May 1941
ment, with authorihi,to carry on invastigationa and other activi-
.
w
IN B U S T 8 I A L : A N D .-EN O i:&&E qlN:G 0 H E M I8T B,Y
8. Pmvkionfor amedvkory board .tot h e k n c y ; the mepober&ip of which d l mclude,reprmut&ives 0f.federd agencies ofScially concerned with u m and. control of water resources which may be rtflected by pollution. 4. Permiasion for stattea t o form interstate compacts for 00operative &ort in the prevention and abatemeut of pollution of interststewatera. 5. Au@orizatiou for appropriation ~f funds for allocation to states for promotion, investigations, and preparation of engineering repoh and progrms'necessary 'for the prevention and abateeeut of water pollution. 6.. Authorization for appro riation of funds for manbin-aid or loans to civil subdivisions o?goverwent, and loans,to p.emns for the purpose of construcding sewage and waste treatment works. .. 7. P r h i o n for continuing interest by the federal authority in the e5cient operstion of completed projects, to ensure tet maximum benefits are .derived from improyement works on which federal funds have been expended.
We m ake DO recommendations at this time on the nature or de-
fortunaw in the superb syswm of r q t d .a+. $emuroo9.with which it is tdessed. Thmugh..care~Psne~,apg~t.tentiO?.,this systemhas beenseriously i m p + d . lte,re+torat&l,$.a Chabw to American industry and ingenuity. We w . n c y e r retw tn the days of virgin foreste and clear warkling s t r e w rwy?kW themountain headwaters totbe oceans. Butxe am, Ww&%be full eooperatiau of all, check the pressnt &@ricaation,and:w.wee the trend. The lurlurd m u r c e s of our e o u U W w d bhe:b$Slth of the Nation depend upon such mperation. ThePuhlia Wth Gervice pledges ita full aid in ahatcver progmm'm a u h t h d by
-
COWIQSS.
:.
. . ~. ..
. . ..
, .
, '' , .
,
.
Paqmmmn bafoF,the Indw&,d W+
..
. , ,
,,*I
,:,.
,:.:,
Svme Ah6S .*
>.
. ~ ..
State Responsibility in Stream Pollution Abatemem
,., ..a:
T
HE literature of stream p dismmio? on the reaponsib w+ou law or statutory law. been prepared on the subject, and
&mer has the right to
b b The origin a n d area of legal responsibility of t h e states for t h e abatement of stream pollution are review-ed, in contrast with t h a t exercised by t h e Federal Government. A summary is presented of t h e evolution of administrative machinery designed t o implement t h e regulatory powers implicit in such legal jurisdiction. Examples are giiven of current s t a t e practices and of their presumed adaptability to t h e solution of t h e problems a t hand. Some of t h e current defects in s t a t e procedures are described a n d some examples are presented of posaible legal, fiscal, and adminiatrative solutions. :i hare record of accomplishments in the field 01 correctives over t h e decades :c listed i n order to evaluate t h o work to be done. Discussion i a included LO delineate legislative steps desirable o n t h e state level which should accompany any extensions of federal responsibilities. T h o parallel responsibilities of other public agencies and of private corporate groups are commented upon, as p a r t of joint responsibility i n moving toward a wiser program of stream pollution ahatenxont.
In 194Kstatr bmrdaof health in twcsty-right ststcvapparentlg h d major rruponaibiliry for strenm pollution abatement, not only for municipal works but fur iirdustrial plant discharges. In swenry-three states special commkions wew c r a t e d for
.. AY
::
-
'
the eamo pur o m , although in right of them direct affiliationwas provided wit1 the 8taN hoard c d health. In many states parallel powern have been yrantcd. parricularly with respect to the proktion of fish and game, GO fLsh and mme commissiom, or r o ~ r v a f i o neommissions. Twenty-srvrn *rates were already provided in 1946 wich such additiclual ruperviaion.
