tects has recently, I think, had some concerted efforts in that direction. They have invited the Consulting Engineers' Council, and disciplines in other fields that have to do with our environment, and are making great strides in that area. We are still studying how these disciplines can work together.

I have served with this committee and we have prepared a paper that has filtered down to the grassroots level of our members, to encourage collaboration at the local level of all the disciplines.

Mr. CULVER. In the use of the word "discipline," I would like one of the disciplines to be named the user. I don't want us to get hung up in thinking disciplines are all professionals.

Mr. ALLEN. I would add to Mr. Sower's statement that some years ago we established a council, the Inter-Professional Council on Environmental Design, ICED, which includes the presidents of six organizations: The American Institute of Architects, the American Association of Landscape Architects, the American Institute of Planners, the Consulting Engineers Council, the National Professional Engineers Society, and the American Institute of Civil Engineers.

In addition to this, we had, last December, I think the 17th of December, a consortium at the American Institute of Architects headquarters, where all these disciplines, plus representatives of the Government and the National Educational Association and many others, were invited to participate in the discussion on education for environmental

awareness.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Before I call on Mr. Sowers to present his statement, I would like to welcome to the subcommittee hearings here this morning persons who are participating in the 21st annual seminar on "How Our Government Operates," a seminar which is sponsored by the Textile Workers Union, and the people who are with us here today are all workers in the textile mills in the United States and are here under the leadership of William Duchessi, the legislative director of the TWU, and we are very pleased to have you all here observing our discussions this morning of the Environmental Educational Act.

Mr. Sowers would you like to go ahead?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SOWERS, PRESIDENT-ELECT,

CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL

Mr. SOWERS. Yes.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it seems appropriate to me, in view of the time we have taken, if I would skip reading all of my prepared text. We are here today on behalf of the Consulting Engineers Council in the United States. The council is an organization approximately 15 years old. We now have 2,300 engineering firms in private practice throughout the country.

We wholeheartedly support this bill. We in the council are always eager to learn about anything that has to do with our environment and wish to offer assistance in any of these areas where we think that the efforts are to the benefit of mankind.

In the prepared text that I have you will find that there are some recommendations concerning this bill. I would like to review those. One recommendation is that the program should include a resource

director for existing programs and activities having to do with our environment and a roster of organizations or individuals throughout the country who are equipped to carry out these programs and projects that might be provided under the act.

A second recommendation is that the bill states that the Advisory Committee consist of educators, editors, sociologists, and others. We think perhaps it could be more specific in naming such groups as the architects, engineers, other people in science, and agriculture.

Another recommendation is that the Advisory Committee could probably function better if it had a more direct relationship with the Commissioner of Education rather than reporting to the Secretary of HEW.

Finally, we noted that there is no price tag accompanying this bill. In consultation with other organizations such as AĨA and in reviewing past Federal programs similar to this, we think that it might be in order to start with a budget of perhaps $2 or $3 million the first year, and maybe the following year, it could be in the order of $10 million, which is a figure that has been suggested for other similar

bills.

Mr. Chairman, unless there are other areas of this prepared statement that you would like for me to discuss at this time, I would like to ask that the statement be placed in the record.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Mr. Sowers, without objection the entire text of your statement will be included in the record as if read.

(The statement follows:)

WILLIAM A. SOWERS' STATEMENT IN BEHALF OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS

COUNCIL/USA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Consulting Engineers Council of the U.S. is pleased to note the interest of the Congress in developing a greater public awareness and understanding of the need for protecting this nation's environment. We appear here today to share with you some of our concerns and to join with the American Institute of Architects in support of the concept of a Federal program to enhance environmental education at all levels. My name is William A. Sowers. I am a partner in the consulting engineering firm of Sowers, Rodes and Whitescarver in Roanoke, Virginia. My firm specializes in mechanical, electrical and structural engineering for industrial, commercial and institutional buildings, including hospitals, schools and public housing.

My presence at this hearing, however, is in connection with my capacity as President-elect of the Consulting Engineers Council of the United States, a notfor-profit organization of approximately 2,300 private practice engineering firms. Consulting engineers are in the forefront of environmental design. For example, typical projects handled by our members include: The Lake Tahoe Water Purification Plant, Sitka Dam in Alaska, the Hempstead, New York, 600-ton incineration plant, the Dallas-Ft. Worth Regional Airport and Shea Stadium. For the most part, however, the average consulting engineer is concerned with slightly smaller, less noteworthy projects involving street lighting, sewer ystems, air conditioning of buildings, recreational development, site planning and similar public works. It is in this capacity as consultants to communities, industries and government-that our members have long been aware of America's mounting environmental pollution problems. Consulting engineers were, in fact, among the first to warn of the dangers of thermal pollution from atomic power plants, and for centuries engineers have pointed out the importance of adequate water treatment, as compared to proliferation of outhouses or septic systems.

