/ 4 ,

In 8/13

IN T E R IO R N O M IN A T IO N

------------------------------------------------------------------------

t - / v ? 

■*

I

GOVERNMENT

Storage

H E A R I N G

BEFORE TH E

COMMITTEE ON 

INT ERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

UN ITE D STATES SENATE

EIGH TY -NINTH CONG RESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE NOMINATION OF FRANK C. DI LUZIO TO BE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE] INTERIOR

JULY 20, 1906

Printe d for the use of the 

Committee on Interior an d In su lar Affairs

67-082 0

U.S. GOVERNMEN T PR INTING OF FIC E

WASHING TON : 1966
COMMITTEE ON INT ERIOR AND INSULAR AFF AIRS

H E N R Y M. JAC KS ON , Washington, Chairman

CL IN TO N P. A ND ER SO N, New Mexico

ALA N BIB LE, Nevada

FR ANK C HU RCH, Idaho

ERN EST G RU EN IN G, Alaska

FR ANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUEN TI N N. BU RDIC K, North Da kot a

CA RL H AYDEN, Arizona

GEORGE MCGOVERN, South Da kot a

GA YL OR D NE LS ON , Wisconsin

LEE M ET CA LF , Montana

THOMAS H . KUCHEL , California 

GO RD ON AL LO TT , Colorado 

LE N B. J ORD AN, Idaho 

MILWAR D L. SIM PSO N, Wyoming 

PA UL J. FANNIN , Arizona

n

J erry T . Verkler, Staff Director

Stewar t F rench, Chief Counsel

E. Lew is Reid, Minority Counsel
NOMINATION OF FRANK C. DI LUZIO TO BE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

W E D N E SD A Y , JU L Y 20 , 19 66

U.S. Senate,

Committee on I nterior and Insular Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Jackson, Anderson, Bible, Kuchel, Jordan of 

Idaho, and Fannin.

Also present: Senator Edmund S. Muskie.

Staff members present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Stewart 

French, chief counsel; Roy M. Whitacre and Richard W. C. Falknor, 

professional staff members; and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel.

The Chairman. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Di Luzio, will you have a chair?

This is an open, public hearing by the Committee on Interior and 

Insular Affairs on the nomination by President Johnson of Frank C. 

Di Luzio to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Di Luzio’s 

biographical sketch is before the committee, and without objection 

I will direct tha t it be printed in full a t this point in our hearing.

(The biographical sketch referred to follows:)

Personal History RjIssumIs of Frank C. Di Luzio

Address: 9504 Barroll Lane, Kensington, Md., Telephone: 949-1345.

Personal inform ation :

Date of birth : Sep tem ber 2, 1913.

Place of birth : Rome, Ita ly.

Marita l status : Married, 2 children.

Height: 5 '6 ^ " .

Weight: 150 lbs.

Citizenship: U.S.

Security clearance:

Military DOD—T op Secret.

U.S. Atomic Energy— “Q”.

January 25, 1965 to Prese nt: Title: Director, Office of Saline Water. Complete d 

form ulation of and placed into effect an aggressive and accelera ted program 

for economically feasible mean s of desalting sea a nd brac kish w aters . Institu ted 

short, medium, and long-range programs leading to increased emphasis in engineering 

for practic al application of desalting techniques.

April 20, 1963 to Jan uary 25, 1965: T itle: Sta ff Director, Com mittee on Aeronautical a nd Space Sciences, Un ited States Senate.

October 15, 1962 to April 20, 1963: Title: Vice President & Director, Fairbanks, 

Morse & Co., H ydraulic and Special Projects Division. In charge of engineering 

design, applications engineering, sales, and project adm inistration. Responsible 

for the managem ent and coordination of English Electric and Vickers-Armstrong, 

London, England license agre eme nts covering their hyd raulic products. 

Served as member of R & D Comm ittee, and Manageme nt committe es of both 

Fairbanks, Morse & Co., and Fairbanks W hitney Corp.

1
2 INTERIOR NOMINATION

October 1, 1961 to October 15, 1962: Title: Vice President, Engineering, Fairbanks, Morse Co., Beloit Division. In charge of all pro duc t and special engineering, reporting to Vice President, Group Executive. Prod ucts consist of 

motors, diesel engines, pumps, magnetos, compressors, etc. Engineering orga nizatio n has a staff of approximately 325 professional and sub-professional people.

Jan uary 1, 1961 to October 1, 1961: Title: General Manager, Albuquerque 

Research Center, Fairbanks, Morse & Co., reporting to Vice President, Government Produ cts. In add ition, was also assigned as Assistant for Research and 

Deve lopment to Preside nt of Fairbank s, Morse & Co. Coordinated R & D 

corporation-wise, served as Chairman of It & D comm ittee, and evaluated engineering proposals rela ted to national defense programs.

May 19, 1957 to Janu ary 1, 1961: Title: Deputy Manager,1

 Atomic Energy 

Commission, G.S. 18, Albuquerque Operations Office, assisting Manager in 

performance of executive duties, covering all functions assigned to ALO. Dire ctly 

responsible for the ev alua tion, coordination, and taking appropriate action regard ­

ing performance of function s assigned to the operating divisions in the areas of 

research, development, man ufac turing and quality assurance on atomic o rdnance. 

Directed activities rela ted to storage operations, nucle ar materials, management 

and security adm inistration. Upon special assignment from the Atomic Energy 

Commission, Washington, D.C. executed programs for AEC headquarters organizatio ns other tha n the Division of Military Application. Coordinated for the 

AEC-Division of Military Application the exchange of weapon technology 

between the United States and United Kingdom Atomic Energy esta blishments 

at Alderm aston and Harwell, England.

Jan uary 15, 1956 to May 19, 1957: Title: Asst. Manager for Manufacturing,

AEC, G.S. 17, Albuquerque. Direc ted and coordinated Albuquerque Operations 

Office development and prod uction complex in design, development, and manufacture of nuclear an d non-nuclear weapons and weapons com ponents. Developed 

from broad DMA directive s detailed ALO Directives and Planning Schedules, 

allocating responsibility and establishing delivery requirem ents, time schedules, 

and procurement authorizations for the several contractors involved. Coordinated plans for all m ajor changes in existing or new development or manufacturin g 

facilities and equ ipm ent resulting from mission or prog rammatic changes. 

Plan ned and direc ted the execution of ALO programs and policies designed to 

effectively coordinate design activities with the m anufacturing processes; planned 

and coordinated program repo rting needs of th e Manager and the preparatio n of 

periodic consolidated progress summaries and program statistics. Coordin ated 

weapons development, testing and production with Armed Forces Special Weapons 

Comm and —Defense Atomic Support Agency for military weapons input.

August, 1952 to Janu ary 15, 1956: Title: Manager, G.S. 16, Los Alamos Area office 

of AEC. Administered assigned programs in the field of research and development of atomic weapons and in this capa city administered AEC’s con tract with 

the Los Alamos Scientific Lab oratory . Planned and executed a comprehensive 

program for co nstruction a nd m aintenan ce of technical and other p roject facilities. 

Prov ided supervision of all contract operations, including Architect-Engineer, 

and construction and supply contracts.

April, 1950 to August, 1952: Title: Director, Com munity Management Division, 

AEC, G.S. 15, Los Alamos. Partic ipated as a member of Area Manager’s staff in 

the continuous review of the assigned Los Alamos Office program and all commu nity facilities and activities. Responsible for the following general areas of 

activities: (a) Administration of the contract of operating contrac tor (The Zia 

Company ), (b) Maintenance and operation of comm unity properties and facilities within Los Alamos County.

April, 1946 to April, 1950: Title: Director, Engineering and Construction Division,

AEC, G.S. 14, Los Alamos. During this period assumed positions of progressively 

gre ate r responsibility. Initially responsible for overall negotiations and renegotiations of Architect-Eng ineer and construction contracts. Responsible for overall 

supervision of engineering and construction work, coordination, and inspection 

of all construction. During this period had direct and prim ary responsibility 

for a total construction program involving design and construction of technical 

facilities and transform atio n of Los Alamos from a tem por ary p roject to a permanent community involving the expenditure of approximately $248,000,000.

1

 See attached organization cha rt.
INTERIOR NOMINATION 3

July , 1944 to July , 1946: Title: Civil Engineer, Military Service and P. 6, 

U.S. Army, Los Alamos. Assigned to Ma nhattan Engr. District, which was 

charged with the responsibility of constructing facilities for the productio n of the 

atomic bomb. Charged with the responsibility of negotiatio n and reneg otiation 

of all Architect-Eng ineer con trac ts, and construction contracts, and preparation 

of plans and specifications. Assisted the Chief Engineer in engineering problems 

of a complex nature.

October, 1941 to July, 1944: Title: Engineer, P. 5, Corps of Engineers, Ravenna, 

Ohio. Assigned important duties during the construction of (a) Ravenna Ordnance plant, Ravenna, Ohio; (b) Lordstown Ordnance Depot, Warren, Ohio; 

(c) Keystone Ordnance Plant, Meadville, Pa.

Title: Engineer, Corps of Engineers. Assigned as Chief Engineer and Assistant 

Resident Engineer during the construction of Mosquito Creek Dam, Warren, 

Ohio. The dam was an earth-filled stru cture, reinforced concrete spillway and 

water intake tower.

September, 1940 to October, 1941: Title: Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Parke r Dam, California. Field inspection of Power Plant (one shift), 

checked field changes in construction, steel setting, construction details and procedures.

March, 1938 to September, 1940: Title: Jr. Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, assigned to Coulee Dam, Washington. Field Engineer inspection of placing 

of concrete, setting reinforcing steel, and installation of power pla nt equipment 

and drum g ate mechanism.

Professional organizational membership:

Intern ational Association for Hydraulic Research.

Association for Applied Solar Energy, Scientific Member, Tempe, Arizona. 

National Society of Professional Engineers.

Professional Engineer New Mexico Registration No. 3252.

Professional Engineer Alaska Registration No. 859-E.

Professional Engineer Maryland.

American Geophysical Union, Nation al Academy of Sciences, Washington, 

D.C. \

Seismological Society of America.

Selective membership:

Member, Rivers and Harbors Congress (New Mexico Advisory Board) 

15 years—1948-1962.

Member, Economic Development Commission. Sta te of New Mexico 

(Wa ter Resources Development & Utilization) Resigned 1962.

INTE RIOR NOMINATION 5

The Chairman. Also, the committee has received a letter of commendation and endorsement from Mr. James T. Ramey, Commissioner, Atomic Energy Commission, and one from Senator Gruening. 

I direct tha t these letters appear in the record.

(The letters referred to follow:)

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 13, 1966.

Hon. Henry M. J ackson, 

U.S . Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Scoop: Because I will be away from Washington on July 20th, I will 

not be able to par ticipate in hearin gs which you have set th at day on confirmation 

of the nomination of Fran k C. Di Luzio to be Assistan t Secretary of the Interior 

for Wa ter Resources.

I would apprecia te your hav ing the record show th at I hold Mr. Di Luzio in 

high regard, having been able particularly to observe his performance in connection with Alaska earthq uak e rehabilitation efforts.

I hope the comm ittee will act favorably and promptly on this excellent 

nomination.

Cordially yours,

Ernest Greuning, U.S.S.

Atomic E nergy Commission, 

Washington, D.C ., Ju ly 18, 1966.

Hon. Henry M. J ackson,

Committee on Interior and In su lar Affair s,

Congress of the United States.