Perhaps the earliest state sanitary water hoard was created in Pennsylvania in 1923, in order to provide a broader representation in administrative control over state waters than was -dent in the state board of health itself. The Pennsylvsnia Sanitary Water Board had representation from the Department of Health, Forest and Waters, Fisheries, and the general public. Although the 1923 act was limited in its jurisdiction, it wa8 amended in 1937 so as to extend the enforcement to provide control over the discharge of trade wastes and to protect not only the public health hut the waters for animal and aquatic life and for recreation. The chief administrative agent for carrying out the purpwes of the act was the Department of Health of Pennsylvania. At this writing, however, the Department of Forests and Waters is being considered as the possible future seat of the Sanitary Water Ih ,+a .'Y ,*. M4 .*. ' Board, although some legal steps would have to he hurdled before ;iii -:,such action would bring effective results. protect the public health. Under this power much of the c o b S The creation of such a state sanitary water board &provide for wider interests in the stream pollution abatement program was trot procedure now familia in t b country was developed. This followed in principle by a number of states, such as Connecticut. police power was broad in character, and court decisions have Wiseonsin, Oregon, Louisians, MIMesota, Tennessee, and others. sustained the state's authority to enact such lsws as are necessary An additional half a dozen states are now considering similar for the general health, comfort, and welfare of the public. legislation for broadening the participation of state agencies in h o s t all of the states have examples of similar decisions. In most states, municipalities or private corporations are liable in overlymy review of water pollution conditions. damages for injury to privste property as a result of sewage Much of thls demand for wider review and control resulted from the criticism that the spec& authority of state hoards of and waste disposal. I n many instances the courts have estabhealth to deal with pollution might be too rigidly delimited by lished such liability even where the discharge is in accordance with a state permit. considerations of public health and comfort and might prevent Upon the basis of the history of these legal principles the the same major concern about the w e of streams for the protecSpecial Advisory Committee on Water Pollution of the N a t i o d tion of conservation and agriculture as for public health, Resources Committee concluded several years ago (6) that the Whether these major elaborations of state authority in one control of stream pollution is essentially a function of state governform or another are likely t o produce more successful or more ment, although it wa8 recognized that the control of interstate rapid correction of stream pollution still remains to he demonstreams required some additional legal and administrative mastrated. Those impatient with the reduction of pollution in the chinery. The legal principles guiding interstate compacts have past usually look for the correction of public evils by invoking Wrewiae been the source of a number of United States Supreme law or by extending jurisdiction. The remedy probably does not Court decisions, as in the c89e of Missouri vs. Illinois and the lie in such simple expedients. Sanitary District of Chicago, State of New York us. State of A summary of existing state laws and regulations affeding New Jersey and Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, New water pollution is unfortunately not available for current situaJersey us. City of New York, State of Illinois vs. State of Indiana tions. The laet comprehensive review of the subject appears in All of these cases have established precedents with respect to the Third Report of the Special Advisory Committee on Water interstate waters which may serve as a guide for thwe interested Pollution. It would be almost impossible to prepare any accurate in developing a more satisfsctory structure for pollution ahatesummary at this stage, since, a8 has already been pointed out, ment on interstate waters. many of the states are making major changea in both law and The obvious di5culties encountered in solving most' problems administrative structure. in stream pdution abatement by litigation and injunction led most states over the past three decades to develop statutory laws DEFECTS IN EXISTING POWERS and the accompanying administrative agencies to implement thwe laws. In 1946, for example, the Committee on Sewage Disposal A review of all the state lam makes clear that they have been of the American Public Health Association surveyed the United designed for two major purposes: (a) for the protection of public States with respect to this particular subject, with the following heahh, water supply, aquatic life, industry, and recreation and
findings:
Four states apparently have no speeilic laws prohibiting the disoharge of sewage or other wastes into the water coursesAlabama, Mieaouri, South Csrolina, and Utah. In two states, Idaho and Nevada, the laws on this subject are quite limited. In all states therefore, except four, the state has exerciaed ita police power with a grant of the right to control stream pollution, either to a state board of health or to a special hoard or commission or, in some instances, to a combination of the two.