What has truly brought the environmental engineering issue into focus today is the fact that man's ability to create adverse effects has reached the point

where it occasionally exceeds his ability to perceive, judge, prevent or control them. As a result of an apparent insatiable desire for convenience and comfort, man is finding that he is producing situations in both his natural and man-made environments which he can neither tolerate nor control, and which are often irreversible.

Examples of what can happen, such as the eye-smarting Los Angeles smog, or the impending death of Lake Erie, are all too familiar to us. These events, and many more, dictate that the U.S. immediately undertake a concerted program to promote environmental quality and, at the same time, plan for and protect various personal and political values for the 100 million additional citizens which are projected for this nation in the next thirty years.

Certainly much can be done through massive local, state and national public works-type programs and we are certain to see some improvements by virtue of stricter government controls as well as by means of the threat of legal punishment. In the engineers' opinion, however, successful efforts to conserve our natural resources and more effectively manage the environment will depend in large measure upon the ability of the people to understand, and to cope with, the related complex technical and social problems, as well as to develop and implement programs for the distribution of information on a broad scale. In short, America (in fact, the world) needs to maintain and expand its current "environmental consciousness" through broad educational programs in the schools, and more generally, through an adult education program for the public as a whole. We believe that H.R. 14753, and related bills, represent a first step toward this goal.

We feel obligated, however, to point out that our support of this measure involves selfish as well as altruistic objectives. A recent poll of our Consulting Engineers Council member firms revealed that the major problem confronting our profession is a critical shortage of trained and qualified technical personnel. What is particularly alarming is the fact that this shortage shows every indication of becoming more pronounced in the years ahead due to the steadily declining enrollment of prospective engineers in the various universities and colleges. While figures for the present year are not yet available, the percentage of all freshmen enrolling in an engineer curriculum dropped from 23.3% in 1957 to less than 10% in 1969. The actual number of junior and senior engineering students dropped from 106,141 in 1968 to just over 96,000 this year.

Other than the long-standing complaint that engineering is an extremely tough subject, the major cause of this reduction has been the deglamorization of engineering and the growing attraction of science to young men and women with engineering inclinations. The allure of the Apollo moon program, for example, is considerably greater than the "prestige" of designing a sewer treatment plant.

We believe that an increased educational emphasis upon imaginative new programs in environmental science will almost certainly spark an enthusiastic response from students at all levels. It only stands to reason that increased exposure to such issues, plus public recognition of the importance of finding solutions to environmental problems of an applied nature, will most certainly result in the attraction of more and better students, and faculty, to this type of work. That can only result in more people looking to careers in environmental engineering.

Consulting engineers have already been stirred to action by the need to attract more students to our profession. Several of our chapters sponsor summer intern programs to acquaint high school students with the important services being rendered by engineers. In New York State, members of our Council invite Cub Scout groups and elementary school classes to visit their firms to learn what we do, and why we do it. These students go to actual job sites and see first-hand the importance of proper drainage to prevent soil erosion, or the value of designing a pumping station to look like a private home in order to maintain a residential continuity in the neighborhood.

In Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, and Iowa, consulting engineers are available as guest lecturers at local high schools and colleges, and in Minnesota, consulting engineers have produced a series of half-hour television shows to explain the environmental problems with which they deal.

While programs such as these barely scratch the surface of what our profession could, or should, be doing in the way of helping define public need and opinion, they are sufficient to prompt us to suggest that a tabulation of talent and information resources would constitute a valuable addition to the provisions of H.R. 14753. Such a compendium could be compiled under the direction

of the Commissioner of Education as an addition to Section 3 of the bill, or by the Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality Education, as described in Section 5 of the bill.

The advantages and benefits of a resource directory of existing programs and activities, and of qualified environmental experts, is self evident. At little or nothing in the way of Federal expense, the Commissioner of Education would have at his disposal a roster of organizations and/or persons whose talents and experience could be utilized in connection with projects approved under the Environmental Quality Education Act. Consulting engineers (and I am sure that architects, conservationists, botonists, and others) would be pleased to make themselves available at no charge, other than expenses, for "teach ins", guest lectures, seminars or similar environmental education program-related activities. In this connection, Section 5(b) of the Bill, describing the constituency of the 21-member Advisory Committee, appears to us to emphasize selection and appointment of educators, editors and sociologists as committee members. We would like to suggest that this Section be reworded to encourage appointment of individuals experienced and knowledgeable with the various fields of ecological and environmental science, including persons familiar with education, information media, conservation, architecture, engineering, science, agriculture and similar fields. In some respects the present criteria, while broad, could mean the automatic elimination of certain key professions from participation in this important public body. As an example, in discussing the consulting engineers' interest in environmental education with a member of this Subcommittee's staff, it was necessary to explain what relation the consultant had to the subject of environment.

The Advisory Committee is, incidentally, required to advise the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, while actual administration of programs under this bill is made the responsibility of the Commissioner of Education. It would seem appropriate to have a direct relationship between the Advisory Committee and the Commissioner, rather than with the Secretary.

