In the terms of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Congress recognized t h a t the problem is one that must be solved through the cooperative efforts of all concerned. During the four years of operation under the Act, excellent progress has been made in many areas in developing the kind of cooperative action that the law envisioned. We are moving ahead toward the goals set up in the Act. It would be unrealistic to pretend that progress to the degree desired has been attained in all aspects of the program, but the future is promising. All are aware that some links in the chain need strengthening. Some of the state agencies, for example, lack sufficient funds and personnel to allow full interstate cooperation. There are gaps, too, in some of the basic data required, not only for delineating the problem, but for measuring progress toward achieving a solution. An important gap in our information results from inability to provide firm data which will permit measurement, a t least on an area basis, of the
progress that is being made toward the abatement of pollution caused by industrial wastes. Progress in abating municipal pollution is not satisfactory when considered in relation to the vast amount of work required. It is obvious that we are st'ill far from the ultimate goal. There are rough spots in the road ahead. But with the solid foundation of cooperation that has been developed, and with all members of the team doing their share, the pollution problem can and will he solved and the nation assured of full and continued use of its 7%-aterresources. LITERATURE CITED
(1) Senate Rept. 462,SOth Congress. (2) Senate Rept. 2092,8211d Congress. (3) U. S.Pub. Health Service, Pub. 291 (1962). (4) Warrick, L. F., IND. EN+. CHEM.,45, 2669 (1953). RECEIVED for review April 10, 1953.
ACCEPTED September 4, 1953.
California Water Pollution Control Program FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS Significant changes in state laws for the control of water pollution were made by the California Legislature in 1949. Reversing the trend towards centralized government, these law-s created nine regional boards and placed primary responsibility at the local level for abatement and prevention of water pollution. In contrast to the programs and policies in inany states, California has separated the health and economic aspects of water pollution, abolished the permit system and the principle of reviewing plans, and provided for a case-by-case determination of whether or not pollution exists or threatens in any particular area.
WARREN T. HANNUM State Water Pollution Control Board, Sacramento, Cdi,f.
ANY states have based their programs for control of ' 1 ater ~ pollution on the principles of centralized control, a single definition of pollution, the permit system, review of plans, a n d fixed effluent standards or stream cla,ssification. In 1949 the California Legislature made sweeping changes in state laws for the control of water pollution and instituted a program N hich departed radically from what might be classed as the conventional approach in other states. A method of presentation has been sought which would make more vivid the description of some of the unusual features embodied in California laws. It would be helpful if the California Water Pollution Control Bet could be compared with one which might be considered typical of that in use in other states. Probably the nearest thing to a typical state law is the U. S. Public Health Service's Suggested State K a t e r Pollution Control Act (the suggested state act). The suggested state act and the California Act have a substantially similar objective-the protection of water quality from discharges impairing usability of n ater. Each, however, seeks to reach its objective through methods M hich have numerous basic divergences. This discussion is not debating the relative merits of the two acts. The water problems in California are so greatly different
2652
from those in other parts of the country that i t would be very misleading t o suggest that any other state follow California's example, without first giving full consideration to the actual physical conditione of water development, storage, and use. Conversely, it was concluded t h a t some of the concepts embodied in the suggested state act were not applicable in California. ADMIIVI STRATIVE AGENCY
DECESTRALIZATIOP;. The suggested state act centralizes administration in a single statewide administrative agency (with the suggestion that it be either an independent board or a part of the state health department if placed in an existing agency). In direct contrast', decentralization is one of the fundamental co,icept,s in the California .4ct, d i i c h divides the state into nine water-pollution-control regions, the delineation being based on major watersheds of the state. The governing and policy-forming board 01each regi0.n consists of five members appointed from within the region by the Governor. These members serve n-ithout pay, but are entitled to receive compensation for their necessary expenses while on official business of the board. Albhough the boards are legally required to hold only one regular meeting during each calendar quarter, the number of problems heing present,ed to most of the boards has
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Vol. 45, No. 12
-,
often necessitated meeting a s frequently as once a month. I n three years, the nine boards have held 197 meetings in 61 different communities throughout the state. Decentralization accomplishes two important obiectives. (1) It makes possible a careful consideration of rainfall; topography; population; the development of local recreational, agricultural, and industrial assets; and other factors pertaining to water pollution; all of which may vary greatly from region t o region. ( 2 ) It gives the representatives of local agencies and interests t h e primary responsibility for maintaining and improving their surface and underground waters and for establishing long-range regional pollution-control policies. Although the regional water-pollution-control board is the official state agency designed to achieve local participation, it should be emphasized that local agencies may go even farther in the abatement of pollution or nuisance. There is no limitation on the power of any local agency t o adopt and enforce more stringent regulations with respect t o water pollution. PERSONNEL OF BOARD. I n order to assure that all major groups concerned have a voice in the formulation of policies for the abatement, prevention, and control of water pollution within a region, the law requires t h a t board membership include a representative from each of the following groups: Water supply, come1vation, and production Irrigated agriculture Industries producing industi ial waste Municipal government County government For other than policy matters, the work of