(b) for the prevention or abatement of local or general nuisances. Viewed from t h e e two major points of view, moat surveys of existing powers of the states disclose some difficulties and deficiencies. Perhaps the greatest general di5culty results from the exemptions or exceptions which many state stream pollution control laws have granted, either to municipalities, to industries, to both, or to certain areas and rivers. Frequently, unsatisfactory or indefinite wording or phrasing of the law has made demonstrated proof of violation difficult and
'
M a y 1947
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
563
hence enforcement unlikely. The development of evidence ~ h i c l i erroneous assumption that, a statute upon tllc books and the cstahlishmc,nt of a ncivly designated agency will revolutionize the courts will consider sufficient to prove a violation of certain prospect of the next ten years in stream pollution abatement. statutes is one of the most serious problems of state enforernlent' The present author maintains that, real progress in this field restj agencies because the language of the statutes under which thry upon a much more complex set, of circumstances. operatc either has such legal specificity or such general rcquirePerhaps one of the important requisites to RESPOSSIBILITY. ments that they cannot be adequately interpreted in either action is an awareness and an acceptance on the part of the direction. public and of private industry of the facl: that the dischargc Perhaps more important than either exemptions or indefinitcof wastes into a receiving body of m t e r insufficient to assimincss of phraseology are the esisting limitations, constitut'ional or late them ivithout detriment, to public healrh or comfort should statutory, upon the bonding or taxing power of the states or their not be permitted to continue indefinit,ely. .\rousing this kind of local subdivisions. In many instances it is impossible for strcam a housekeeping consciousness is perhaps onc of the most i'ruitpollution abatemcnt works to be constructed and paid for under ful assignments to which the public official might, allot hi> rime. the restraints imposed upon the areas responsible for the pollution. .iUIIISIbTRATIVE 1 r A C H I N E R Y . SeCOlldly,even when this BITareThese difficulties have been overcome by legislation permitting ness is acute and is followed by the desire to relieve the situathe introduct,ion of s e w r service charges and by statutes \vhich tion, administrative machinery must tw established by which exempt the bond issues for n-ater and sewerage purposes from to consummate such action. Xany of the sore spots on t,he constitutional limits on bonded indebtedness. rivcrs of thc Cnited States are in are% \ h e r e the administraIn some states unsuccessful control may be traced to the tive dcvice for accomplishing such a desirable objective i-: not failure of the state legislative assembly to confer mandatory yet at hand. Until recently the Pittsburgh metropolitan area porn-erson the appropriate administrative agencies. In others the 11-as an excellent8example of such a deficiency. In this area mme laws, on thc contrary, have been so rigid or arbitrary that they 127 communities are responsible, in one dcgree or another, for have been frankly impossible of enforcement. The mere prothe dischargc of untreated swage into thi: 3lonongahela and hibition of pollution, without,providing the tools of administration .Illegheny Rivers. These communities range from relatively or adequate facilities both to measure and to enforce compliance, tiny ones to metropolitan Pittsburgh itself. The aggrcgatc has consistently proved unsuccessful. represents some onoand a half million people. In this difficult field of control a rigid law, laxly administered, has far less permanent. value than a reasonable lav, administered Some of the largest manufacturing plants in the world operate judiciously and wisely. To add to the difficulties in this field the in this area. To complicate the problem further, innumerable state scene discloses too many areas with a multiplicity of demines on many of the tributaries to major streams produce coal partments, agencies, and municipalities, concerned with thc adant1 it,s incidental n-astes. For the most pari, the mine, industry, ministration of stream pollution laws. These may be matched and municipal wastes are discharged into the nearest body of in turn by states where a multiplicity of laws, sometimes in conwater in untreated form. One of the major blocks to active imflict with each other, are the outstanding characteristic of the provement in the area mas tmhe absence of any administrative unit, abatement program. in vihich this massive undertaking of correctmioncould be planned, In general, therefore, state legislatures, through their general drsigned, Constructed, operated, and