Dear Senator J ackson: I have noted with considerable intere st and pleasure 

th at Presiden t Johnson, as he had earlier announced, sent to the Senate of the 

United States on July 11, 1966, the nomination of Fra nk C. Di Luzio of New 

Mexico to be Assistant Secretary of Interior (a new position) with prim ary 

responsibility for direction of water pollution activities of the Federal Government.

In view of my long associatio n w ith Mr. Di Luzio and my close working relationships with him in many areas of governm ental activity, I desire to bring to your 

atten tio n my enth usiastic support to the President’s selection of Mr. Di Luzio 

for this very important post and to urge respectfully favorable actio n on the 

nomination by your Com mittee and the Senate.

My association with Mr. Di Luzio goes back nearly twenty years when we 

were both members of the Atomic Energ y Commission; he at Los Alamos and I 

at the Chicago O perations Office. In subsequent years our contacts became much 

more freque nt when I was serving as Executive Dire ctor of the Joint Committe e 

on Atomic Energy of the Congress and Mr. Di Luzio as AEC Manager of Los 

Alamos and later Deputy Manager of the Albuquerque Operations complex 

testified before the Committee frequently on vital atomic energy programs.

During the past two years I have been closely concerned with the application 

of our atomic energy resources and capabilities in the power reactor field to the 

matter of desalting sea wa ter—a program of immense imp orta nce to this nation 

and to the world. As you know, I have been designated as the principal Atomic 

Ene rgy Commission rep resentative in the deve lopm ent of this program, and 

accordingly my contacts with Mr. Di Luzio in his capa city as Director of the 

Office of Saline Water and advisor to Secretary Udall in the area of desalination 

have been on a continual basis. His dedication to the economical, timely and 

comprehensive solution to the problems associated with desalination, including 

the role of nuclear power, and the even broade r area of ade qua te man agem ent 

and use of water resources is widely acknowledged througho ut the Federal Governmen t, industry and in many foreign countries. I believe his competence and 

enth usiasm to deal effectively with the manifold and extremely difficult tasks 

which are invested in this new Assistan t Secretary ship have been well demonstr ate d in his direction of the Office of Saline Water. I confidently anticipate a 

sound program of Federal, state, and local g overnm ent cooperation and achievemen t in the crucial area of wa ter pollution control and abate me nt und er his 

leadership.
6 INTERIOR NOMINATION

I app reciate the opportunity to sub mit to your Com mittee my views on Mr. 

Di Luzio’s nomination and to inform you that we look forw ard with pleasure 

to working with him in many areas of mutual interest and joint responsibility. 

Respectfully,

J ames T. Ramey, Commissioner.

The Chairman. It goes without saying tha t Mr. Di Luzio is well 

qualified for his post both because of this training and of his experience. 

The position to which Mr. Di Luzio has been nominated is a new one 

created by section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966. Section 5 

of the plan abolished the office of Assistant Secretary of Health, 

Education, and Welfare which had responsibility for the administration of the water pollution control program. This program was 

transferred to the Interior Department, and its administration will be 

within the jurisdiction of the new Assistant Secretary.

However, it is my understanding tha t the responsibilities of Mr. 

Di Luzio, once he is confirmed, will be substantially broader than water 

pollution control. For example, it is reported that his office will 

have jurisdiction over the Office of Water Resources Research, which, 

as the members will recall, was established by legislation introduced 

by Senator Anderson and reported by this committee in the 88th 

Congress. The present responsibility of Mr. Di Luzio for the saline 

water program should continue although he will, of course, be supervising th at program from a higher echelon.

The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee is the organ of the 

Senate tha t has overall responsibility for legislation affecting supplies 

of usable water and water resources development in general. Tha t is 

why I want to say, we welcomed the move of pollution control to the 

Interior Department. I think we can all agree that it is obvious that 

Federal water programs should be under unified responsibility instead 

of a proliferation of authorities, both in the Congress and the executive branch. It is my wish that the creation of Mr. Di Luzio’s post 

will mark the beginning of a trend toward such unification of responsibility and authority.

I should express my earnest hope that Mr. Di Luzio will direct his 

efforts toward bringing some order out of the chaos tha t now characterizes the water activities of the Federal Government and tha t the 

administration will lend its very considerable weight to his efforts.

Now, before asking Mr. Di Luzio to make a statement, the Chair 

will be happy to recognize the distinguished senior Senator from 

New Mexico, the home State of Mr. Di Luzio.

Senator Anderson.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIN TON P. ANDERSON, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Senator Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have known Frank Di Luzio for 20 years. I thought you might 

be interested in some of the things I can tell you about him. The committee has a copy of his biographical sketch, which will become part of 

the record; but in presenting him to the committee, I wanted to touch 

briefly on a few personal experiences.

I first became acquainted with Frank when he was manager of the 

Los Alamos Community for the Atomic Energy Commission. Running a community to support the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory was
INTERIOR NOMINATION 7

no easy tasks. Frank is a civil engineer by training, bu t at Los Alamos, 

which has attracted many of the world’s most distinguished scientists, 

he also had to be a skilled diplomat.

There is the story about Frank and Enrico Fermi, the brilliant 

physicist, who had come from Italy to escape Fascist persecution. 

Fermi had played a leading role in the development of the first atomic 

bomb. After the war Professor Fermi used to come back to Los 

Alamos regularly during the summer months to teach and do research. 

He had a cottage and the maintenance people were upset because 

Professor Fermi was not cutting the grass around the place, but no 

one would approach the great man about the grass. Finally Frank, 

who was born in Rome, went over to the Fermi cottage one day and 

asked Fermi if he wanted special privileges. Fermi assured him he 

did not; the only problem was that he had no room in his car—filled 

with books and papers—to haul a lawnmower back and forth each 

year from Los Alamos. "We’ll let you borrow one,” said Frank. And 

the small crisis was over. I think Fra nk’s tact, good humor, and 

commonsense were valuable in tha t situation. I think they will be 

very useful in the period tha t lies ahead.

When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical 

and Space Sciences, I asked Frank to join the committee as staff 

director. He did an extremely effective job and earned the respect 

of the officials of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, 

the Department of Defense, and the members of the committee, both 

Democrats and Republicans. He brought a high degree of professionalism to the operations of the committee.

In the midst of the work of the Space Committee, Alaska was shaken 

by a disastrous earthquake on Good Friday 1964. President Johnson 

asked tha t I take over the chairmanship of a special relief and reconstruction commission. We had to borrow staff from Government 

departments. I asked Frank to become my special assistant in that 

work—without taking off his ha t as staff director of the Space Committee. I am indebted for his fine assistance in the Alaska reconstruction program. When we started up the work of the Alaska commission, Frank informed me tha t he had a license as a civil engineer in 

Alaska. I think that is typical of the many facets of this man.

Frank didn’t stay with the Space Committee as long as I would have 

liked. The President of the United States and the Secretary of the 

Interior discovered his qualifications and abilities and asked me to let 

him go over to head the Office of Saline Water. Reluctantly I agreed. 

The result has been some very fine work in desalination processes tha t 

will pay great dividends not only in the United States but in the arid 

regions of the world as well.

I think Frank will bring to his new post a broad understanding of 

water problems for he is quite sensitive to the interlocking of these 

problems, seeing them in their totality. I think this is the approach 

we need—viewing the water problem on a regional basis, rather than 

just as a local matter.

It will be no easy task to reverse the tide of apathy, half-effort, 

intergovernmental controversy, and myopia which have afflicted 

our streams and river basins. But I think Frank Di Luzio can 

measure up to the assignment.
8 INTERIOR NOMINATION

I think Fran k will bring good professional training to this job and 

I am very happy tha t the President and the Secretary of the Interior 

have made this appointment.

The Chairman. Any other comments at this time?

(No response.)

The Chairman. The Chairman is very happy to welcome to the 

committee this morning—in response to an invitation previously 

extended—the chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee dealing 

with many of these problems. Senator Muskie, I am delighted to 

have you with us.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MAINE

Senator Muskie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I may say tha t Senator Randolph, who is chairman of the full 

Committee on Public Works, is tied up, presiding over an executive 

session of t hat committee, or he would be here. He asked me to say 

for the record tha t he had a most satisfactory interview with Mr. 

Di Luzio and is very pleased with this nomination and gives i t his 

support.

I had a similar experience with Mr. Di Luzio, and I suspect tha t in 

the future, we will have many meetings together over problems of 

water pollution.

I would like to ask Mr. Di Luzio a few questions bearing upon his 

attitude toward some of these problems, so we may have an idea of 

how he views the future of water pollution control.

At this point, I would like to say that not only am I greatly satisfied 

with Mr. Di Luzio’s appointment, but also by the recognition tha t his 

appointment gives to the importance of water pollution and water 

matters generally in the affairs of Government. For 3 years, we 

struggled to get the water pollution program raised to the highest 

possible level in the Federal hierarchy and succeeded last year in the 

Department of HEW. This year, of course, we have the transfer to 

the Department of the Interior, and the recognition t hat water should 

be placed at the highest possible level in tha t Department as well. I 

think we have this whole problem, this whole subject now a t the appropriate policymaking level of the Federal Government.

Mr. Di Luzio, as the first policymaker at tha t level, has an unusual 

opportunity to shape the future course of our Government in dealing 

with these problems. I congratulate him upon the appointment and 

upon this opportunity.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Muskie.

Mr. Di Luzio, we shall be happy to hear from you at this time. 

Possibly you could give a brief rundown on your biography. It is in 

the record, but I think it would be useful for the purpose of the open 

hearing.
INTERIOR NOMINATION 9

STATEMENT OF FRANK C. DI LUZIO, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Di Luzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I approach this assignment, if the Senate finds me worthy of the 

confirmation, with the knowledge that it is not going to be an easy 

task. I also approach it with humility because it is an honor to be 

selected by President Johnson for this project. I have every hope 

tha t my background and past experiences will serve me in good stead 

in trying to do the best job tha t I possibly can in this new position.

The C hairman. I note with interest that you got your sta rt in 

Government engineering at Coulee Dam.

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, my first civil service job was at Grand Coulee 

Dam in the State of Washington, working for the Bureau of Reclamation. From there the Bureau sent me to Park er Dam. Then I was 

transferred on a loan basis to the Construction Quartermaster Corps 

during the early war years to work on the construction of powder 

plants and ordnance plants, with the idea that I would return to the 

Bureau at some la ter date. I never did get back to the Bureau of 

Reclamation.

About tha t time, 1943, if I remember correctly, the Construction 

Quartermaster Corps was transferred over to the Corps of Engineers. 

That was the beginning of my Corps of Engineers experience.

My first job with the corps was working on the construction of 

Mosquito Creek Dam at Warren, Ohio. I started in the corps as an 

enlisted man, and later attended officer candidate school, but I was 

injured and could not pass the final physical.

In 1944, I was assigned to the Man hattan Engineering District, to 

undertake the atomic bomb project. I was sent to Los Alamos and 

remained there until 1956.

I became Assistant Chief Engineer, the Director of the Engineering 

and Construction Division, the Director of the Community Management Division; and finally, the manager of the Los Alamos area 

office of AEC.

In 1956, I was transferred to Albuquerque as Assistant Manager for 

Manufacturing, in charge of manufacturing atomic weapons.

About 6 months later, in 1957, I became the Deputy Manager of the 

Albuquerque Operations Office, which had full responsibility in the 

area of atomic weapon design, testing, and fabrication.

I left the AEC in 1961 to join Fairbanks-Whitney, a private industrial organization. I had been wanting to work in the industrial 

field for a number of years. I was assigned to Fairbanks-Morse to 

work on industrial problems, including the engineering and development of desalting techniques.

