Senator MUSKIE. The only question I ask is whether or not you are satisfied that the question has been sufficiently studied?

Dr. SOWDER. On teeth, yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. And you are convinced that there is no correlation between the fluoridation and this tooth condition?

Dr. SOWDER. Yes, sir; but I wouldn't be so flatfooted about other health implications, no, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Now, the grand jury also says that they found that the budget is insufficient; I take it you would agree with that. Dr. SOWDER. I would agree with that.

Senator MUSKIE. But the grand jury can't make appropriations. Dr. SOWDER. No, sir; neither can the State board of health, unfortunately.

Senator MUSKIE. Then the grand jury felt that there should be these periodic reports of these industries; what is your view on that?

Dr. HENDRICKSON. I might comment on that, that at the present time the regulations require reports to be submitted by the industry, additional reports were submitted, and from now on, or from that time on, which was several years ago, any time a change occurs the industries have to have this change approved insofar as its air pollution aspects are concerned, and anytime any change in production might occur, either up or down, which might influence the quantity of emissions, this has to be reported.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, before we leave that point, the grand jury has found that the State board of health is negligent. Mr. Lightfoot, do you subscribe through your citizens committee to that belief?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, sir, I base that on the great time element that has elapsed, since air pollution was first noticed in Polk County, and the situation as of today. That is a period of approximately 15 years, and air pollution was known to us and was identified to us in the early 1950's, so we have an interval there of 10 years or thereabouts. Now, I understand that the commission was created in 1957, but I remember, too, Dr. Sowder testifying in Tallahassee before, I think, the Governor's cabinet to the effect that they did not need additional laws to enforce; that they had the sufficient remedy in the enforcement of the laws which then stood, which I think was the nuisance laws, so that apparently the law, to some degree, has been competent to deal with this situation. The conditions are not getting preceptibly better. It may be that some plants are improving their performance but, on the other hand, new plants are being built.

One is subject to suit right now by the board of health and there are 19 sulfuric plants. Sulfuric acid has certainly grown worse. The fluoride hazard, we think, too, has grown worse, although not so markedly. And in answering your question, it seems to us there is either something wrong in the machinery set up to do the job, or lacking in the will to use that machinery. Now, I remember at the air pollution conference in Washington about 4 years ago, the then Surgeon General preceding Dr. Terry, I can't think of his name at the moment, Dr. Burnie, made the point that this air pollution problem was so serious and encroaching on us so rapidly that enforcement authorities could not take the time to work out every little detail scientifically so that every fact was nailed down accurately; but it was

his recommendation that work be done arbitrarily, if necessary, just from a general knowledge of facts, and it seemed to us that that could have been done in this case, that, frankly, we as victims of air pollution don't feel that we are better off than we were years ago, the same as the citrus groves showing it, the cattle industry has been almost eliminated.

We know that human health, at least human comforts have been seriously affected. I don't know how to distinguish technically between health and comfort, but we do know that we are made very. very uncomfortable and a number of us have gone to our physicians for recommendations. The only recommendation they can make is that you pack up and move out of this area, and I know in our own case, Mrs. Lightfoot has found it necessary to leave the area and get some relief. Fifty miles up is a definite improvement. We know, too, we learned, too, that we get relief by staying in the air-conditioned house. These conditions have gone on for years and they are still with us. We think that there is either a serious lack in the scope of the machinery or in the will to use that machinery. We should get some results by this time, not perfect results, but some results. And we are not getting them. We think they are, on the whole, worse rather than better due to, likely, or partly to, the industry.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Lightfoot, do you feel that the State board of health is derelict in its operation, or would you say a lack of money may have

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think lack of money is an important factor. I am not qualified to analyze their operations and understand all of the limitations they have to observe, but it is my understanding that they do have the right to ask or force relief under the nuisance laws. Those nuisance laws have been on the books all these years, and as far as I know, don't require all of the money that has been mentioned as being needed, and would appear to us that some relief could be found by prosecution under the nuisance laws rather than the highly technical chapter 403.

