| OCR Text |
Show struction of domestic and industrial waste-treat- ment plants, together with improvement in fanning and ranching practices, can proceed while the tasic data are being gathered. Such progress has been too slow. Building a sewage-treatment plant lacks appeal for taxpayers who may not as yet be entirely con- vinced of the need. The contemplated cost poses a difficult financial problem for many small towns and cities that may have reached their statutory borrowing limit. In still other communities, this construction has to compete with the need for streets, schools, or other projects such as stadiums, that have greater appeal for the taxpayer who must foot the bill. In the field of industrial waste, the construc- tion of waste-treatment plants by factories adds to the cost of capital investment and overhead, in- creasing the chance of a red balance sheet. Cer- tain firms may lack the reserve capital for such construction. Another major deterrent to pollution control is the interstate character of many streams and other bodies of water, combined with the lack of uniformity in State laws. Private industry is competitive. An industry will hesitate to spend a substantial sum on waste treatment "works that may give a competitor the advantage of lower production costs-unless the competitor also builds a treatment plant. A similar consideration may influence States and cities eager for industry to locate in their area or, for that matter, to remain in the locality. States are reluctant to adopt antipollution laws more stringent than those in neighboring States for fear off driving away industry. Cities, es- pecially smaller ones that depend almost entirely on local industry for their prosperity, are even more aware of the possible consequences of in- sisting on industrial waste treatment. When ttie 1948 law was being considered by Congress, "the Senate Public Works Committee declared th.at "unless the very reasonable enforce- ment procedures provided for in the bill bring about the needed results, it is reasonable to an- ticipate that a later Congress will enact very much more stringent enforcement legislation." Federal Authority Under the 1948 Statute The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 de- clares it a congressional policy to recognize the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in controlling water pollution. But a program of financial assistance by the Federal Government is also provided. For the period 1948-53, the act authorizes the appropriation of $22,500,000 annually for loans to any State, municipality, or interstate agency for the construction of neces- sary sewage treatment works. Also authorized is the appropriation of a mil- lion dollars a year to be paid to States for con- ducting investigations, research, surveys, and studies related to the prevention and control of water pollution caused by industrial wastes. An- other authorized appropriation of a million dol- lars a year is for grants to States, municipalities, or interstate agencies to aid in financing the cost of engineering, architectural, and economic in- vestigations and other action preliminary to the construction of projects approved by the appro- priate State water pollution agency and by the Surgeon General. Under the Statute the Federal Government has no original enforcement powers other than that of holding public hearings on individual pollution violations. If the pollution should continue after a reason- able opportunity to comply with recommenda- tions resulting from the public hearings, the Fed- eral Security Administrator may, but only with the consent of the water pollution agency of the State where the pollution occurs, request the At- torney General of the United States to bring suit to secure abatement. By and large the ultimate solution of the Nation's pollution problem will be governed by public support for effective action. Further research is required on industrial waste treatment methods and dissemination of that knowledge throughout industry. The facts on pollution should be made far more widely known to the general public. These include not only the negative aspects of the problem, but possible posi- 192 |