In 1963 I left Fairbanks-Morse and joined Senator Anderson’s 

staff as staff director of the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee and, of course, on January 25 of last year, I joined the Office 

of Saline Water as its Director.
10 INTERIOR NOMINATION

Most of my experience has been engineering and administration. 

I do not consider myself a highly talented technical person. One 

thing I think, however, is tha t I can detect when I need technical 

help and I know where to seek it. I consider myself more of an 

engineering administrator than a technical oriented person. It has 

been years and years since I actually have done design work, so I 

consider myself a coordinator of technology or an interpreter of 

technology, whichever term you prefer.

The Chairman. You have no hesitancy in saying that, as you look 

at some of these problems, you know how to identify the problem 

areas, and if you want to get a specialist in, of course, you will get 

him in.

Mr. Di Luzio. That is absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. I think 

the problems involved in this new assignment are wide and varied, 

technical and social. There are economic, engineering, and political 

problems. There is no single expert who can resolve these complex 

problems, just as there is no single process to provide water for future 

generations. Eventually three or four technical processes may have 

to be put together to provide incremental supplies of potable water, 

including advanced methods of waste water recovery.

In the Office of Saline Water I have always maintained, and my 

speeches will support this, tha t there is no single answer to the water 

supply problem. Stripped of all the nice adjectives tha t have been 

associated with desalting, i t is not a miracle maker, it is just one piece 

of pollution control. It has to be considered in a total water resource 

program to really make its contribution.

The Chairman. Mr. Di Luzio, I wonder whether you would expand 

on the water-quality responsibilities of the organs established under 

the Water Resources Planning Act; namely, the Water Resources 

Council and the river basin commissions?

Mr. Di Luzio. I am not too familiar with that, Mr. Chairman, 

except I do know when one looks at a river basin and talks about 

planning a river basin development program, one critical element in 

that plan obviously will have to be pollution control of one form 

or another. It is an integral part of any water system or any watershed, and to separate it and say supply people should not concern 

themselves with quality, is really begging the question. There is no 

water scheme or no water plan tha t should not look at either prevention or correction of pollution.

The Chairman. I take it tha t you believe you should work very 

closely with the Water Resources Council, which is chaired currently 

by the Secretary of the Interior, and monitor very closely, as well, 

the river basin commissions that are being set up under that act?

Mr. Di I juzio. Yes, sir, coordination with the Water Council has 

to be very, very close, just as it must be very close with the work on 

pollution or water quality which is being conducted by other bureaus 

within the Department of the Interior. We must have a strong coordinated program to avoid duplication of effort and to get the best 

out of each of the bureaus as we seek the solution of the common 

problem.

The Chairman. I hope you will really move in to try to do something in that regard because there are so many agencies involved in 

the area of water quality th at if we are going to make any progress, we 

must get better coordination. I trust tha t as Assistant Secretary
INTERIOR NOMINATION 11

dealing with the problems of water quality, you will make every 

effort to achieve better coordination and direction.

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Senator Kuchel?

Senator K uchel. First of all, Mr. Di Luzio, you have my best 

wishes for a constructive career in this new responsibility. You 

bring to it an obviously high qualification and unique experience. 

This, incidentally, is a responsibility which ought not to be political 

or partisan, and I am sure you agree with me on tha t observation. 

The problems connected with water in this country, wherever they are, 

will fall on all the body politic, on all the members of the body politic 

alike, is th at not true?

Mr. Di Luzio. This is absolutely true.

Senator Kuchel. Do you have a copy, or does the staff have a copy 

of this Reorganization Plan No. 2 of the President? I would like to 

have that made a part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Tha t will be done. We will obtain that.

(The document referred to follows:)

89th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - House Document No. 388

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1966

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PR ESIDENT OE THE UNITED STATES

TR AN SM ITTIN G

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1966, PRE PAR ED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIO NS OF THE

REORGANISATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMEND ED, AND

PROVIDING FOR REORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN

WATER POLLU TION CONTROL FUN CTIONS

February 28, 1966.—Referred to the Committee on Government

Operations, and ordered to be printed

with accompanying papers.
14 INTERIOR NOMINATION

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

To the Congress of the United States:

I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, prepared in 

accordance with the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as 

amended, and providing for reorganization of certain water pollution 

control functions.

Thirty-five years ago Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “A river 

is more than an amenity, it is a treasure.”

Only recently has the trut h of this observation entered the public 

conscience. For we now recognize tha t the Nation’s rivers, far from 

being treasured, have been carelessly neglected for too long.

Today we face a harsh reality. Our waters are burdened with 

blight. We know tha t every river system in America suffers from 

some degree of pollution. This menace is growing more serious with 

every passing day.

We nave just begun to take the steps to clean and restore our waters.

The task is immense. The journey will be long.

If our new programs are to succeed we must combine our efforts— 

Federal, State, local, and private—in new and creative partnerships.

The attack against water pollution should be unified and coordinated.

It should be carried forward as an integral part of comprehensive 

planning for the development of river basins.

But, most importantly, the Government’s management structure 

must be strengthened and reshaped to meet the challenges tha t lie 

ahead.

• In my February 23 message on the quality of our environment I 

stated:

* * * we must reorganize the Federal effort. In the past, the Federal antipollution effort has been organizationally separate from w ater conservation and 

use programs.

One agency should assume leadership in our clean water effort.

That agency should be the Department of the Interior.

The Department of the Interior, for many years, has been concerned with the comprehensive management and development of the 

Nation ’s water resources.

It plans, constructs, and operates multiple-purpose water and 

related land resources projects.

It carries on research and development on the removal of minerals 

from water.

It administers the Water Resources Research Act.

The Secretary of the Interior also serves as Chairman of the Water 

Resources Council responsible for coordinating river basin planning. 

Under the Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966 and other legislation
INTE RIOR NOMINATION 15

which I have recently proposed, the Secretary will become the focal 

point for Federal efforts in this area.

It is wise management to place under his control the related resources and authority now in the Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare.

The reorganization plan maintains a proper and effective role for 

the Department of Health, Education, ana Welfare with respect to 

the health aspects of pollution. At the same time it places in the 

Departm ent of the Inte rior all of the necessary tools to move forward 

the drive to clean America’s waters.

The reorganization plan herewith transmitted will transfer to the 

Secretary of the Inte rior the functions of the Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare under the Federal Wate r Pollution Control 

Act except for responsibilities relating to public health for which the 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has special competence. That Department will retain responsibility under section 

3(b) of the act for advising on public health questions involved in 

determinations by Federal agencies of the need for and value of the 

inclusion of storage for water quality control in Federal reservoirs. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration would be tran sferred to the Dep artm ent of the Interior.

The Secretary of the Interior in administering the act will also be 

required to consult with the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

Welfare on public health aspects relating to water pollution. This 

consultative responsibility is now vested in the Surgeon General 

by section 2(k) of the Wate r Quality Act of 1965. The plan transfers 

tha t responsibility to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and the hearing 

boards provided for in the act would be transferred to the Department 

of the Interior, together with their respective functions. The reorganization plan also makes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare a member of the Advisory Board and gives him the opportunity 

to select a member of each hearing board.

The reorganization plan would in no way impair the rights and 

benefits of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service who 

may transfer to the W ater Pollution Control Administration.

The reorganization to be accomplished by the plan transmitted 

herewith will enable the Federal Government to organize for action 

against pollution on a river basin basis under the unified leadership of 

the Secretary of the Interior.

After investigation, I have found and hereby declare tha t each 

reorganization included in the accompanying reorganization plan is 

necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 

2(a) of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended. I have also 

found and hereby declare that it is necessary to include in the accompanying reorganization plan, by reason of the reorganizations made 

thereby, provision for the membership of the Secretary of Health, 

Education, and Welfare on the Water Pollution Control Advisory 

Board and for the appointment and compensation of an additional 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior. The rate of compensation fixed 

for that officer is that which I have found to prevail in respect of 

comparable officers in the executive branch of the Government.

'67-082 0 —66------ 3
16 INTERIOR NOMINATION

The reorganizations provided for in the reorganization plan transmitted herewith will produce significant long-range savings and economies by reason of the efficiencies in organization and in the elimination of duplication of effort it will bring about. It is, however, 

impracticable to specify or itemize at this time the reductions of 

expenditures which it is probable will be brought about by the taking 

effect of the reorganizations included in the reorganization plan.

I recommend that the Congress allow the accompanying plan to 

become effective.

L yn do n B. J ohnso n.

T h e W h it e H o u se , F ebru ary 28 , 19 66 .
INTERIOR NOMINATION 17

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1966

Prepared by the President and Transmitted to the Senate and

the House of Representatives in Congress Assembled, 

F ebruary 28, 1966, P ursuant to the Provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 203, as Amended

WATER POL LUT ION CONTROL

Section 1. Transfers of Functions and Agencies.—(a) Except 

as otherwise provided in this section, all functions of the Secretary of 

Health, Education, and Welfare and of the Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare under the Federal Wate r Pollution Control 

Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act (33 U.S.C. 466 

et seq.), including all functions of other officers, or of employees or 

agencies, of tha t Department under the Act, are hereby transferred 

to the Secretary of the Interior.

(b) The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is hereby 

transferred to the Dep artm ent of the Interior.

(c) (1) The Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, together with 

its functions, is hereby transferred to the Department of the Interior.

(2) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

Welfare (including those of his designee) under section 9 of the Act 

shall be deemed to be hereby transferred to the Secretary of the 

Interior.

(3) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall be an 

additional member of the said Board as provided for by section 9 of 

the Act and as modified by this reorganization plan.

(d) (1) The Hearing Boards provided for in sections 10(c)(4) and 

10(f) of the Act, including any Boards so provided for which may be 

in existence on the effective date of this reorganization plan, together 

with their respective functions, are hereby transferred to the Department of the Interior.

(2) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under the said sections 10(c)(4) and 10(f) shall be deemed to be 

hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.

(3) The Secretary of the Interior shall give the Secretary of Health’, 

Education, and Welfare opportunity to select a member of each 

Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sections 10(c)(4) and 10(f) of 

the Act as modified by this reorganization plan.

(e) There are excepted from the transfers effected by subsection 

(a) of this section (1) the functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, 

and Welfare under clause (2) of the second sentence of section 1(b) 

of the Act, and (2) so much of the functions of the Secretary of Health, 

Education, and Welfare under section 3(b)(2) of the Act as relates to 

public health aspects.

(f) The functions of the Surgeon General under section 2(k) of the 

Water Quality Act of 1965 (79 S tat. 905) are transferred to the Secre-
18 INTE RIOR NOMINATION

tary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Within 90 days after this 

reorganization plan becomes effective, the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Health, Education, snd Welfare shall present to 

the President for his approval an interdepartmental agreement providing in detail for the implementation of the consultations provided 

for by said section 2(k). Such interdepartmental agreement may be 

modified from time to time by the two Secretaries with the approval 

of the President.

(g) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

Welfare under sections 2 (b), (c), and (g) of the Water Quality Act 

of 1965 are hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Interior: 

Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior may exercise the authority to provide further periods for the transfer to classified positions 

in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service under said section 2(b) 

only with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

Welfare.

(h) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

Welfare under the following provisions of law are hereby transferred 

to the Secretary of the Interior:

(1) Section 702(a) of the Housing and Urban Development 

Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 490).

(2) Section 212 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act 

of 1965 (79 Stat. 16).

(3) Section 106 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 554).

