OCR Text |
Show (3) Despite corrective measures which have been initiated, abatement has not kept pace with the increase in pollution during the past 10 years. Municipalities and industries alike must recognize their responsibility and duty to control their pollu- tion effectively and to construct abatement works. (4) Pollution abatement progress is being re- tarded by discriminatory legislation which exempts certain special pollutors from regulatory authority applicable to others. (5) Those using the waters of the basin should preserve the water resources for other desirable and legitimate uses. (6) Effective pollution abatement will be ac- celerated when the public becomes better informed concerning the importance of water resources to the economy and security of the basin and the Na- tion and concerning the effects of pollution on those resources. Soil washing must be checked. (7) Cooperative action by State and interstate water pollution control agencies and the Federal Government, as authorized by the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948,6 has stimulated water pollu- tion control activity, although the act has not yet been in effect long enough to measure properly the accomplishments resulting from this approach to the problem. If, after trial, the aims of this law are not attained, it should be strengthened to protect water users and to conserve water supplies. (8) Provision should be made for pollution abatement measures in connection with Federal water resources projects where required, to sup- plement local pollution control programs. 3. Relation of Coal to Water Power The Problem The relation of coal to water power in the de- velopment of the Ohio River Basin. The Situation A major conflict in the Ohio River Basin is be- tween multiple-purpose development for flood con- trol or any other functions, and hydroelectric power. This conflict develops, not so much from objection to multiple-purpose development as such, but from objection to hydroelectric power development, •Act of Jume 30, 1948, 62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U. S. G. 466 et seq. (Supp. III). whether in combination with other functions or as a single-purpose function. Aside from the Tennessee River Basin, where the potential hydroelectric power has been and is being developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Cumberland River Basin, where similar de- velopment is under way by the Corps of Engineers, a large portion of the potential hydroelectric ca- pacity remaining to be developed in the Ohio Basin is confined to that part of the basin in the coal- producing States of West Virginia and Pennsyl- vania. Both operators and miners engaged in the production of coal in those States are firmly op- posed to hydroelectric power development by the Government or other agencies because of their belief that such development would result in re- duced use of coal. Public utilities and transporta- tion interests serving the coal industry also are generally opposed to hydroelectric power. In view of the importance of the coal industry in those States, it is natural that the attitudes of the State authorities and congressional representatives reflect the attitude of the coal interests. It is, of course, true that to the extent that hydro- electric power is used and demands for power do not grow but remain static, coal consumption for steam- electric generation would be reduced. However, the history of electric energy consumption is one of ever expanding growth. In the Ohio Basin, as in most other regions, the total available hydroelectric power never can supply more than a part of the total regional load. For example, development of the ultimate hydroelectric potentialities in the watershed would not supply more than one-quarter of the electric power needs anticipated by 1970 in the area including the basin and extending to the Great Lakes. The greatest value of the basin's hydroelectric power will be realized by its coordinated use with steam-generated power. In most parts of the coun- try the most economical power supply for regional loads has been found to consist of a combination of steam and hydroelectric plants. The Ohio Basin is well adapted to securing the advantages of such a combination, having large deposits of coal located adjacent to plentiful supplies of cooling water, low flows augmented by stream regulation, and substan- tial hydroelectric power potentialities. Opportu- nity, therefore, exists in the basin for developing large blocks of economical power for which there is a pressing demand from industry, REA electric cooperatives, and others. 672 |