Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-01-31
Pollution Bills
Sponsor Sees
Industry Shift
FeursWeuk Controls
Will Bring Dye
Plants to Virginia .
BY ALEX r. PRESTON,
Star Staff Correspondent.

BY ALEX r. PRESTON,
Star Staff Correspondent.
RICHMOND, Jan. 31.-Because
Virginia lacks strong anti-pollu.
ion law, some New Jersey dye in.
iustries may move TO the State to
escape more stringent regulations
elsewhere, General Assembly COM
mittee was told yesterday.
Delegate E. Blackburn Moore,
and Clarke, who headed
4 special subcommittee of the Vir-
yinia Advisory Legislative Council,
which has recommended pending
anti-pollution legislation, told the
House of Delegates and Senate
General Laws Committees at hear
ing the dye industries in New Jersey
now are required, at considerable
expense, to empty waste into pipes
leading into the ocean to avoid con-
tamination of that States waters.
1T is my understanding that some
Of these industries are contemplate
ing coming to Virginia at this
moment" he declared.
200 Attend Hearing.
Because Of the widespread interest
in the legislation, which is designed
to protect the streams of the State,
the joint hearing was held in the
House chamber and attracted 200
spectators. .-
The anti-pollution bill has been
introduced in the House by Mr..
Moore and Delegate Norman C.
Bailey, Orange, and in the Senate
by Senators J. D. Hagood, Glover,
and L. c. Bird, Richmond.
Mr.. Moore explained the legisla-
ton and introduced supporters, in
Guiding delegations from Arlington,
Alexandria and Fairfax. Opponents
were represented by Frank G.
Louthan, secretary of the Virginia
Manufacturers Association, which
earlier had submitted approximately
rs amendments to modify the bill.
Mr.. Moore said the threefold OBJ
jectives of the legislation could be
divided into immediate aims to
safeguard existing clean waters and
to prevent any increase in pollution
and a future long-range program to
reduce pollution now existing.
New Agency Required.
In an attempt to avoid working too
great hardship on industry, his
study commission included three
members closely allied with manu-
featuring activities, he said.
Realizing the creation of a new
agency, to be known as State water
control board, which could make
rules and regulations with the force
and effect of law, would be unpopu-
lar, the chief patron declared he
knew Of no other way to make plan
sufficiently flexible so as to avoid
working hardship on industry and
municipalities which now are pol
luting streams. Such offenders re-
quire adequate time in which to cor
rect their systems, he conceded.
Industries which have no known
method of correcting their causes
iof contamination have not acquired
a right to continue such activity
although they have acquired right
to expect a reasonable time to make
correction, he said. While anti
pollution legislation might discour-
age some industries from moving to
Virginia, Mr.. Moore declared to a
great number of industries requir-
ing a clean source of water in large
quantities would be attracted here.
Would Destroy Bill.
The amendments proposed by the
Manufacturers Association, would,
in Mr. Moore's opinion, make the bill
ineffective. The bill includes num-
Der of features incorporated in a
similar Tennessee law, he explained.
r. w. B. Hart, Lynchburg city
manager, opposed the bill on the
grounds no definite standards of
quality are provided and the Water
Control Board would have too much
power.
At this point, Delegate John B.
Spiers, member of the Legislative
Council, and Mr.. Moore agreed they
would be willing to amend an exist
ing law which created the commits
sion on administrative agencies Sc
as to require a review of all rules
and regulations of the proposed
Water Control Board after due pub
lie hearings. The commission already
reviews such rules IL other State
boards and inclusion of the Water
Control Board would give added pro-
lection to industry, Mr.. Spiers said.
Commission Praised.
Mr.. Louthan, and the opposing
speakers he introduced, praised the
fairness of Mr.. Moore's commission
during the study and preparation OF
the bill.
Stuart Crawford, research chem
ist of the Camp Manufacturing Co.
Franklin, declared pollution can
never be legislated out of Virginia S
rivers and David A. Harrison
Hopewell, listed seven objections
including the lack of sufficient
qualifications as to reasonable" pol
luton allowed, the authority of the
board to make rules and regulations
authority for the board to determine
standards of quality. no provision
for reasonable" plans and specifi-
cations which would be required OF
polluting industries, lack of permits
sion to allow existing industry to
continue discharges at normal op-
Grafton levels and lack of provision
for appeal to local courts on rules
and regulations. (Such local appeal
is provided, however, when the
board charges violation of special
order.
James Camblos. Big Stone Gap
and Gordon Bohannon, Petersburg
also opposed the bill.
Walter Crockett, member of the
Bristol City Council, strongly sup
lported the measure.