Sec. 2. Assistant Secretary of the Interior.—There shall be 

in the Department of the Interior one additional Assistant Secretary 

of the Interior, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with 

the advice and consent of the Seriate, who shall, except as the Secretary of the Interior may direct otherwise, assist the Secretary in the 

discharge of the functions transferred to him hereunder, who shall 

perform such other duties as the Secretary shall from time to time 

prescribe, and who shall receive compensation at the rate now or 

hereafter prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of the Interior.

Sec. 3. Performance of Transferred Functions.—The provisions of sections 2 and 5 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 

Stat. 1262) shall be applicable to the functions transferred hereunder 

to the Secretary of the Interior to the same extent as they are applicable to the functions transferred to the Secretary thereunder.

Sec. 4. Incidental Provisions.—(a) So much of the personnel, 

property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, 

allocations, and other funds, employed, used, held, available, or to 

be made available in connection with the functions transferred to 

the Secretary of the Interior or the Department of the Interior by 

this reorganization plan as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget 

shall determine shall be transferred to the Departmen t of the Interior 

at such time or times as the Director shall direct.

(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the Director of the 

Bureau of the Budget shall deem to be necessary in order to effectuate the transfers referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be 

carried out in such manner as he shall direct and by such agencies 

as he shall designate.
INTERIOR NOMINATION 19

(c) This reorganization plan shall not impair the transfer rights 

and benefits of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service 

provided by section 2 of the Water Quality Act of 1965.

Sec. 5. Abolition of Office.—(a) There is hereby abolished tha t 

office of Assistant Secretary* of Health, Education, and Welfare the 

incumbent of which is on date of the transmittal of this reorganization 

plan to the Congress the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, 

and Welfare designated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

Welfare under the provisions of section 1(b) of the Act.

(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall make 

such provisions as he shall deem to be necessary respecting the winding 

up of any outstanding affairs of the Assistant Secretary whose office 

is abolished by subsection (a) of this section.
20 INTERIOR NOMINATION

Senator Kuchel. In general terms, Mr. Di Luzio, will you describe 

for the committee what your responsibility will be in this new Assistant 

Secretaryship?

Mr. Di Luzio. My basic responsibility, of course, will be acting 

for the Secretary of the Interior in coordinating the pollution efforts 

of the Nation under the provisions of the Water Planning Act, and 

presumably, if the Muskie bill becomes law, under that particular act. 

This includes not only the planning on a river basin basis, but also 

the establishment of water quality standards for various areas and 

the enforcement of those quality standards.

The implementation of these responsibilities will require serious 

discussions of pollution problems with the various agencies of Government involved and with the various States. I will make a very 

serious attempt to get people into the mood of moving themselves in 

the right direction without waiting until someone cracks a whip. I 

think there is more of a selling job and an educational job to lead 

water planners, water groups, and river basin commissions down the 

right path. Eventually, there has to be a final decision on programs.

The Muskie bill, which has been passed by the Senate, gives the 

Secretary the authority to take action so that needed programs do not 

hang in limbo forever. The pollution problem is great and it is 

going to get worse.

Senator Kuchel. I think a little later on in this hearing, I would 

like to listen to my friend from Maine describe what, in his view, 

are the high points of the legislatipn which passed, which I think 

every member of this committee supported. But now, for my purposes, your responsibilities will deal with the problems of the quality 

of water available to the American people and your responsibility as 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior will cover the entire country and 

include that problem in all 50 States, is th at correct?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir.

Senator Kuchel. Does saline water conversion constitute a p art of 

the problem of the quality of water so you will still have jurisdiction 

over saline conversion legislation, and responsibilities?

Mr. Di Luzio. The decision as to whether Office of Saline W ater 

will come under the new Assistant Secretary has not yet been made. 

It is under very active consideration. My own feeling is it is so 

closely related to pollution control, uses the same kinds of diciplines, 

has the same inherent problems, t hat it would be well to place it under 

the jurisdiction of the new Assistant Secretary.

Senator Kuchel. I respectfully suggest to the chairman and to my 

colleagues th at the Secretary of the Interior should by now make that 

decision.

I agree with you, Mr. Di Luzio, tha t the problem involved in saline 

water conversion again is something which all the members of this 

committee have pushed over the years as a problem of quality. That 

is vital of importance.

The Chairman. Will the Senator yield?

Senator Kuchel. Yes.

The Chairman. The Chair had been under the impression tha t the 

decision had been made tha t the Office of Saline Water would be under 

the direction of the new, to-be Assistant Secretary.

Senator Kuchel. Th at is good news. The only reason I raise the 

point, Mr. Chairman, is-----
INTERIOR NOMINATION 21

The Chairman. If it is not, it should be.

Senator Kuchel. So we agree, Mr. Chairman, because Mr. Di 

Luzio has said tha t decision apparently has not been made. I agree 

with the chairman it should be.

It is of particular importance to me as a Californian, because I am 

sure you know there is a question whether or not a multilateral contract involving the Federal Government and a number of agencies, 

public and private, in California, may eventuate and, as a Californian, 

as well, I think, as an American, I am interested in the success of t ha t 

venture. So I would want to know that in your new responsibilities, 

I will be looking to you for assistance.

The chairman has given me a July 7 news release from the De partment saying that transfer of the Office of Saline Water, now under the 

Assistant Secretary for Water and Power, Kenneth Holum, and the 

Office of Water Resources Research, which of course is now directed 

by the Secretary, to the area to be supervised by Mr. Di Luzio, is 

under consideration.

We would hope that the consideration might move with dispatch 

toward a decision.

Senator Anderson. I was just reminded, Senator, tha t I think 

Mr. Di Luzio has been in California with Mr. Ramey of the Atomic 

Energy Commission trying to work out some of the problems in 

California.

Senator Kuchel. On that conversion problem?

The Chairman. A dual purpose plan.

Senator Kuchel. Tha t is right, it is a dual purpose plan.

The Chairman. Nuclear power and desalination.

Senator K uchel. I have no further questions, except again to 

say tha t I give you my best wishes. This is a position tha t permits 

you to use much of the knowledge th at you have acquired in a highly 

classified field involving the security of the American people and 

using many of the same techniques now to advance the cause of peace 

and the cause of a better life for human beings.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Senator Bible?

Senator Bible. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, welcome Mr. 

Di Luzio to this hearing. I have known him well and favorably, 

and all of my contacts with him have been of the highest order. 1 

think he comes here exceptionally well qualified.

There are a number of questions tha t occur to me. I know one of 

the areas of great difficulty lies along thd Colorado River. There is a 

great salinity problem there. I am wondering if you would indicate 

how that problem will be handled? I do not want the ultimate solution, but would you create a regional office in Boulder City, which is 

the headquarters of Hoover Dam, or would you have one in Salt 

Lake City, which is the regional headquarters of the Bureau of 

Reclamation? How do you get into that particular problem?

I am not asking th at you suggest the answer to the problem, b ut it is 

a very critical one and all of us who are interested in the Colorado 

River know tha t the problem is not getting better, it is getting worse. 

We have had complaints from Mexico and our good friends from California tha t the water contains too much salt, and I am even gettin g 

tha t complaint from my own State of Nevada, and we know there is 

also tha t problem in Arizona.
22 INTERIOR NOMINATION

How do you cope w ith th at type of a problem ? W ha t is yo ur th inking on i t? How do you set i t up to come to g rips with it?

Mr. Di I juzio. T hat is a ve ry difficult question to ans wer in comple te detai l, bu t I can res pond by telling you wh at I feel one m ust do to 

even begin to look at the pro blem pro per ly.

One of the greates t value s of the Califo rnia pl an t th at Senator 

Ku chel mentioned is to ble nd the desalted wa ter it pro duces with the 

Colorado River wa ter used by the city of Los Angeles. It is distilled 

water. By blending on the basis of 1 gallon of de salte d wa ter to 2 

gallons of Colo rado River wa ter , it will no t only sof ten the Colorad o 

Ri ve r water bu t it will also reduce the salin ity to some thi ng aro und 

400 p ar ts p er million. One of the a ttr ac tiv e fea tur es of desalting is to 

eit he r p rov ide an a lte rnate source of su pply for majo r c ities now t aking 

wa ter ou t of the Color ado in su bs tantial qu an tities and thus leave the 

flow high er so it has a dil uti on effect in the lower basin, or look at it in 

terms of plan ts in the lower basin, which is becoming mo re and more 

briny o r salty. The M exi can s tud y, which is now going on, is looking 

at the fea sibility of extreme ly larg e wa ter plan ts on bo th sides of the 

borde r. This pro jec t could put distilled wa ter behin d Im pe ria l Da m 

to impro ve the qu ality of wa ter.

Th ese are the kinds of larg e-sc ale problems one has to look at. 

Th e can al system d id suffice for a perio d of t ime, but th e more we pum p 

ou t of the Colorado River, th e pa rts per m illion increases and salin ity 

becomes a more seve re pro blem. Stu die s show th at th e sal ini ty, 

which now averages alm ost 700 pa rts per m illion at Pa rk er D am , and 

su bs tant ially exceeds 1,000 pa rts per million du rin g periods of low 

flow, will reach 2,000 pa rts durin g low-flow periods in th e years ahe ad. 

Th is is ab ou t double the sa lin ity citrus crop s can take , and it exceeds 

the Pub lic Health stan da rd s f or huma n con sum ption. Ex otic m inerals 

in this riv er, such as boron, cre ate special problems.

One approa ch to th e Ca lifo rnia problem, it seems to me, is to provide 

large qu an tities of distilled water for blending purposes, and to stud y 

the effec t of reducing t he dra wd own on the Colorad o by com munities 

now taki ng wa ter from it. Th is will co ntr ibute to th e red uction of 

sa lin ity in the Col orado an d st art solving th at pa rticul ar problem.

Se na tor Bible. Do you do thi s regionalwise or on a St ate-by -State 

basis, or do you bring in all of t he seven Colorado Ri ve r Basin State s? 

Do you co nta ct their Gov erno rs; get hold of their resp onsible St ate 

agencie s or directors? Th en do you hav e a big meetin g, and where 

do you handle thi s from ? Do you han dle it from Wa shington or 

do you han dle it from th e region?

Mr. Di I juzio. I believe in pu ttin g the firemen as close to the fire 

as possible, bu t I think the pla nning itself is so com plicated by the 

bo rder States and Mexico, th at it will have to be h andle d at the highes t 

level, which probably will involve bringing them here to Wa shington. 

Th e im ple me nta tio n of wh ate ver plan we come up with, or the pieces 

of it, will require us to put the bes t tal en t we can find rig ht there on 

the scene. One cann ot opera te efficiently by rem ote control. I 

think we would use the agencies of every ava ilable existing 

org ani zat ion .

Fo r exam ple, the existing regi onal offices of the W ate r Pollution 

Co ntrol Ad mi nis tration and the Burea u of Re cla ma tion will all hav e 

a par t to pla y in this, and all we really have to pro vid e is coordination 

and, at some point, a decision as to wh at has to be done. The actual
INTERIOR NOMINATION 23

implementation of programs will be accomplished through existing 

organizations. I do not believe in superimposing organizations on top of organizations. I think the fewer people we have between the decisionmakers and the problem itself, the faster and more direct 

the results are going to be.

Senator Bible. Do you become the decisionmaker under this new 

law?

Mr. Di L uzio. I will become a decisionmaker to the extent that I will make my recommendations to the Secretary, who probably will have to coordinate some of our activities with other departments of the Government. I will have to document the reasons we must do things in a certain fashion, but the Secretary would be the one who 

would give us the go ahead with the project.

Senator Bible. The second problem tha t has come before the State 

of California and the State of Nevada is the Lake Tahoe pollution 

problem. I believe you have some familiarity with it.

