179 



Mr. Anderson". Thank you. I have another question. 



Mr. Train. Let me also comment beyond that. There is a great deal 

 involved, obviously, in the establishment of a marine sanctuary that 

 goes far beyond questions of dumping which define the scope of this 

 particular legislation. There are questions of resource development, 

 and, I suppose, other questions of international law, a whole range of 

 concerns which we have not gone into, either in our report or in this 

 legislation, and I would think that perhaps ought to be dealt with 

 separately. 



Mr. Anderson. I believe Congressman Murphy's idea is to have 

 regulated dumping in these areas but, in addition to the dumping 

 areas, to have no-dumping sanctuaries, areas free from dumping con- 

 cessions, along our coasts, where no dumping whatsoever is allowed. 

 This appeals to me, particularly on sections of the California coast, 

 where I would like to see areas set up wherein no dumping of any 

 kind occurs. Furthermore, in those areas where dumping is allowed, 

 some regulation should be required. I think that concept probably 

 should be included in your bill. 



Mr. Train. Well, it is included in the bill to the extent that the 

 Administrator has the authority to ban all dumping in given areas. 

 That is, as I pointed out, part of the authority in the bill. 



Mr. Anderson. Such authority could almost be construed as the no- 

 dumping sanctuary which he is recommending in his bill. 



Mr. Train. Yes, I think it is ; but also, as I repeat, a lot other than 

 dumping is involved in the marine sanctuary. There is oil development, 

 for example; deep sea mining. I would imagine that is involved. I 

 think these are very complex questions that should be gone into before 

 you put the label of marine sanctuary on a given area. That would be 

 my only suggestion, that all of those concerns in fact should be taken 

 into account in a marine sanctuary proposal. 



Mr. Anderson. I have another question. In your bill your definition 

 of the word "dumping" does not include the disposition of any effluent 

 from any outfall structure. I interpret this to mean the exclusion of 

 any industrial-waste outfall. Am I right on that ? 



Mr. Train. Well, yes and no. The outfall at the present time that is 

 within the 3 -mile territorial sea is governed by the Water Pollution 

 Control Act and by the water quality standards. The President recom- 

 mended last year, and again in his environment message this year, that 

 water quality standards be extended to include the contiguous zone 

 also ; so that would then cover all outfalls out to the 12-mile limit. To 

 the extent that you have an outfall that is beyond the 12-mile limit, I 

 would question whether the water quality approach is an effective 

 one, and would think that, if it were desired to control such outfalls, 

 such control be accomplished through a permit system under this legis- 

 lation. The relationship of the Water Quality Act to this permit au- 

 thority is one I think you will want to discuss very closel3/ with the 

 Administrator of the Environment Protection Agency ; it is a complex 

 relationship. 



Mr. Anderson. In your remarks this morning on page 14, you said 

 you recommended "extending regulations to transport other than by 

 vessel, since much dumping of material such as dredge spoils does not 

 take place from vessels but rather from special conveyor systems or 

 pipelines which are not considered outfalls." 