financed. police power, have enacted both general and specific laws, relating Kithin recent, months the .Illegheny County Sanitary huthorto any and all phases of water pollution control. They have it,y,one of the largest of its kind in the United States, was created furthermore delegated the power to enforce these laws t,o different hy the Legislative .Issembly. It is responsible for the planning agencies of the st'ate. The power of the state is now unquestioned and, ultimately, the development of a program of sewage interception and treatment which may reach the figure of $100,000,000. in the determination of a policy with regard to its waters. Likcwise, this power is unquestioned for the enactment of stat,utcs The structure of this sanitary authority, it's pori-ers, its memberimplementing such a policy, subject only to other considerations Phip, and its mode of action are subjects which should be closely of public welfare, justice to individuals, and limited superior reviewed during the years to come, as a possible device by which powers delegated to the Federal Government. to meet the problems of communities similar to the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. >Ian? other examples of this same set, of issues exist in the BASES FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATIOS Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. .In objective review of past experience in state policy and enLouis, and other areas throughout the United States. Their forcement in stream. pollution abatement makes reasonably clear adequate preparation for actual accomplishments involves a high that the secret to successful prevention and correction of abuse degree of political ingenuity in order to meet the challenge of a of streams does not lie in the mere existence of comprehensive problem ivhich transcends political boundary lines, while the legislative enactments. Kithout making invidious comparisons, important values now esisting in local autonomies are preserved. it is w l l to point out that successful abat,ement'in this country I n the Chicago Sanitary District many of these purposes have has not been correlative with the existence of broad and powerful been accomplished. .\lthough it,s expansion is under consideralegislative provisions. Seither legislative authorization nor budtion, the structure does offer an example of the [yay in which growgets have guaranteed successful accomplishment. If any specific ing metropolitan districts may he profitably and efficiently hansingle feature has been responsible for progress in many of the dled for the purposes of pollution abatement. In 1946 the Board st,ates, it has been t'he existence of one or more informed officials of Trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago were empowered who have had sufficientenergy and wisdom to 'carry the program by t,he State of Illinois to exercise complete control of pollution forward by cooperative activity with industry and n-ith municiof t'he waters within the district,. The board thus assumes within pality. Only rarely has it been necessary in such progressive areas the district the duties, responsibilities, and prerogatives of the to invoke the law. I n such contingencies the law has been useful, state for t,he special purposes here under discussion. but it has not been the unitary key to real progress in abatement. F ~ s a s c r aP~R O G R . ~I n~ similar . fashion a great deal of proyUnfortunately most individuals confronted with the problem of less may bc made by developing improved techniques of financstream pollution abatement turn, as already pointed out, to the ing sewage works installations so as t,o simplify and expand the passage of a law as a cure-all. The country is in thc midst of such current' procedures of meeting most of these costs out of the a. stampede a t the moment in revising legislative equipment and general property tax. The use of the sewerage service charge has in the establishment of new or the reshuffling of old administramoved rapidly forward in the United States and has had court tive agencies and boards. Xany of these proposals rest, upon the approval in many states, notably Pennsylvania and Florida,
564
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
where these procedures for financing had not been widely applied in the past. Ample opportunity exista for similar ingenuity in this field as in the development of administrative machinery, because in the item of cost lies another key to the successful prosecution of an abatement program. With or without powerful laws, abatement proceeds only in so far as the public and private industries are willing to pay the costs. Much could be done under existing legislative restraints or permissives to carry forward the program if known fiscal procedures were adapt'ed more universally to thc local circumstance Many of the stat'es have recognized the significance of this particular mechanism in stimulating progress. More and more of them have created for their local political subdivisions the opportunity for the financing of revenue-producing utilities under various forins of state revenue certificat,e aet,s. This fiscal procedure, coupled with the administrat'ive changes already referred to, will do much to stimulate action in t,his field. OFFICIAL ATTITUDES AND PROCEDURES