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir.

Senator Bible. I think the Secretary, within the last week, called 

a conference with the Governor of California and the Governor of Nevada and the interested agencies, the responsible agencies, in each State to come to grips with that problem. Where do you fit in with tha t particular type of problem? Without giving me the solution, 

how do you get down to work at it? How do you do this?

Mr. Di Luzio. The technical solution to the problem, of course, 

belongs in the hands of the experts in the pollution control field. The decisions t hat have been made to implement or to fund certain parts of these programs and to really understand how everyone is going to participate in these programs would be the kind of decisions in which I would participate. The meeting which is going on right now at Lake Tahoe is really a function of the enforcement group. They are meeting to consider possible solutions. Unless there is a serious difference of opinion between the enforcement group and the Gover­ nors of the States, or the plan has not been formulated and it is still kind of on the fence, I probably would not step in, if the program is going in the right direction. If it star ts slowing down and if volun­ tary participation is lacking or it requires some kind of enforcement, I would certainly discuss this with the enforcement people to find out what the problems are. Then I would make another run to the sources of the decisions, the Governors of the States, or the com­ missioners, or whomever it may be, to get things moving. I am a great believer in trying to get people to do the right thing, but there must be a time limit. At some point, a decision has to 

be made to get things rolling.

Senator Bible. It seems to me tha t is the correct attitude. There 

is some feeling—which I have heard from State and local officials— tha t there is a little too much Federal interference at this stage of the game. Perhaps you do need tha t to hurry them along and get the job done, because there is a problem there tha t has to be taken 

care of.

Let me just ask you two more questions. Where will weather modification fit into this entire picture? Do you get into weather modification? Is th at a part of your responsibil­ ities? The Bureau of Reclamation is doing it at the present time.
24 INTERIOR NOMINATION

Mr. Di Luzio. No, sir; weather modification was never considered for transfer into the new Assistant Secretary’s Office. I think 

it will remain under the Bureau of Reclamation.

Senator Bible. It will remain under the Bureau of Reclamation as 

nearly as you know now?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir.

Senator Bible. Are there sufficient qualified personnel to staff your 

division, people who are trained in this very complicated field?

Mr. Di Luzio. If you are talking about my own personal staff in 

the Assistant Secretary’s Office, I think I can get qualified people to 

join me. I expect to be able to do it on a name basis. I know many 

talented technical people and I pick them up by specific disciplines.

If you are referring to the field talent required to implement this 

rath er extensive law which the Senate just passed, I am not too sure 

that there is enough qualified talent in each of the States at the present 

time to really come up with comprehensive plans within the time 

frame set forth in the law. Senator Muskie and I discussed the possibility of putting trained people into the field through a Governmentsponsored fellowship program to entice high-level, qualified students 

who are majoring in civil or mechanical engineering, or some discipline 

that is related to resource development, into the water field. Water 

is becoming a glamor subject. I think it is fast taking the role away 

from space. Now is the time to try to get some of the bright students 

in their junior or senior years, and see if we cannot get them into the 

water planning field, regardless of whether they finally end up in 

Federal Government employment or at the State level. We need 

them across the country.

Senator Bible. How do you operate organizationwise? I do not 

know that I have your thinking on this question. When you are 

working on the Colorado River problem, do you create offices somewhere in Los Angles or Boulder City, Nev., or Salt Lake City, Utah, or 

Denver, Colo., in Albuquerque or Santa Fe, or Phoenix, to handle the 

problems that come up? Would you follow the Bureau of Reclamation organizational chart, in other words?

Mr. Di Luzio. Senator, I have not really considered that in depth, 

and I will not know the answer to tha t until I have studied it a little 

closer.

Senator Bible. I anticipate at this point you would have some 

field offices under your command. In Lake Tahoe, for instance, if 

something comes up, they do not have to come all the way back to 

Washington to talk about it. They talk to somebody in Sacramento.

Mr. Di Luzio. To be honest about it, Senator, I have not looked at 

the details of the situation. I hesitate to give you an answer at this 

time.

Senator Bible. I understand. I appreciate sharing some views 

with you, and I appreciate your direct and obviously very carefully 

thought out answers.

The Chairman. Senator Jordan?

Senator J ordan. Thank you.

Mr. Di Luzio, I am impressed by your training and your background and your enthusiasm for this job. I think it is one of the 

most important jobs in the Government today, especially quality 

control over the rivers and waters of the country. I think it is a 

national disgrace tha t the Potomac River, which flows through the
INTERIOR NOMINATION 25

Capital, is in the terrible condition t hat it is in. I think tha t the fact 

tha t the Hudson River of New York is an open sewer is a matter of disgrace. We hear reports tha t Lake Erie is getting to be a Dead Sea. How do you propose to get into this matter in an effective way? For years, people have been talking about quality control and nobody has done anything about it. Here at long last, it looks like we are setting up legislation tha t will make possible getting into this. What are your ideas about how to do this? To what extent is a private user responsible for quality control? To what extent is it the responsibility of local and State governments? What is the proper sphere of the Federal Government? What is your general view of 

this whole problem?

Mr. Di Luzio. The Federal Government, under this present legislation tha t has been passed, obviously has jurisdiction over interstate streams, and also the navigable streams which come under the Corps of Engineers authority. I think with the bill which has jus t been 

passed by this body, this control has been strengthened. It also has provided a carrot to the local bodies to participate in 

pollution control, an incentive; for example, the 30 percent State contribution will automatically increase the Federal contribution by 10 percent. I think this carrot could well bring the States into line 

to try to do things within their own borders. The States, under the Water Quality Act, must establish quality 

control levels for water within their boundaries. The Federal Government has the auth ority to police these controls. The problem, as I see it, is really between the States and the 

cities, because of the institutional division between these two. Pa rt of this problem will be corrected by the reapportionment bills 

which have been passed by the States which gave the cities a greater voice in State legislatures. Most of the States have priorities for water programs within their boundaries, but there now will be a different list of priorities. We are still very much concerned that some of the States may not really help the big cities to the exten t 

that they should. This is a problem which the carrot offered under the Muskie bill may just be the incentive to bring the States into line. They will eventually have to face up to the problem; the Muskie bill may speed 

up the process. I do not think the Federal Government should step in and make a plan for each community, but pending authority provided by the act to enforce quality control on a violator who insists on putting materials into streams and into watersheds which are defiling the property of others is necessary. The right of citizens to sue anyone who puts materials into water which damages their property or products is, I think, a real whip. There are some who fear tha t this may encourage 

capricious suits, but I doubt it very much. This bill recognizes the rights of States themselves to work within 

their boundaries. If a situation should develop where we find five contiguous States on a given watershed and only three of them will do something abou t water pollution and two resist, we may not be able to come up with a comprehensive plan for tha t particular stream or watershed. We still might come up with a plan which is much smaller in size and less desirable, but because we cannot find the perfect solution it does not mean tha t we do nothing. This is a problem, but
26 INTERIOR NOMINATION

being a Christopher and a Catholic at heart, I always say it is better to 

light a candle than to curse the darkness. We will take what we can 

get and we will get the best out of every situation that we possibly can.

It is going to take a long educational process before we can get 

the States lined up to participate in the Federal program. If the 

State government does not want protection, it will not act. They 

must be made to realize th at the Federal Government is serious about 

this problem, t hat it wants to bring them in wherever it can, voluntarily if possible, b ut its police powers and authority will be used as a 

desperation, last-ditch movement.

Senator J ordan. Do you believe tha t along with the right to use 

water goes the responsibility to restore tha t water to a potable state 

so tha t the next user of it can have the same quality, or as nearly so as 

possible, that the first user had?

Mr. Di Luzio. Senator, I agree with the principle that the man who 

defiles the water and puts it back into the stream to the detriment of 

the downstream people, ought to be stopped from doing it. It is a 

responsibility to the public. Looking at the history of the evolution 

of the development of the river basins, people have just built industry 

along the rivers’ banks and there has been little or no enforcement. 

There has been official licensing of these kinds of activities without 

any requirements or police powers to control pollution.

The State of Ohio, for example, has licensed industries along the 

banks of the Cuyahoga River without instituting controls. So we 

find we have to contend with jurisdictional problems. They have 

received the power to function without giving Cleveland or the people 

who live on the Cuyahoga’s banks the ability to do anything about 

it. Before we curse these industries, we must do whatever is necessary 

to straighten out jurisdictional conflicts between the cities and the 

States on these major watersheds. These people have been doing it 

based on custom and precedent, and it is going to take time to say, 

Stop, reverse yourself. I think they deserve a warning period. Then, 

if tha t fails, we tighten down. Then, whatever happens to them is 

their own responsibility.

Senator Jordan. How much time and how many dollars is it going 

to take to get this water cleaned up and in an acceptable state?

Mr. Di Luzio. Senator, I do not know the answer to that. The 

problem is too big. There are areas where I think we should move 

very, very quickly. The examples are areas which the Muskie bill 

proposes, such as the separation of sanitary sewers from storm sewers, 

or the development of processes that might mean the treatment of 

industrial waste and municipal waste at the same time. We certainly 

will immediately look at the effluents of industrial plants which are 

toxic or very exotic in nature. I do not think we can say every 

industrial waste can be treated as a normal sewage load, but I think 

there are things tha t we should not permit to be dumped into our 

waters. They ought to be stopped at the plant boundary, not in 

the stream. There are all kinds of little bits of solutions we will 

have to apply.

Some we can do righ t now. For example, we now know enough 

about sewage treatment to build adequate facilities to stop untreated 

human wastes from going into our streams. We do not know the 

perfect answer to tertiary treatment. We know how to do it, but it
INTERIOR NOMINATION 27

is a costly process. Research has to be devoted to coming up with 

a newer and fuller process for the treatment of waste waters.

Senator Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to hear 

Senator Muskie’s questions.

The Chairman. Senator Muskie, you may ask your questions now, 

if you wish.

Senator Muskie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In my discussions with Mr. Di Luzio prior to this hearing and from 

the very pertinent questions put to him by the members of this committee, I think he and I have very similar views. Nonetheless, it 

might be helpful to touch upon last yea r’s legislation and also the 

pending legislation for the purposes of this record.

Last year’s Water Quality Act included the river basin concept in 

our water pollution control policies for the first time. The river basin 

concept involves two points tha t I think are important. First, the 

resource itself, if it is to be intelligently managed, must be managed 

on a river basin basis. Second, river basin management involves participation of Federal, 

State, and local institutions, which must somehow be stimulated to 

work together more cooperatively and more effectively. The basic 

law recognizes the primary responsbility of State and local governments to deal with the problems. Yet, as they have failed to do this

i

‘ob effectively, either because of lack of will or lack of resources, the 

federal presence in the field has been enlarged. Last year, under 

the Water Quality Act, it was enlarged in the form of greater authority to do the job. Under last year’s bill, and I would like to touch upon tha t first.

The States were given until July 1, 1967, to develop water quality 

standards on interstate streams. The first question I would like to 

ask is, To what extent have the States indicated that they are in the 

process of undertaking that very difficult, complex, and technical 

task before this deadline?

Mr. Di Luzio. I looked into this matter. I found it was one of the 

questions tha t would have to be answered, and Secretary Udall, from 

whom I obtained this information, tells me tha t 37 States have already 

replied tha t they will be ready with the standards. There is every 

assurance from the other States tha t the deadline will be met.

Senator Muskie. The Secretary of the Interior has promulgated 

and delivered to the States guidelines indicating the criteria which he 

will be looking for prior to approval of the water quality standards. 