Senator RANDOLPH. Do you feel then that the State board of health has failed to be aggressive in this matter?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I feel they haven't shown zeal in our interest that the public body of that sort should show.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me interrupt. On the question of whether or not you could get more relief under the nuisance law than under your chapter 403, how would you compare, Dr. Sowder or Dr. Hendrickson, degrees of proof required of these? Is it easier to prove a case under the old nuisance laws or 403?

Dr. HENDRICKSON. They ultimately both go to the courts, so I would say that the degree of a proof required is the same in either case.

Senator MUSKIE. Is the degree of provable damage of the same order under each?

Dr. HENDRICKSON. I would say yes, sir, in either case since they both eventually go to the court anyway.

Senator MUSKIE. Then neither have an advantage over the other in light of the problem that Mr. Light foot has mentioned?

Dr. HENDRICKSON. I think probably action can be taken more quickly under 381, because you can bypass the hearing procedure before the commission.

Senator MUSKIE. 381 is the nuisance chapter?

Dr. HENDRICKSON. Right.

Dr. SOWDER. I would like

Senator MUSKIE. Why hasn't that been followed?

Dr. HENDRICKSON. That has been followed, this is the procedure under which this suit is in court right now.

Senator MUSKIE. There was some suggestion earlier this morning that proceeding under the nuisance laws involved primarily the health values and not the damage to plant and animal; is that right? Dr. SOWDER. That's correct.

Mr. LEE. Mostly nuisance, sir, in the general ball park of nuisance; now we have them separated. We have put nuisance and health, unfortunately, together. Maybe we have implied this. We have a nuisance law, period. We have the Florida Statutes 381 which are the general nuisance laws under which the board promulgates the operations. And it is a part of the law. Then we have 403. Now, we said in this testimony that many of our nuisances in this area have been solved through the nuisance law which happens to be the open burning and some odor problems of discoloration of organic material, and material such as this.

But under this legislation with this industry we took the route of 381, which is the Florida State Board of Health law, merely because at first it was a health law, we thought it was important enough to move as rapidly as the methodology of the court would permit. The fact that we had a health problem saved the hearings in front of the commission. We thought instead of taking two steps, trying them once in front of the commission, because the State health department in either case has to be the prosecutor before the commission and later before the court, so we just sidestepped one just with the idea of speed. And so far we are still in the litigation. So the nuisance law is not really a nuisance.

Dr. SOWDER. The nuisance laws are designed for justice of the peace courts, and the fines there may be $5, $25, and they wouldn't make much of an impact on a multimillion-dollar phosphate industry, but as Mr. Lee points out, we are not in court now under a nuisance law because that would end up in the justice of the peace courts.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important at this point to refer to the Florida Air Pollution Control Act. I ask Mr. Lightfoot what his committee would propose as changes in the present act?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, we haven't studied that specifically, Senator Randolph. I think the accomplishment of the legislature last spring, a year ago, was the provision to terminate arbitrarily the conference, conciliation, and persuasion feature. I think that was the weakness and we think that has been, as far as the law is concerned, strengthened considerably. But we haven't heard of any action under that. As far as we know yet, that order to terminate has not yet become effective. Sixty days have gone by; well, it's nearly a year now.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it your feeling that that provision of the law has been used to stall action rather than to stimulate action?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, of course I don't know. I don't have the knowledge of the internal workings to know that. I wouldn't want to express judgment on it without better knowledge.

Senator RANDOLPH. What has your organization done to stimulate better air control?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, I think, Senator Randolph, our function has been successful to keep nagging away, perhaps is the word to use, and make sure that this problem isn't overlooked and to cooperate with other organizations, for instance those mentioned in my exhibit D, which I have now reached in reading this paper and which you have placed in the record. That is a list of resolutions by various organizations pleading for relief from the effects of air pollution. There are 15 of them there: the Florida Citrus Mutual, having about 12,000 members throughout the citrus belt of Florida; Polk County Farm Bureau, 2,200 family members; Polk County Cattlemen's Association: Florida State Cattlemen's Association; the Land Bank Association, interested in value of farmlands, mortgage loans, is interested; Production Credit Associations; the women's clubs are pretty well stirred up, they have been active right from the local area up to Washington, and I understand they were an important factor in backing the clean air bill that was passed last December; and then civic clubs, such as the Optimists Club.