Perhaps the he3t official summary of thc attitudes of responsible state agents toward the function and position of thc states in programs on water pollution abatement comes from the annual Conference of State Sanitary Engineers on Xovember 11, 19-16, in Cleveland. The Resolution on Water qollution A%batement. passed a t that time probably represents the most' thoughtful concurrence of official judgment in the record, The resolution is significant primarily in the fact that it recognizes some wcakncas in general state jurisdiction and practice and some advanhgeh in the limited extension of federal cooperation in this difficult field of Control. The resolution is reproduced here in full ticcause these state officials summarize with brevity t,he general principles hitherto discussed by many groups. The readcxrs' attention is called to the fact that the resolution places special emphasis on the primary position which the states have maintained in the past and which they insist they should continue t o exercise in the future: WHEREAS,water pollution is primarily a public health problem; and WHEREAS,water pollution cont,rol may involve more than one state in the case of pollution of interstate waters; and WHEREAS,it has been generally recognized throughout the history of this country that the primary responsibility for dealing with water pollution abatement problems rests with state and local governmental units; and WHEREAS, efforts have been made during recent years t o bring about the enactment of a Federal water pollution abatement law: and WHEREAS,pollut'ion control activities should be centralized in one Federal agency; and WHEREAS, efforts have been made and probably will be made in the future for the passage of some form of Federal water pollution abatement legislation; and WHEREAS,the Conference of State Sanit,ary Engineers ha* consistently urged that Federal legislation dealing with thr, development and control of water and natural resources should contain provisions designed to limit such control to interstate waters and to protect and preserve states' interests: Now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That. the Conference of Stat,e Sanitary Engineers recommend t,o t.he State and Territorial Health Officers Association that Federal legislation dealing with wat,er pollution control be enacted by Congress to includeA . Provision for Federal technical service and financial aid to state, municipalities and other public bodies, and interst,ate agencies, and loans to industrial enterprise, in the. formulation and execution of their water pollution abate,ment programs t o , be centralized in the United Statrq Public Health Service. 17. Provision for encouraging and validating int compacts for thc prevent'ion and abatement of pollution. C. Provision for an advisory board under the chairmanship of the Surgeon General and including a reprwentat'ive of the Department of War, the Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture, some one person.to repre-
Vol. 39, No. 5
sent the State Agencies having jurisdiction in matters of mat'er pollution, a representative of municipal governments, a represent'ative of affected industry, a representative of the Council of Stat,e Governments, and not more than four other representatives who shall be experts in wat'er pollution matters. D . Provision for enforcement of water pollut,ion control of interstate waters by the United States Public Health Service, after due notice to and failure on the part, of State Agencies and &her public bodies, having jurisdiction in water pollution abatement. The posit ion FThich this resolution establishes would rcprwent in general the point of view of most of the professional engincering group?; some of the national professional societies, however, are not in agreement with item D, which provides for the entrance of the Federal Government into the general field of law enforcrment even though t,hat intrusion is literally restricted to interstate waters. The ax-arcnpss that the control of interstate waters offer.: not only a problem but a challenge t,o administrative ingenuity has led a number of people to suggest that only the Federal Government can control the situation. Control of interstate waters still remains uusatisfxtory from many standpoints. Voluntary association of states, interstate compacts of a legal nature, and