Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-09-17
Decision Due
Today on Joint
Pollution Battle
Program Urges
Comprehensive Plan
For Potomac Busin

The Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin was
expected to decide today wheth-
er q comprehensive plan should
be drawn for cleaning up pollu-
ton all along the waterway.
Proposal for drafting such a
plan was presented at the OPEN
ing session yesterday of the
| commissions 18th annual meet
ing at the Washington Hotel by
L. M. Fisher. acting director.
Last night, an urgent need for
a second national policy for de-
velopment and conservation Of
water resources was cited by Gail
A. Hathaway, special assistant
to the Chief of Army Engineers.
Joint Participation.
The policy should provide for
| joint participation of individ-
uals. industry and local State
and Federal Governments. he
said.
The speaker predicted the Ma
TONS water requirements with
the rising standard of living and
increasing per capita conSump-
ton of raw materials, may be
expected to double again be-
tween 1850 and 1875.
Discussion Of the proposal to
clean up the Potomac yester-
day brought out no direct OPP
position from representatives Of
the water pollution control reg
ulatory authorities of States in
the basin. Sylvan C. Martin of,
the water pollution control pro-
gram of the United States Pub
lie Health Service Endorsed the
idea and offered his agency's
help in drawing up a compre-
hensive plan.
Mr.. Fisher explained that all
the commission could do would
be to take the leadership in rec
ommending something that
could be done. Authority for en-
forcement would continue to rest
with the States.
Area Represented.
The commission includes mem
bers from the District, Mary
land, Virginia, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania and the Federal
Government.
The idea of a comprehensive
plan has been discussed fire.
quently. Mr.. Fisher listed the
following among the advantages:
l. 1t would speed up the clean
up program.
2. Objections of river polluters
to doing anything until other
polluters clean up would be re-
moved since all pollution would
be dealt with by certain date.
3. 1t would deprive polluters
in one jurisdiction from arguing
that more is required of them
than those in another jurisdic-
ton.
List Same Standards.
4. It would facilitate the elm
mating of pollution because each
State would enforce the same
standards.
S. It would give hope to the
advocates of clean streams for
eventual improvement and en-
courage them to keep up their
efforts.
| 6. All polluters would have in
formation as to what was re-
quired.
Z. The people would have an
opportunity to decide whether
or not they wanted such a plan.
8. Determination would have
to be made on a basis of the
best water use when all waters
uses were considered.
Disadvantage Cited.
Mr.. Fisher acknowledged these
disadvantages:
!. 1t would be difficult to state
precise requirements which all
polluters must meet and which
would be fair.
z. Industrial polluters might
argue they were required to meet
more severe rules than their
competitors in another river
basin.
3. A State might find it diff
cult to enforce more rigid stand
ards IN one river basin in the
State than in another.
Mr.. Fisher noted that there
would be large volume of work
in formulating a plan.
Seeks Minimum Standards.
Yesterdays gathering was not
in a position to argue details of
any plan, Mr.. Fisher pointed out.
But he suggested that progress
might be made at this time by
agreeing to some minimum
standards. These, he said, might
include:
/ There should be no sluge de-
posits. No floating matter should
be discharged from sewer out
let's. Discharges should not be-
a nuisance either to the sense
Of sight or smell. Discharges
should contain no matter toxic
to aquatic life.
Should there be a favorable
decision for drawing up a COM
prehensive plan, Mr.. Fisher sug-
gested that the commission staff,
with the assistance of the groups
represented at the meeting,
might come back next year with
a recommendation to be followed
| throughout the district.