The Indianapolis times., 1933-08-03
TEETH URGED
IN LEGISLATION
ON POLLUTION
End of Buck Passing, and
Quick, Decisive Action
Is Necessary.

Continued From Page One
and lake pollution work in the state
have not been satisfactory. is the
report Of W. r. Frazier. sanitary en-
gineer Of the fish and game division,
70 his chief
When starting in this work the
first condition noticed was the lack
OF proper records Il virtually is
impossible 10 find sufficient records
10 continue a case that already has
been started. without making con-
facts all over again Frazier as
seTts.
Must Follow Up Probes
While the old records have no
continuity and are incomplete he
adds. they do give one impression
very clearly that a great many cases
have been investigated. bat there
are few If any. cases whore corrcc-
tive measures have been taken and
the cases closed "
Frazier saws that failure to close
cases Of pollution and apply cor
recUve measures might be due TO
the inability OF one man 70 investi-
gate all cases reported
1t would seem probable that this
accounts for such statements as
The officials in the past have prom
ised TO remedy the situation. he
saws.
Disposal problems are those of
expense rather than profit to in
dustrialsts and communities. and
though their intentions may be
good, it absolutely is necessary TO
keep in touch with them after the
first visit If results are to be Sc
cured
Working To End Pollution
There may be instances where
action has been dropped due TO out
side influence % charges Frazier.
There is also a probability that
the department has not considered
the position Of such importance as
TO have men OF sufficient experience
not only in the engineering phases
but also in contracting the public
Frazier declares.
Since the middle OF June the
policy of the department is to give
as prompt answers to calls as pos
Sible, but not have too many cases
at once. Correction in the handling
of wastes IN several instances Will
be completed in a very short time
and the cases closed.
Considerable time has been given
to cannery wastes. and preliminary
plans now are being made by
consulting engineer for a large can
merry that has been polluting a river
for number years, Frazier says.
Legislation Is Needed
He refers to the pollution of the
Morgan Canning Company. Austin.
Ind. directed by Ivan c. Morgan.
c. O. p donor to the state partys
money bags.
Again IN reference TO Morgan.
Frazier says. While this depart
ment has reason TO believe that the
project Will be started soon. it will
spare no effort 10 force action if
necessary
Frazier pleads for additional leg
islation with. Legislation is neces-
sary If this department is to have
sufficient powers to get prompt ac-
tion in pollution cases. In this con-
nection the idea of placing The re-
sponSibility for pollution directly on
one department should be consid-
cred "
Frazier suggests that stream pol
luton should be placed squarely on
the conservation department for en-
forcement and remedial measures.
Buck-passing Charged
In the past the board of sanitary
engineers of the state board of
health has worked on stream pollu-
tion in the state
Buck-paSSing between the old
conservation department Of the
Leslie regime and health boards
sanitary division has been charged
on pollution cases.
Frazier suggests that field and
contact work now done by the board
OF sanitary engineers of the health
division be done by the conserva-
ton department to avoid duplica-
tion Of efforts. and take some of
the load of the board of sanitary
engineers Of the state board of
health.
Some statehouse attaches see in
Frazier's suggestions the hint that
Governor Paul Y. McNutt might
combine the activities of the state
board Of health and the conServa-
ton department under one bureau.
Penalty Held too Low
In the past 1t has been necessary
for the conservation department 70
fight pollution cases through the
state board OF health.
The health board has the legal
right TO cite stream poluters. order
abatement Of pollution. and then if
the order is not followed bring
action against the polluters.
The acts Of 1927 provide "a fine Of
SIS to 5000 for each days violation
in pollution.
Why it's worth that to some in
dustrieS 10 pOllute streams at will. d"
said one prominent conservationiSt.
The Indiana statute formerly had
a maximum fine OF $1,000 for each
days violations.
An Ace In the Hole
SportSmen OF the state feel that
the law needs more teeth. less buck
passing. and quick. decisive action
But what VIII YOU 90 If stream
pollutevs refuse 70 obey the state
law? What if they prefer 70 pay
the fine daily and continue the
pollution-if they are hned?" we're
the questions asked Kunkel
The fish and game executive