concurrent interstat,e legislation are all under trial. Esamplw of such efforts are available on the Delaware River, on the Potomac, arid on the Ohio. There are, of course, others, but. t'heir objectivcs :ire generally the same-namely, to provide by voluntary or legal joint state action a substitute for some overlying federal or rt,ntr:ii authority (if control. Experience with the devices is still limited. Out of these approaches, however, may come a suffiriclnt series of accomplishments to justify the belief, on the part of tt number of st,at,eofficials, that the slower processes of interitatis action are more generally effective in the long run than the mnrv attractive opportunities for speed inherent in centralized control. The penalties of the latter are being carefully matched by most political observers against the advantages presumed to lie in the omniscience or the efficiency of centralized supervision. The slower processes of state responsibility and action are probably more in tune with the democratic psychology of this country. In the long run they bring the better results with the least loss of loctal dignity and participation. This struggle for democratic action on the state level is not, of course, restricted to the field of stream pollution abatement. It is equally significant, however, in this particular area of operation as in marly others now confronting this country. -1dherence to this policy of local autonomy does not, as some suppose, pre-empt one from developing at the same time the valuable assets of central government stimulation and research. CONCLUSION
In general summary, therefore, it' is accurate to conclude that t,he states now have recognized and established police power to control stream pollution abatement, if they have the desire, the ingenuity, the courage and the funds so to do. The power of the state in this particular area of operation has been successfully and regularly sustained in the courts. The assignment of a concurrent power t o the Federal Government, even upon a contingent tlasis, may give rise to an even greater confusion tfian now rxists.. Jurisdiet,ionallitigation would he one of the early rehults of such R competitive system of regulation. Devices of varying kind are being tested to extend the operation of these polvers of the state to interstate waters. Out of them should come valuable lessons in law and in administrative mac hinery . JIuch has been said by the advocates of central government control of the essential desirability of uniform application of standards of stream quality throughout the United State>. It is extremely doubtful vihether such uniformity of administrative or of stream quality standards are applicable or ,desirable in this
.
I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N P E R I N G CHEMXSTAY
May 1941
56s
(3) Merriman. T., J. Nno E w l . Wotw Wwka d e w . , 45. lOO-aW
The receiving bodies of water m this country are of extremely wide vatiability in size, location, volume, cap= ity for aasimilation, and use. To place them all in a single straitjacket of adaptation to the equally v&bk charaoteristics of sewage and industrial waste &&argas is to deny the realities. general field.
0913).
(4)Montgomery,8. D., and Phelps. E. B., U. E. Pub. Health %mice, Bull. 87 (1818).
(5) Nsti. Resouroes Committee (Water Reeouroes Committee). &d
Rept of Specid Adviaow Comrmttee on Water Pollution ond Summary of 8tste Legislation AEecting Water Pollution, Wsshinpton. D. C.. 1939. (6) Royal Cornmimion on River Pollution. 3 Repta. of 1st commission 1865438; 6 Repts. of 2nd Commisrdcn 1863-74, Landon. H.M. S$ationeryOffice. (5) Royal Commiasio” on Sewage Diapmd. 9 Repla. and Appendices. London. H.M.Stationery Office. 1901-15. (8) SsdIle, C. M., J . N s u E w l li.olw Wmka A a m . , 41. (?9W. (9) B a d e . Thorndike. “Administrstive Contaol of Water P d u tion”, Interim Pub. of Am. Inst. Chem.Eagrs., No”. 8, 1931. (IO) Wolmsn, A M . State and Other Govtl. h c t i o n a in Control snd Abatement of Water Pollution in U. 8.. Modern Sewage D i a p d . Fed. of Sewage Work Assoc.. 1038.
Correction of abuses, evaluation of relative benefits, deter& tious of a d m i u h h t i v e approach aud of heal procedures, inveatigatiou of domestio and industrial waste di5culties, all of these are subjects for day-byday evaluation and adjustment. They are peculiarly problems for curreDt diagnosis and treatment by state and local subdivision. The blanketing of the country by uniform law or by uniform admioistrative decision cannot lead to anything other than a wasteful a b w of a valuable mat& resource in our surface waters. BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) €ksselievre, E. B., Whfsr and W&T Ew.,27,4814 (19%). (2) Brit. Ministry of Agr. and Fisheries. Standing Comrn. on River Pollution. 4 Repte.. Lendon, H.M. Ststionery Office,1021-27.