Senator MUSKIE. I was going to say, it's encouraging to know that the Optimists are with you.

Senator RANDOLPH. I don't know why they are with you.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think, Senator Randolph, you made a very pertinent remark this morning when you commented about the men that were here to see about this.

Senator RANDOLPH. That was not a pleasantry. I felt that there was a sense of responsibility which I sense here.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Now, I understand, Senator Muskie, that you have invited other papers by, I think, Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Huff, and Mr. McLean. My paper was of the general nature. They are going to talk more specifically, I am sure, of cattle and citrus and farming operations and so on. Then we have other good citizens here, Dr. Leonard, who is in charge of the $75,000 research program being conducted partly by the citrus groves or by the phosphate industry the State funds, and Dr. Wander, who I think deserves credit for filing the very first report on an investigation and determination that fluorine was a bad actor in citrus groves.

Senator MUSKIE. Dr. Leonard and Dr. Wander?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. These names I mentioned are here, Gene Griffin is here, and others whom I perhaps didn't see. And I would like you to go as far as you can in getting a response not only from those who have been invited, but many others.

Senator MUSKIE. Time may be against us, but may I say that it strikes me that some of these gentlemen you have named could provide useful statements that we could include in the record, and we would be happy to include them.

Senator RANDOLPH. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if there is someone who could specifically brief us with respect to this point on livestock. Have we got someone?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. All right. Thank you.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I could go on and on, but I believe that answers the purpose of your invitation. I certainly appreciate again the privilege of sitting before you.

Senator MUSKIE. We have a prepared list of witnesses, because we want to be sure to cover the ground, and that is the only way we can do it, but if there are statements which others would like to submit and would add to our fund of knowledge, we would be glad to include them in the record. I have one question of Mr. Sowder, or comment more than a question; in your statement, Doctor, you said that and I quote:

Much has been said that many of the States do not have air pollution control programs, but in the 1962 directory published by the Air Pollution Control Association, cooperation with Department of Heaith, Education, and Welfare, there are 45 States and several territories that have listed full-time air pollution control programs.

It is my impression that that is not an accurate picture of the inadequacy of State programs over the country, and I think it is appropriate to refer at this point to this subcommittee staff report in which the following describes the State effort, and I quote:

Briefly, 33 of the States and territories have some type of air pollution control laws, and 18 do not. Fifteen have some control authority, 12 have no control authority but have local option legislation. Six provide only research and technical assistance. Of the 18 having no air pollution control laws, 10 have indicated some interest in promoting of such legislation, 3 have studies of the problem underway, 5 have made unsuccessful efforts to pass air pollution control legislation.

Now, since this has not been a legislative year for most States, I doubt that that picture has changed very much. But to your point, I want to emphasize without getting into any discussion of numbers, that the effort on the State level by and large across the country has been wholly inadequate, and we hope that it will improve. I think that Florida's effort has been better than most, but still this is not a pat on the back, particularly, because over the country it has been so inadequate.

Dr. SOWDER. Senator, may I comment not on that but on another subject before you let me go?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Dr. SOWDER. There has been some suggestion that the State board of health, I believe it was, could go ahead on, well, presumptive evidence, and that sort of thing, less than secure scientific evidence of pollution, but I would like to mention, since we are meeting in a courtroom, that I am sure that most of those present know that no judge is going to convict anyone without rather secure evidence, and that does contribute a great deal to the misunderstanding about what can be done about air pollution. When you see the clouds around, you think you can go right into court and get them to quit, but it is not that easy, and you have to have secure technical and scientific evidence before you can get anywhere in a court of law, and I might also remind you that with a $33,000 to $130,000 annual budget, a State agency comes up in the courts against a multimillion-dollar industry with a great deal of skilled legal talent. So any idea that we can win a court case without pretty good evidence, I would say, is wishful thinking, and I don't believe we can.

Senator MUSKIE. I think you are right. You do have to be in a position to prove your case, and on that point let me ask you this, Dr. Sowder, so that the record may be clear. We have discussed the evidence of whether or not the mottling of children's teeth is a condi

30-083 0-64- 49