I think the record ought to be clear that the water quality standards 

presented by the States must be approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior before they become the applicable standards.

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir; tha t is true.

Senator Muskie. I think those guidelines are excellent.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate to include them in 

the record at this point.

The Chairman. With out objection, those guidelines will be included 

in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)
28 INTERIOR NOMINATION

U.S. Department of the I nterior, Federal Water Pollution Control

Administration

GU IDE LIN ES FOR ESTABLISH ING WATER QUALITY STANDA RDS FOR INTERSTATE

WATERS (UN DER THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965, PUBLIC LAW 89-234) MAY 1966

The Water Quality Act of 1965 amended the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act to provide for establishment of water quality standards for interstate waters. 

In the absence of State action, such standards will be adopted by the Secretary 

of the Interior under procedures set forth in the Act.

Standards adopted by a State will become the standards applicable if:

1. The Governor or water pollution control agency files by October 2, 

1966, a letter of intent that the State, after public hearings, will, before June 

30, 1967, adopt (a) water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters or 

portions thereof within th e State, and (b) a plan for the implementation and 

enforcement of the criteria; and,

2. The State subsequently adopts such criteria and plan; and,

3. The Secretary determines t hat the State criteria and plan are consistent 

with the purposes of the Act, i.e., “* * * to enhance the quality and value 

of our water resources and to establish a national policy for the prevention, 

control, and abatem ent of water pollution.”

It is the position and purpose of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to encourage and support the States in establishing their own standards. 

The guidelines that follow are presented to assist the States in the development 

of the required water quality criteria and the plan for the implementation and 

enforcement thereof, and to delineate factors which will be considered in the 

Secretary’s determination of whether the criteria and plan are consistent with 

the purposes of the Act.

Guidelines in the act and its legislative history

First consideration should be given to the substantive guidelines on Congressional intent and purpose in establishing the water quality standards requirement that are contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended by the Water Quality Act of 1965, and in its legislative history:

1. “Standards of quality established pursuant to this subsection shall be such 

as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and 

serve the purposes of this Act. In establishing such standards the Secretary, 

the Hearing Board, or the appropriate State authority shall take into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, 

recreational purposes, agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses.” (Section 10(c)(3) of the Act.)

2. “The discharge of matter into such interstate waters or portions thereof, 

which reduces the quality of such waters below the water quality standards 

established under this subsection (whether the matter causing or contributing 

to such reduction is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such waters 

after discharge into tributaties of such waters), is subject to abatement in accordance with the provisions of * * *” the Act. (From Section 10(c)(5) of 

the Act).

3. “Economic, health, esthetic, and conservation values which contribute to 

the social and economic welfare of an area must be taken into account in determining the most appropriate use or uses of a stream. There ought to be a 

constant effort to improve the quality of the water supply, it being recognized 

that the improvement of the quality of water makes it available for more uses.” 

(Senate Report No. 10 on the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 

1965, 89th Congress, 1st Session).

4. “Water quality standards would provide an engineering base for design of 

treatment works by municipalities and industries. Such standards would enable 

municipalities and industries to develop realistic plans for new plants or expanded 

facilities, without uncertainties about waste disposal requirements on interstate 

waters.” (Senate Report No. 10, as above).

5. “Water quality standards are not designed for use primarily as an enforcement device; they are intended to provide the Secretary and State and local 

agencies with additional tools for objective and clear public policy statements on 

the use or uses to which specific segments of interstate waters may be put. Their 

principal objective is the orderly development and improvement of our water 

resources without the necessity of adversary proceedings which inevitably develop 

in enforcement cases.” (Senate Report No. 10, as above).

6. “The committee must reemphasize its intent tha t water quality standards 

are not designed to ‘lock in’ present uses of water or to exclude other uses, not
INTERIOR NOMINATION 29

now possible. The standard s are not a device to insure the lowest common denom inator of water quality bu t to enhance the quality and productivity of our 

water resources.” (Sen ate Report No. 10, as above).

7. “The committee inte nds th at water quality standard s should be applied on 

the basis of the water quality requirements of present and f uture uses of a stream 

or section of stream, after due consideration of all factors an d variables involved.” 

(Senate Report No. 10, as above).

Policy guidelines

No one has the right to pollute. As President John son expressed it when he 

signed into law the Water Quality Act of 1965, “No one has a right to use America’s 

rivers and America’s waterway s th at belong to all the people as a sewer. The 

banks of a river may belong to one man or one industry or one sta te, but th e w aters 

which flow between those banks should belong to all the people.”

In support of the Pre sid ent’s position, the specific provisions of the Wate r 

Quality Act of 1965, and expressions of policy by the Congress in enacting th at 

legislation, the following additional policy guidelines are set forth:

1. Water qua lity sta ndard s should be designed to “enhance the qua lity of 

wa ter.” If it is impossible to provide for pro mp t improvement in water quality 

at the time initial sta ndard s are set, the standard s should be designed to prev en t 

any increase in pollution. In no case will standar ds p roviding for less than existing 

water quality be acce ptable. 2. No standar ds of wate r quality will be approved which provide for the use o f 

any strea m or portion thereof for the sole or principal purpose of transp ort ing 

wastes. 3. Water qua lity criteria should be applied to the stream or other receiving 

water or portions thereof. The criteria should identify the water uses to be pr otected and establish lim its on po llutants or effects of pollution necessary to provide 

for such uses. Numerical values should be s tated for such quality characteristics 

where such values are available and applicable. Where appropriate, biological 

or bioassay parameters may be used. In the absence of appropriate num erical 

values or biological para meters, criteria should consist of verbal descriptions in 

sufficient detail as to show clearly the qua lity of water inten ded (e.g., “s ub ­

stan tially free from oil”). 4. The measure of time period and limiting values which will govern for purposes of the crite ria should be defined (e.g., annual arithm etric mean concentra ­

tion, single daily maxim um concentration ). Where appropriate, the specified 

recurrence and duratio n of the accepted design streamflow should be defined 

(e.g., 25-year recurrence of minimum lowflow of 10-day duration ).

5. Water qua lity criteria should be accompanied by a description of pre sen t 

water quality and uses, together with uses expected in the future and the water 

quality required to make those uses possible. The water quality sta ndard s 

proposed by a State should provide for:

(a) Potential and fut ure water uses as well as the present inte nde d use 

and uses;

(b) The upgrading and enhancement of water quality and the use or uses 

of stream s or portion s thereof th at are presently affected by pollution;

(c) The maintenan ce and protection of quality and use or uses of waters 

now of a high quality or of a qua lity s uitable for p resent an d potential futur e 

uses.

6. The plan for implementing and enforcing the water qua lity crite ria should 

be sub mitted in sufficient detail to describe the natur e of the actions to be taken 

to achieve compliance, a time schedule for such compliance, the controls and 

surveillance for measuring compliance, and the enforcement autho rity and 

measures for ensuring compliance. It is recognized th at there are a num ber of 

ways th at the water quality standa rds can be effectively implemented and 

enforced by the Sta tes; achievem ent of the purposes of the Act, rathe r than the 

methods by which this is done, is param ount.

7. The plan should include consideration of all releva nt pollutional sources, 

such as municipal and industrial wastes, cooling water discharges, irrigation 

return flows, a nd combined sewer overflows.

8. No standard will be approved which allows Any wastes amenable to trea tment or control to be discharged into any inter sta te water with out tre atmen t or 

control regardless of the water qua lity crite ria and water use or uses ado pted. 

Fur ther, no standard w’ill be approved which does no t require all wastes, prior to 

discharge into any interstate water, to receive the best practicab le tre atmen t or 

control unless it can be dem onstrated th at a lesser degree of tre atmen t or control
30 INTERIOR NOMINATION

will provide for water quality enhancement commensurate with proposed present 

and future water uses.

9. Public hearings are required to be held by States establishing standards in 

accordance with the provisions of the Act.

A summary of each public hearing, accompanied by certification as to notice 

and conduct of such public hearing in conformity with procedures provided therefor, should be provided the Secretary. The summary should adequately advise 

him of:

(a) The waters which were the subject of the public hearing;

(b) The interests and interest groups represented, including those in downstream or adjacent States which would be affected by the standards;

(c) The views expressed on water quality and water uses by the various 

interests and interest groups;

(d) Statistical data, reports and other information submitted in support of 

statements, views and positions expressed at the hearing, including those provided by the State or States holding the hearing.

When necessary to the Secretary’s determination that the State criteria and plan 

are consistent with the purposes of the Act, a full transcript of the hearing and supporting d ata will be requested.

In the review of the hearing record to determine whether the State criteria and 

plan are consistent with the purposes of the Act, attention will be given to the 

extent to which there was expression of views by conservation, civic, recreation, 

agricultural, industrial and planning interests, as well as by Federal, State, interstate and local agencies. Particular attention will be given to the extent to which 

there was opportunity for participation by interests downstream or adjacent 

States which would be affected by the standards.

10. State standards will be reviewed in terms of their consistency and comparability with those for affected waters of downstream or adjacent States. 

Coordination is encouraged among States to assure such consistency.

11. The use or uses of the waters concerned, the water quality criteria to provide for such use or uses, and the plan for implementing the water quality 

criteria should be in conformity with any comprehensive water pollution control 

program developed pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act, as amended; should encompass any remedial program recommended by the 

Secretary as a result of an enforcement action taken under Section 10 of the Act; 

and should be revised to reflect any recommendations resulting as such programs 

and actions develop.

12. To meet the goals established by the Act, water quality standards must 

be adequate to protect and upgrade water quality in the face of population and 

industrial growth, urbanization, and technological change. In accordance with 

the provisions of the Act, it is anticipated that after the initial setting of standards, 

periodic review and revision will be required to take into account changing technology of waste production and waste removal and advances in knowledge of 

water quality requirements developed through research.

Waters to which standards provisions apply

Water quality standards, under Section 10(c)(1) of the Act are to be established 

for, and made applicable to, interstate waters or portions thereof within the State.

1. The term “interstate waters,” as defined in Section 13(e) of the Act, means 

all rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including coastal waters.

2. Within this definition, waters that flow across or form a p art of State boundaries are subject to the provisions of Section 10(c)(1) of the Act.

3. Waters tha t flow across or form a part of the international boundary between 

a State and a foreign country are interstate waters within the meaning of the definition provided in Section 13(e) of the Act and similarly subject to the provisions of 

Section 10(c)(1) of the Act.

4. Coastal waters subject to the provisions of Section 10 (c)(1) of the Act are the 

ocean waters along straight coasts, the waters along indented coasts which are 

subject to the ebb and flow of the tides, and the waters of the Great Lakes.

5. As noted above, the definition of “interstate waters” is in terms of water 

bodies—“rivers,” “lakes” and “other waters”—and is not limited to only those 

portions of these w ater bodies at the noint a t which they flow across or form a pa rt 

of State boundaries. Tn effect, therefore, water quality standards are to be established for and made applicable to the entire stretch of the interstate waters 

within a State.

6. Tributaries of interstate w’aters, which are not in themselves interstate waters, 

are not subject to the requirements of subsection 10(c)(1) of the Act. However
INTERIOR NOMINATION 31

it is im portant to note th at the discharge of any ma tte r into such tributaries which 

reaches interesta te wate rs and reduces the qua lity of such interstate waters below 

the established water qua lity standards is subject to abate me nt under Section 10 

(c) (5) of the Act.

Cooperative assistance

Within the limits of its resources, the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminisstration will assist the States in developing their water quality criteria and plans 

upon request.

