any project of an amount in excess of 50 per centum of the cost of the labor and materials employed upon such project. INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF POLLUTION SEC. 11. Pursuant to the powers of the United States to regulate interstate commerce and navigation; to extend, change, and amend the Admiralty and Maritime Law; to give due effect to the Migratory Bird Treaty; and to protect the fisheries, particularly the anadramous fish, Congress hereby declares the discharge or deposit of any waste or other substance, whether in a solid, gaseous, or liquid state, into any of the navigable waters of the United States, or into any stream from which the same may float or be washed into any of such navigable waters, in violation of regulations promulgated by the Board, if such waste or other substance is or may be injurious to public health, domestic animals, or poultry, fish or shell fish, or other aquatic life, migratory water fowl, or other wild game, or impairs in any manner the utility of such waters for navigation purposes, to be against the public policy of the United States and to be a public and common nuisance. An action to prevent or abate any such nuisance may be brought in the name of the United States by any United States attorney, and it shall be the duty of such attorneys to bring such an action when requested to do so by the Secretary. CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS SEC. 12. (a) Whenever the Secretary finds or has reason to believe that any person is or has been engaged in any act or practice made unlawful by section 2, he shall issue and serve upon such person a complaint stating the charge in that respect, and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed, but at least thirty days after the service of such complaint. The person complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time fixed in the complaint and show cause why an order should not be entered by the Secretary requiring such person to cease and desist from such act or practice so charged in such complaint. Any person, upon good cause shown, may be allowed by the Secretary to intervene and appear in the proceeding. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the Secretary. (b) If upon such hearing the Secretary shall be of the opinion that the person complained of is or has been engaged in any act or practice charged in the complaint, he shall make a report in writing in which he shall state his findings as to the facts and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person, within a reasonable time to be fixed therein, to cease and desist therefrom. Until a transcript of the record in such hearing shall have been filed in a circuit court of appeals of the United States or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as hereinafter provided, the Secretary may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as he may deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any order issued by him under this section. COURT REVIEW OF ORDERS SEC. 13. Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the Secretary in any proceeding under section 12 to which such person is a party may obtain a review of such order in the circuit court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the entry of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Secretary be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the Secretary, and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, and enforce or set aside such order, in whole or in part. No objection to the order of the Secretary shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Secretary or unless there were reasonable grounds for failure so to do. The findings of the Secretary as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and tnat there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before the Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the facts, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of the original order. The judgment and decree of the court, affirming, modifying, and enforcing or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such order of the Secretary, shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, secs. 346 and 347). FORFEITURES SEC. 14. (a) Any person who fails to obey any order of the Secretary issued under section 12, or such order as modified, shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $100 for each day during which such failure continues, if such failure Occurs (1) after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition under section 13, if no such petition has been filed within such time; or (2) after the expiration of the time allowed for applying for a writ of certiorari, if such order, or such order as modified, has been sustained by the circuit court of appeals, or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and no such writ has been applied for within such time; or (3) after such order, or such order as modified, has been sustained by the courts as provided in section 13. (b) Forfeitures under this section shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General, to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES SEC. 15. (a) For the purpose of any proceeding under this Act the Secretary or any officer or employee designated by him is empowered to administer oaths and affirmations, subpena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, or other records which the Secretary deems relevant or material to the inquiry. Such attendance of witnesses and the production of any such records may be required from any place in the United States at any designated place of hearing. Witnesses summoned before the Secretary, or officer or employee designated by him, shall be allowed the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. (b) In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena issued to, any person, the Secretary may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records. And such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the Secretary or officer or employee designated by him, there to produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he may be found. Any person who shall, without just cause, fail or refuse to attend and testify or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce books, papers, corrsepondence, memoranda, and other records, if in his power so to do, in obedience to the subpena of the Secretary or officer or employee designated by him, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both. (c) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records before the Secretary or any officer or employee designated by him, in obedience to the subpena of the Secretary or any such officer or employee, in any proceeding instituted by the Secretary under this Act, on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture; but no individual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against selfincrimination, to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempted from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying. EFFECT ON EXISTING LAW SEC. 16. The provisions of this Act shall not be construed to modify or repeal the provisions of any other Act relating to the pollution of navigable waters, but shall be in addition to the provisions of any such other Act. SEC. 17. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this Act. SHORT TITLE SEC. 18. This Act may be cited as the Pollution of Navigable Waters Act, 1937. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. J. J. MANSFIELD, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, Rivers and Harbors Committee, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am forwarding for the consideration of your committee a letter from Mr. Buck relative to H. R. 2711. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Buck that a superagency which could pass final judgment on pollution projects would involve a lot of red tape and possibly retard action. Requests for appropriations would have to pass through the Director of the Budget, and that should be all the agency we need to coordinate a public-works program. Cordially yours, A. WILLIS ROBERTSON. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WILLIS A. ROBERTSON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR WILLIS: I have reviewed the suggested amendments to H. R. 2711, and regret to say that I do not find myself in accord with the amendment that a Federal agency responsible for general public-works allotments should supervise and coordinate pollution-abatement projects and similar projects. I believe the act is sufficient in that respect as it stands. I am, however, in accord with the suggestion made in amendment no. 4 and amendment no. 6. I would also suggest that on page 2, line 15, there should be specific mention made of aquatic birds and mammals. Somewhere in the bill it might be advisable to include the type of pollution due to mining. As it stands, the bill apparently refers only to industrial and urban sources. Sincerely yours, FRANK H. BUCK. STATE OF MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Judge J. J. MANSFIELD, Chairman, Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have just received a release of the report of the Water Pollution Research Board of England for the year ended June 30, 1936. I am enclosing three paragraphs therefrom which should be of interest to you in the light of your inquiry last week during the hearings on the Vinson Act, regarding the control of river pollution abroad. The attached paragraphs are taken from a summary of the report released by the board. Yours very truly, ABEL WOLMAN, Chief Engineer. WATER SUPPLIES AND RIVER POLLUTION SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THE WATER POLLUTION RESEARCH BOARD FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1936 In the annual report of the Water Pollution Research Board, issued today by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, it is emphasized that unless satisfactory methods of treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial effluents are more widely adopted there will be considerable difficulty in providing the large volumes of water of good quality necessary for domestic, agricultural, and industrial purposes. On the one hand, the demand for water of the highest chemical and bacteriological quality is increasing. This increase is due partly to improved conditions of housing, with more general provision of public water supplies, baths, modern sanitary appliances, and hot water and central heating systems. It is also due partly to the development of modern factories in which large quantities of clean water are used in the manufacture and preparation of beverages, foods, and other products under more hygienic conditions. On the other hand, recent improvement in the trade of some of the older industries, the introduction of new processes and industries, and the development toward centralization in certain industries, particularly those dealing with agricultural products, have caused increases in the quantities of polluting effluents discharged into rivers in many parts of the country. Difficulties which could have been avoided have arisen in some instances, owing to the fact that in selecting sites and planning factories adequate consideration was not given to the quantity and quality of the water required for the processes nor to the problems of disposal of the waste waters. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 18, 1937. Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives. MY DEAR COLLEAGUE: May I take this opportunity of registering my approval of the Pfeifer bill, and sincerely trust the committee makes a favorable report Sincerely yours, MATTHEW J. MERRITT, M. C. WATER-POLLUTION LEGISLATION-STATEMENT OF JULIAN D. CONOVER, SECRETARY, AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, TO THE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN RE H. R. 2711, VINSON; H. R. 3419, PFEIFER; H. R. 2300, SPENCE, MARCH 19, 1937 The American Mining Congress has followed with deep interest your committee's consideration of proposed water-pollution legislation, and we appreciate this opportunity to present a brief statement. The mining industries are seriously concerned with the use of the natural drainage channels for the disposal of waste materials from mining operations. Such waste materials in many types of mining consist mainly of mechanical detritus which is not of a polluting character. This is true, for example, of the numerous metal-mining operations, which constitute a dominant industry in the Rocky Mountain States and in certain other sections of the country. In certain coal-mining operations, particularly in the northern Appalachian fields, an appreciable amount of acid water from the mines enters the streams. Such acid mine drainage, although it may render the streams unfit for fish, is not a menace to health or navigation; in the Susquehanna River, for example, acid waters from the anthracite mines have long been known to be beneficial in improving the sanitary condition of the waters from that region. No commercial method of treating acid mine waters is known; they can be neutralized by passing them over lime, but the amount of sludge created, and the difficulty of handling and storing it, renders such treatment impracticable. In some areas, as brought out by Dr. Wolman, considerable progress has been made, with Government cooperation, in meeting the acid water problem through the sealing of abandoned mines and the impounding of water in operating mines, to keep it as free from oxygen as possible. The position of the mining industries with regard to stream-pollution legislation was set forth in great detail at the hearings on the Lonergan bills in March 1936. It was pointed out that the mandatory provisions of such legislation would impose impossible burdens and necessitate the closing down of many of the country's most important mining operations, which supply the metals and fuels upon which our industrial civilization is based and furnish the livelihood for many thousands of persons in many States. In this testimony, we took the position that scientific investigations and studies by the qualified agencies of the Federal Government, including the Public Health Service, the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines, and the Corps of Engineers, were of the greatest value to States, municipalities and industries endeavoring to solve the problems of water pollution-such problems, it should be emphasized, being essentially of a local character and requiring local treatment. We also took the position that in the disposal of industrial wastes, the principle of the "balancing of conveniencies" should be applied; that the relative necessities and requirements of industries or industrial establishments and the communities and population dependent thereon should be given the fullest consideration as compared with the population and communities which may be affected by such wastes; and in communities where the population is principally dependent upon an industry or establishment and the wastes therefrom are not of material importance to other communities, there should be no legislation which would unduly interfere with the continuance of such industry or establishment. It was further brought out that mining companies have cooperated fully in the endeavor to meet problems involved in the disposal of mine refuse and have in many cases spent large sums of money for storage dams and other measures to minimize impurities in the waste water. Our objections to the Lonergan bills apply with equal force to the Pfeifer bill, which is now before your committee and to which the American Mining Congress is definitely opposed. |