P I ~ ~ Mora B D the Industnd Waste Sympoexum at the 111th Meetin@ of the A u ~ n r o mCHWXCAL Son-. btlantic City. N S
Creation and Correction of Industrial wastes SHEPPARD T. POWELL feasional Building,Baltimore, Md. ..
T
HE purphse of this paper is not to outline a national program for correction of the waste dispqaal problem. Comma$
. ..,,
!orated, and today many of our p a t rivers and smaller waterways “havebecome little better than common sewers. h t u r e has prarelating to the creation and correctionof industrial wastes reprevided waterways with l i h l facilitias for assjmilating natural aent merely a personal viewpoint based on ObSeNation and exand man-made wastes, but these are inadequate for metropolitan areasorfor great conoentretionsof industry. Faoilitias tosuppleperience with a variety of conditions in widely diverse ax-. From these experiences, an appraisal of the situation may be ment naturel methods of aelf-puri6cation are needed, and have made which, although limited in scope, ~. may contribute to tb.& been needed for years, to protect our rivers from gross pollution. solution of this problem. Tbmighout the Nation industry is confronted PUBLIC OPINION sity for disposing of unwanted by-products whic The need for correction of the national stream pollution prob the manufacture of salable products. In many e po+on of lem has been perceived dowly by the public, but there is evidence the products themselves is lost as a result of imperfect m % t b that public opinion is gathering momentum in this country and in employed in processing or Isx operating procedures, altif&&h Canada. More than one hundred bills have been introduced in modern industry, in competitive fields, is usually alert t o minitbe Coogress in the laat S t y years, in addition t o thousands of mi5ing losses that reflect unfavorably upon production costs. state laws and local ordinnnces, and the pressure for efiective Recovery of products is often justilied, but it is important to legislation ia increasing. No satisfactory S O ~ U ~ ~has O U been forthavoid overemphasizing the value of by-prcducta regained from inooming, however, and, of the large qumber of national bills produstrial wastes. The economic wisdom of preferring waste preposed, nonehavebecnpaased. vention to waste treatment is apparent; however, certain striking Failure t o contra1 stream pollution is due t o a number of examples to the contrary, treatment of such wastes is frequently factors, sucb as (1) the cost of treatment facilities, (2) lack of unprofitable. fundamental data upon ehicb corrective prucesses can he based, Industry discharges wastes to s t r e w that cover a wide range (3) widely differing opinions on the desirable condition in which of organic and inorganic materials. These wastes may impart obthe streams should be main&ed, (4)widely ditiering opinions jectionable color, odor, or taste to receiving waters. They may coucemingenforcementbylegdmeasnres, (5)confli&ingopinions have constituents that are toxic to aquatic or terrestrial life, or regarding local and watenrhed methods of control, (6) lack of are corrosive t o hydraulic structures and equipment. They.fre cooperation among statesin achieving Stream sanitation on interquently contain substances with chemical or biochemical oxygen state rivere, and (7) exploitation of personal i n t e r n t0 the detridemands that tend t o deplete the diswlved oxygen content of ment of the publicinterest. waters, which iS essential for the pI?EeNatiOU of cleanline88 and It is irrelevant here to analyze pending legidation now before proper biolo&al balance. They b a y degrade the appearance of bodias of wa$r and their shofe lines, “d may sometimes be the .health of bordering source of watm-borne d Public Health Service with the llssponsibility of m r b g out communities. suitable srrangemente the states for pollutmn con\rol, t o the Nation have ;i As the population anX%du provide funds for stydy purphses and for grantein-aid and, l p p creased, the quality .of.water,inour atretups has steadily deteri’
~
.
a