1. Requests for technical assistance and oth er information should be directed 

to the appropriate Regio nal Director of the Administration.

2. In addition, the A dministration will establish national technical comm ittees, 

one for each major water use defined in the Act, to review scientific findings on 

water quality requirements for each specific use and to advise the Secretary concerning this. Persons scientifically and technically qualified will be invited to 

serve. The technical committees will review and up date these reports periodically 

to reflect new information. The findings of these committees, subject to review 

and approval by the Secretary, will serve as guides for approving water quality 

criteria and subseque nt revisions thereof. These findings will be provided to 

the States as they become available.

3. The Adm inistration has long-term water quality requirements research 

underway, and this will be accelerated. The results of this research will be made 

available as standa rds are revised, enforcement action s are taken , and programs 

of w ater quality enhancement progress.

4. The Adm inistration encourages and will sup por t cooperative State-F ederal 

activities in connection with any State water qua lity stan dar ds implementation 

and enforcement plan. Initial discussions should be with the appropriate Regional 

Director.

Senator Muskie. It seems to me tha t in order to do the job 

effectively, the States are going to have to work together during this 

next year. Is there any indication tha t they are planning or preparing 

to associate together in developing common standards on streams 

which they share?

Mr. Di Luzio. Senator, I am not aware of this. I am sure tha t 

the answer is available for you, but I just do not know the answer to 

tha t particular question.

Senator Muskie. Do you conceive i t to be your responsibility to 

stimulate this kind of cooperative approach to the development of 

water quality standards?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir, definitely.

Senator Muskie. I think it is proper tha t the States have this 

opportunity to do the job, but I think we ought to recognize, first, t ha t 

the time period involved is very short for such a complex job; and 

second, th at to do the job effectively requires a great deal of fieldwork 

which the States may not be in a position to do. It is possible tha t 

the States may be disappointed with the results of their efforts in this 

next year. I think your leadership in this next year is going to be 

critical in developing this very important policy. The standards of 

performance which are set on all the interstate streams in this country 

are going to greatly influence the progress th at we make in this water 

quality field for some years ahead. If we stumble and accept poor 

standards to start with, we can be set back for a long time to come, and 

such a setback will be tremendously costly in dollars as well as in 

water quality.

Would you agree with that?

Mr. Di Luzio. I certainly do. And I just remembered something 

which earlier escaped my mind. There is a group in the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Administration which passes on to State s 

what other States have done. I feel, as you do, tha t the States need
32 INTERIOR NOMINATION

help in this critical planning period. Federal assistance should take 

the form of offering suggestions on how to approach the problem. 

Whenever one State comes up with a good standard, it should be 

made known to the other States to give them a pattern to study. 

If this is not being done now, it should be done.

Senator Muskie. I would urge the Department to provide all the 

assistance which the States are interested in and are willing to take 

from the Department. I think this next year is a very critical period.

1 would like to touch upon one other point with respect to last 

year’s act. I have been encouraged in the one or two States where I 

have had an opportunity to observe developments to see tha t the 

States are considering developing water quality standards for their 

intrasta te streams to match the standards which they are contemplating for interstate streams. Do you have any indication as to 

the e xtent to which other States are considering that kind of development?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, they are looking at it very carefully, because 

I think they have suddenly discovered tha t most of these streams 

within their boundaries are really parts of watersheds which eventually 

become interstate streams. It is better to start cleaning up pollution 

as close to home as possible, because they will have real problems 

when it gets into the common waterways.

Senator Muskie. In my State, we have three papermill streams. 

One of them is interstate, two of them are intrasta te. The State 

obviously finds itself in a dilemma if it proposes establishing, on the 

interstate stream, the water quality standards required by the Federal 

law while, at the same time, requiring a lesser performance on the 

streams tha t are wholly intrasta te. I think in my State, we can 

expect to see quality standards on both kinds of streams.

Now, moving to this year’s bill, title I incorporates a modified 

version of the President’s clean rivers restoration program which 

proposes to further develop the river-basin concept and to further 

stimulate a cooperative effort among the Federal, State and local 

governments in developing plans for the clean-up of entire river 

basins. As you have indicated, the stimulus in the bill for tha t kind 

of development is additional Federal assistance, increasing the basic 

Federal contribution on sewage treatment plants from 30 percent to 

50 percent if the States will do certain things in return.

Among these things are the development of water quality standards 

on all navigable streams within the State. Does the Department view 

this as a sound provision in the bill?

Mr. Di L uzio. To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir.

Senator Muskie. I do not know th at it is necessary to get into the 

money aspects of the bill, on which the administration and the Senate 

are in disagreement. I think it is fair to say, and I would like you to 

comment on this, th at the money involved in the bill which the Senate 

passed is a realistic reflection of the costs with which we are involved, 

and I think that administration testimony supports tha t observation. 

Would you agree with that?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, it does support it. There is some question 

about the funding being considered for the 6-year program, not because 

it is an unrealistic estimate or unrelated to the size of the problem, 

but jus t purely in terms of the financial resources going into this kind 

of program at this particular time.
INTERIOR NOMINATION 33

Senator Muskie. Let me touch just briefly upon the river basin 

concept written into the bill which the Senate has approved.

Under the bill, a river basin planning commission can be established 

only upon express request of the Governors of the State s involved. 

Is tha t not accurate?

Mr. Di Luzio. Tha t is right.

Senator Muskie. Do you consider this an appropriate approach 

to the problem, or do you think the Secretary ought to have autho rity, 

on his own in itiative, to establish a river basin commission?

Mr. Di Luzio. I would hate to try to answer the question, because 

I do not yet know enough of the details about how strong the effort is 

to avoid the necessity of doing that. It seems to me we are still in 

the period when we should lead rath er than drive too hard. We will 

know soon enough whether or not the State s will move with the kind 

of a carrot tha t has been offered them in your bill.

Eventually, if the States do not move in the right direction, then it 

would seem to me tha t something else ought to be done to protect the 

waters of this country. I do not know whether it would make sense, 

at the present time, to say the Secretary ought to have authority to 

establish a river basin commission even though the Governors may 

disagree with it. Time is running out; the situation is becoming 

worse. But I am not too sure that now is the time to really move in 

and hit them with something different without first using some of the 

remaining time for education.

Senator Muskie. May I make this observation about the carrot 

tha t is in the bill to stimulate the States to move on this river basin 

approach. I think it is also a stick in this situation, because as of 

July 1, 1967, under last year’s bill, the States opportunity to influence 

the programing on interstate streams will expire and the river basin 

concept embodied in this yea r’s bill gives them an additional opportunity thereafter to participate in the program. I would think th at 

they would grab this opportunity and would take advantage of it, 

not only because of the financial incentives in the bill, bu t because of 

the nature of the stick in last ye ar’s bill. Would you agree with tha t?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir; and I think I would like to make one more 

state ment on that point.

The drive in the Senate and the House to do something about 

water pollution has really strengthened the position of the city fathers 

and the State leaders who now can recommend to the electorate 

bond issues and financing schemes which, before this, have been defeated at the polls. Now they can say, we have to do something 

because if we do not, somebody else will. This, to me, is how the 

carrots you are talking about will really motivate the States.

It is my belief th at even people who believe tha t something should 

be done never were really sure the electorate would vote the bond 

issue to do it. After all, a politician can only do what is paid for by 

the taxpayers. In one instance, a bond issue was defeated three 

times, then they were assured that the Federal Government was going 

to do something, and the fourth time, it passed.

Senator Muskie. One of the carrots involved is the increase in the 

Federal contribution from 30 to 50 percent if the States will put up 

30 percent leaving the community with the responsibility of financing 

the remaining 20 percent of sewage treatment plant costs. Now, 

only two States contribute 30 percent of local project costs. Is this
34 INTERIOR NOMINATION

too harsh a requirement? Is this a realistic requirement, in your 

judgment?

Mr. Di Luzio. My own personal feeling is, it is a little bit too 

harsh. I think some States just will not be able to meet that, and 

it may mean the program in some States will go down the drain 

because the States will not produce 30 percent and the local communities are not capable of producing 20 percent. I think, as we have 

discussed, there should be some kind of a graduated scale. There is 

some serious concern about whether the State participation being 

required to be 30 percent will not really result in putting on the 

small communities or the cities, the 20-percent requirement which 

they cannot meet. The State still has some jurisdiction over what 

is done within its boundaries.

So they have the authority to decide priorities to some extent 

without the obligation of providing funding to do it. I, like you, 

believe tha t eventually the States will see the light; they have to 

move in and they will have to do something if they are to retain their 

role in the scheme of things. But there is some concern tha t some 

of the conditions are just too harsh at the present time.

Senator M uskie. The philosophy behind the committee’s approach 

is this: As you know, the committee bill, as first introduced, raised 

the Federal contribution to a straight, across-the-board 30 percent 

because they felt tha t the Federal contribution to big cities was too 

small. Because of the Presiden t’s concern for cleaning up entire river 

basins in a massive way, we felt tha t an opportunity exists, by increasing the Federal contribution in these critical areas to 50 percent, 

to motivate the States to put in their 30 percent. Most of the States 

most seriously affected are the bigger States, because the problem is 

the greatest where there are more people. We think this is a way of 

getting the river basin approach really started. Some of the States 

with lesser resources may be slower to take advantage of this incentive, but I submit tha t my State, which is not one of the wealthy 

States, has been contributing 30 percent since my second term as 

Governor, and apparently is able to handle the load. I think the 

States are in a better position to contribute than many of them have 

done up to this point.

I have two other questions, Mr. Chairman, on related subjects.

First of all, I was happy to note your comment that there is no 

single answer to this problem of the water needs of the future. Desalinization is a very important answer, the trea tme nt of waste 

waters is another very important answer, and another one, a controversial one tha t is being discussed, is the transfer of waters from 

surplus areas of the country to areas of water shortage. I will not 

ask your judgment on that question at this point.

The Chairman. Tha t is sort of irrelevant, anyway.

Senator Kuchel. No; that is going too far, Mr. Chairman. But I 

do suggest to the Senator from Maine tha t the record is rather full on 

the importance of this.

Senator Muskie. I have jus t one other question.

Have you had an opportunity to note the hearings which we held 

on the question of radioactive materials in the Colorado River? Do 

you have any information on tailings in the Colorado?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes; I read your statement and I think Senator 

Cooper also made two or three statements on the floor. I read the 

record on that subject very, very carefully.
INTERIOR NOMINATION 35

Senator Muskie. I realize that there is a very nice question of jurisdiction as between your office and the Atomic Energy Commission, 

but it seems to me there will have to be some kind of a relationship 

established. I am interested in getting whatever views you may have 

developed a t this point in the record on that problem.

Mr. Di Luzio. Well, I am talking about an organization which I 

was a part of for 16 or 17 years, and I think I can speak with some 

knowledge of the organization. Under the recent Executive order— 

which the President signed about 3 or 4 weeks ago—he placed the 

responsibility for Federal operations, taking care of its own pollution, 

under the Secretary of the Interior. He is going to police this. I do 

not think tha t the Executive order left out any agency or gave any 

agency the right to remain outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary 

of the Interior.

I do not know enough about the pollution caused by the uranium 

and other tailings, nor the current levels—there is an argument on this 

subject, as you know. The AEC claims it is not really dangerous, and 

the pollution control people say it is. Id o not know whether there is 

an answer to this question at the present time as to what is dangerous 

and what is not. I know when the AEC sets standards, they generally lean over heavily backward to be on the safe side. Radiation rules 

is a good example of that.