While we realize that authorization of a specific dollar amount has purposely been omitted from the initial draft of H.R. 14753, it is assumed that comments along these lines would be welcome. We note that other bills on this subjectspecifically S. 3237-suggest a beginning authorization of $10 million for an environmental education program. Our Council believes that a more practical approach, in the light of delays experienced on several other vital programs authorized by Congress in recent years, would be to approve a relatively smaller first-year authorization of between $2 or $3 million which would adequately finance the organization and "tooling up" for the program. Included in this amount should be both funds and authority for the environmental education information resource analysis mentioned earlier in this testimony.

In limiting the first-year appropriation to not more than $3 million, Congress should, of course, commit itself to a subsequent year authorization of $10 to $12 million for conduct of the various programs set forth in the Environmental Quality Education Act. Perhaps this could be added to the bill.

H.R. 14753 sets for itself a formidable goal. There are approximately 50 million children in the nation's elementary schools and junior and senior high schools. Many now complete their secondary education without ever having been specifically alerted to the values of the environment and the potential dangers it faces.

Fortunately a few programs of a science-education nature have been implemented in recent years, some as early as 1950, and it is possible that these may be partially responsible for the public's current growing awareness of the pollution, population, and land reclamation crisis.

As is well known, today's students are deeply troubled with the state of the world and they are, for the most part, sincerely anxious to do something about it. The programs suggested in the Environmental Quality Education Act should serve both to stimulate added interest and to provide a constructive channel for the younger generation's energy and idealism. We feel sure our nation would profit far more from a "plant in" of shrubs and trees than it would from a "freak out" from pot and sex.

The real challenge lies in enhancing the general education of the adult public. Several avenues of approach must be developed and implemented, including exhibits, demonstration projects, encouragement of popular magazine articles written by experts and not by uninformed alarmists), quality television shows and movies, adult education programs by institutions and private groups, and encouragement of more and better public discussion groups and forums.

47-238-70-12

The League of Women Voters, Parent-Teacher Associations and conservation groups have already made substantial strides in this area. Our own Consulting Engineers Council is inaugurating several programs related to adult education ranging from the establishment of engineers' speakers bureaus in at least half the states, to sponsorship of public-interest forums on specific subjects.

An outstanding example of the latter was an all-day meeting held February 24 in Seattle, Washington, in which consulting engineers from that state sought to clear the air regarding design, location and projected impact of Interstate 90 on the City of Seattle. More than 300 people turned out to hear experts on both sides discuss tunnels versus cut overs, multiple use versus air rights, aesthetics and acoustics, and projected community development, both with and without the new highway. Architects, educators, editors, attorneys, planners, wildlife experts, and city officials joined with engineers in bringing the I-90 project into focus.

Most consulting engineers willingly accept the premise that our profession has an inescapable responsibility for providing leadership for our swift changing technological world. Engineers have taken justifiable pride in their creations which, despite consumption of many of our resources, have eliminated the dust bowls and flash floods of the 20's and 30's, cooled our homes and offices in the hot summer, and brought the comforts of electricity and running water to rural America.

Often a consulting engineer's complaint that an airport extension might drive away wildlife, or that dumping of waste in a river could make the water unusable to those living downstream, fell on the deaf ears of government agency personnel whose primary concern was with first cost. One San Mateo, California, engineer who objected to the location of an interstate highway in an urban area, rather than in a more scenic and remote section (the latter at more cost), was faced with the ultimatum of either getting on with it, or getting out. In choosing the latter alternative, he became the exception rather than the rule, for there is little return on standing up for one's convictions in the face of government pressure. Today, awareness of the environmental situation is slowly changing. Environment, conservation and ecological protection are “in”; expediency at all costs is out. Tomorrow, historians, educators, doctors, bakers, and even Indian chiefs will, as a result of this legislation, bring preservation of our environment to front stage center. We feel it is attention which is long overdue and we are pleased to lend our support to this important measure.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me say I think it is a first-class statement and I am especially impressed on the second page of your statement at the eloquence with which you say:

As a result of an apparent insatiable desire for convenience and comfort, man is finding he is producing situations in both his natural and manmade environments which he can neither tolerate nor control, and which are often irreversible.

May I put to you, Mr. Sowers, the same kind of question that I put to Mr. Allen and his architectural colleagues.

To what extent does engineering education in the United States today provide training and education and concern about the whole spectrum of environmental issues?

Mr. SOWERS. To my personal knowledge this effort in our universities is very limited. As a matter of fact, we, in our council, know of many colleges and universities where even one engineering department does not have a proper relation with another engineering department. They don't speak to each other. They are jealous of their own little nitch. This also is true between the school of architecture and other schools in universities having to do with and learning about our environment.

Mr. BRADEMAS. What you have so gently observed there may be the explanation for a lot of the evils inflicted on the American eye. If the engineers can't even talk to the engineers, then we laymen are really left with the short end of the stick.