200 



Mr. Tr.\ix. I presume one thing he might do, if he is well advised, 

 to go into court to get an injvmction for violation of the National En- 

 A'ii'onment Act. 



Mr. DiNGELL. With regard to 102 (2) (C) statement ? 



Mr. TRAiiSr. Not in violation of the 102(2) (C) statement, but there is 

 the general violation of the congressional policy that environmental 

 conditions and circumstances nmst be taken into account in making 

 decisions. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I am delighted to hear you say that. 



I want you to knovr that. I think that would be excellent, but I have 

 no recollection of the courts ever extending the breath and width of 

 the National Environmental Policy Act so wide as that. 



Now, they have enjoined governmental actions where there was a 

 failure to care for the requirement of 102(2) (C) , but never do I recall 

 them enjoining actions of policy statements. 



If there is some new change in the law, it would help the commit- 

 tee to know. 



Mr. Traix. Well, I am not changing the law, Mr, Dingell. 



Mr. DiisTGELL. I am not accusing you of that. 



I know of no changes in the law which dealt with this particular 

 point. 



Well, you suggested. I gather, if the Administrator of EPA vio- 

 lated his proper discretion, and issued a dumping permit for an area 

 where it is clearly harmful, in your opinion, under this act, and under 

 the National Environmental Policy Act, a citizen, or a citizens" organi- 

 zation, would have a prett}^ good chance of going into court and en- 

 joining such an act. 



I would like as wide as possible an interpretation of a statute in 

 this direction. 



I enthusiastically support your interpretation, but even I in my 

 enthusiasm have never interpreted it quite so broadly as the point 

 you alluded to. 



I do not think the courts have joined either one of us on this point. 



How would a citizen get a hearing under the statute before us'? 



He might have a redress under some other statute, but I see no re- 

 dress under the statute you have here. 



Mr. Train". All I can say relates to the way it works under the 

 dredge and fill permit authority, for example, of the Corps of En- 

 gineers. Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, there is no statutory pro- 

 vision for public hearing. 



The corps provides for public hearing at its own discretion. 



Whenever there is any interest in public hearings, the corps has 

 them. 



While there has been a lot of interest with some of the final permit 

 actions on the part of the public, very little dissatisfaction has come 

 about with the hearing procedure, to my knowledge. 



So far as I know, we expect this to also be true under the adminis- 

 tration of the permit program under the Refuse Act, and as I in- 

 dicated there is nothing in the Refuse Act which requires public 

 hearing in connection with those permits. 



However, the Department of the Army's regulations are being is- 

 sued this week, and they do provide for public notice, and I believe 