I do not know where the merit lies, whether the AEC is right in saying it is not really serious or whether the enforcement people are right 

when they say tha t it is a dangerous problem. But whether it is or is 

not, I do not think that the AEC is exempt from the Executive order 

which says they must comply.

We still have to use a rule of reason, even though we may have 

jurisdiction to do something about it.

Senator Muskie. At some point, when you have a chance to get this 

one under your belt, I am sure we would like to get into it with you. 

I will not take any further time at this point.

I ju st w ant to endorse one other point that you made in response to 

another question; that is, your concern with the availability of 

trained manpower.

Senator Cooper and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts have both 

expressed concern—as a matter of fact, both offered amendments to 

the pending bill which were adopted by the Senate. There is critical 

shortage, very similar, I suggest, to that which faced the States when 

the Interstate Highway Act was adopted. The States eventually 

geared up to that shortage, and I think can do so with respect to this 

one. But skilled manpower is getting a little short in this country. 

As a matter of fact, manpower generally is getting a little short with 

respect to a lot of these massive problems.

I was delighted to get your affirmative response to the problem 

and your desire to do everything you can with the authority that is 

being given to you to develop the manpower needed to do the job.

Thank you.

The Chairman. Senator Fannin?

Senator Fannin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Di Luzio, I am indeed pleased that you are being considered 

for this very important assignment, although I hope you will not lose 

the supervision of the saline water program, since I feel the Office of 

Saline Water has been very well administered during your term in t ha t 

assignment.
36 INTERIOR NOMINATION

Would you want to comment on whether or not we are utilizing the 

services of the industries as well as we should be doing? In other 

words, you have had some very practical experience working with the 

entities tha t are involved in the desalination program, and I am 

wondering if we are giving them the type of encouragement tha t will 

bring forth new developments, or whether we should do more in tha t 

regard?

Mr. Di Luzio. In the development of any new process the Office of 

Saline Water has really tried to bring industry into the program at a 

very early date, because eventually they will have to build the plants. 

The evil of failing to bring industry into the development of a technology is when you ask them the figures on the cost of building plants, 

if they have not been trained or exposed to the evolution of the technology, one of two things happens: Either they come in with an exceedingly high figure, which automatically kills the project because 

it is uneconomical, or they come in with the buy-in attitude ; tha t is, 

whatever the cost, the “heck” with it. Then the program is killed for 

second-generation plants, because we can never reproduce the 

economics.

I think both are evils. What we try to do is bring in industry very 

early in the cycle and give them contracts to sta rt developing hardware and to gain experience. It is not easy to sell a process w ithout 

knowing who is capable of building the final hardware. So we go out 

of our way to very early bring industry into our process development 

programs.

While we are working very hard to do this, industry itself has never 

really looked at the problem and voluntarily tried to help. They 

talked about organizing an association for desalting equipment manufacturers, but it was a defensive organization to prevent the Federal 

Government from encroaching into their sphere, which, of course, is 

the construction of plants. They came and talked to me, and I said 

the idea of the association was wonderful, but their purpose was 

backward.

I asked why don’t you organize to assist the Federal Government 

by getting involved in developing the technology of new hardware, 

new tubing, valves, pumps, and so on, so that when we are ready to 

hit the road with a new process, you can build it economically?

They have changed their approach. They are now looking at ways 

they can participate with the Office of Saline W ater and keep current 

on the technology. Whenever we find we are asking them to do something unreasonable, such as the development of new tubing techniques, 

for instance, we award engineering development contracts. We feel 

we are going to get more for the dollar we invest in that manner, in 

terms of cost to the public, than any other dollar we spend.

Senator Fannin. I was very much impressed with the worldwide 

water symposium you were in charge of here in Washington. Are we 

going to develop a central repository of information with regard to 

these water programs?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir; the Department of the Interior has a 

repository which has all the water resource data and the technical 

reports from Office of Saline Water, Geological Survey, and the Bureau 

of Reclamation. We are going to also incorporate the Federal water 

pollution data which, incidentally, is related to the same basic water 

characteristics.
INTERIOR NOMINATION 37

We are doing this because the development of information is only 

the beginning of the answer. The real problem is getting this information into the hands of the people who need this data in usable form. 

That will really push the s tate of the art.

Strangely enough, this problem of getting information out to 

industry, and out to other interested people, is sometimes looked at 

backward. Everyone looks a t the idea of getting information printed 

faster, but no one worries enough about getting it out the other end 

of the pipeline. The people who really need the data have the least 

capability to interpret the technical information in the form provided. 

Tha t is why we went to the University of New Mexico and had the 

university grad uate school and the engineering center provide technical 

assistance to the industries in the State to draw the data out of these 

banks of information and interpret i t into language they could understand and use. Everybody talks about stuffing more technical data 

into the pipe, but nobody is talking about how you get it out the other 

end and apply it.

Large industries have in-house talent and do not need assistance. 

It is the smaller and middle-sized industries tha t most often cann ot 

afford a strong technical staff where help is needed.

Senator Fannin. So you are coordinating the efforts?

Mr. Di Luzio. Absolutely. I think this is a very vital part of our 

responsibility.

Senator Fannin. Mr. Di Luzio, in one of your statements, you said 

you anticipated that salinity in the Colorado River flow would be as 

high as 2,000 parts per million. At what time would you say that 

might happen?

Mr. Di Luzio. I would like to submit exact data for the record. 

This was a curve drawn by the Bureau of Reclamation, I think for 

the year 1975.

Senator Fannin. Would this be below the Mohave?

Mr. Di Luzio. It would be above.

Senator Fannin. At Lees Ferry?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes.

Senator Fannin. Below Glen Canyon Dam?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes. I will submit the correct data for the record, 

because this is a curve tha t has been developed by the Bureau.

Senator Fannin. Thank you.

(The chart referred to follows:)
38 INTERIOR NOMINATION

PROJECTED WA TER Q UALIT Y FR OM

CO LO RADO RIVER AT PARKER DAM - 19 65 -200 0

The Chairman. Senator Burdick?

Senator Burdick. Mr. Di Luzio, I am pleased to hear your statements. We hear a lot about pollution of streams by municipal and 

industrial wastes. We hear about Lake Erie and other problems. 

I am wondering if you have ever heard of the Land of Sky Blue 

Waters? It refers to the region in the northern part of the country 

up by the Canadian border—Minnesota, Wisconsin, tha t area.

As you know, Minnesota advertises that it has 10,000 lakes. 

Those lakes are gradually deteriorating. I know one lake in Minnesota about 40 miles from my home in North Dakota, tha t has been 

inhabitated by cottage people and vacationers for about 40 or 50 

years and is practically worthless today. It is silting and polluted 

water is coming in from septic tanks and things of that nature. Do 

you think you have the authority and the tools to do something about 

this problem? Because, in a matter of time, there will not be any 

fresh water lakes. Clearing up pollution would be a great addition to 

recreation in this country.

I have been told that the areas in the Middle West—Indiana, 

Ohio, Illinois—had a great number of fresh water lakes years back
INTERIOR NOMINATION 39

and they have gone. This is the last area. Now we see, in 50 years, 

some of these lakes going. Do you feel this is a problem? Is there 

something you can do about it to take care of them, and do you think 

you have the authority?

Mr. Di Luzio. I really cannot answer the question except to say 

if these lakes are on a watershed which become part of a regional 

water problem and polluted water from these lakes is flowing into 

streams, an overall program for tha t region obviously would have to 

include these lakes.

Going to a specific lake by name and saying, this is a water resource 

we have to do something about would perhaps be stretching it too 

far. If it is in a watershed and perhaps pa rt of a regional development 

plan, then I think there would be a solution through a State program.

Senator Burdick. Would you place that on your agenda in your 

term of office?

Mr. Di Luzio. I am sure you will remind me if I do not. Yes; 

1 w il L

Senator Burdick. This is a serious problem.

Mr. Di Luzio. I know it is.

Senator Burdick. It is really appalling to see a fresh water lake 

in a new area—this is not an old area; this is a new area—practically 

destroyed in 50 years. This is sad.

Mr. Di Luzio. It surely is.

Mr. Burdick. One more question. In a hearing we held here 

earlier this year in regard to a bill authorizing a study of the water 

resources of the Delmarva Peninsula, this development occurred: 

We discovered that the Secretary of the Interio r testified on September 

8, 1965, about the general drought conditions in the Northeast area. 

At that time, he did not relate the fact that an underground channel 

of water-bearing rocks had been discovered on the Eastern Shore of 

Maryland. On October 7 a press release from the Department related the discovery of this underground channel on the Eastern Shore, 

which is assumed to be adequate to provide waters for about a million 

people. The Secretary had not been informed of this discovery.

My point is tha t the Secretary came before the committee and did 

not reveal the work being done in this area. But less than a month 

later someone else tells us the discovery has been made and known 

about in the Departm ent for quite a while before the Secretary’s 

appearance. It would appear tha t there is little rapport between 

the various agencies within the Department.

Will you see to it that the right hand knows what the left hand is 

doing in the Department?

Mr. Di Luzio. To the extent I can, yes. But the same thing also 

happened concerning New Jersey. A report on the availability of 

ground water in Newr

 Jersey came out the day after the Secretary had 

made a public statement on the water shortage crisis. I called Geological Survey and found t hat the report had been under preparation 

for months. There is absolutely no foolproof system of advising the 

Secretary of all of these thousands of details of each of the bureaus. 

It upset me, and I am sure it upset the Secretary, because we had been 

talking to the State of New Jersey about a water supply program 

which included waste water recovery and desalting plants.

The day after we had been talking to the Governor of New Jersey 

here comes this announcement of a ground water discovery. Of
40 INTERIOR NOMINATION

course, this is a little embarrassing, especially when it happens within 

the same Department.

I do not think it is going to happen again, but it is a very big Departm ent and the Secretary cannot know everything that is going on.

This is one of the areas where the Geological Survey people, who 

are making ground water surveys with State participation, come up 

with this type of information which they do not really attach any 

importance to except that it is a good technical report about a survey 

of ground water, without realizing it has an impact on water planners. 

This is the kind of situation th at Luna Leopold and I have been talking 

about for weeks, and I think they have now developed a system where 

they are going to give us this data at the same time we are working on 

water resource problems.

Senator Burdick. Mr. Di Luzio, I wish you well in your new 

responsibilities.

Mr. Di Luzio. Thank you very much, Senator.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Burdick.

Are there any other questions?

(No response.)

The Chairman. Mr. Di Luzio, under date of July 19, has advised 

the chairman of the fact tha t he does not own any stock or have any 

options to purchase stock. In short, he does not have any business 

interests of any kind tha t would in anywise interfere with the fair, 

impartial discharge of his duties.

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Di Luzio. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. The Chair will entertain a motion to report the 

confirmation.

Senator Anderson. I move we report the confirmation.

Senator Kuchel. I second the motion.

The Chairman. All in favor, say, “Aye” ; opposed, “No” .

(Chorus of ayes.)

The Chairman. It appears to be unanimous; it is unanimous.

Mr. Di Luzio’s nomination will be reported to the Senate.

The Chair would like to suggest that in the report we make reference 

to the fact that we hope and tru st the Secretary of the Interior will 

take expeditious action to include in Mr. Di Luzio’s purview the other 

activities related to water quality within the Department of the 

Interior.

The Chair will ask tha t the Senator from New Mexico report the 

nomination.

Senator Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Tha t concludes the morning business. Our congratulations to you, Mr. Di Luzio. You may have a fight on the 

floor, of course.

Mr. Di Luzio. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, a t 11:25 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 

was concluded.)

o