302 



Although this Congressional comzTiand was not in 

 existence at the time the permit in question was denied, 

 the correctness of that decision must be determined 

 by the cippHcablc standards of today. The national poli- 

 cy is set forth in plain terms in § 101 and the disclaimer 

 of § 104(3) neither affects it nor the duty of all depart- 

 ments to consider, consull, collaborate and conclude. 

 For we hold that while it is still the action of the 

 Secretary of the Army on the recommendation of the 

 Chief of Engineers, the Army must consult with, con- 

 sider and receive, and then evaluate the recommenda- 

 tions of all of these other agencies articulately on all 

 these environmental factors. In rejecting a permit on 

 non-navigational grounds, the Secretary of the Army 

 does not abdicate his sole ultimate responsibility and 

 authority. Rather in weighing the application, the Sec- 

 retary of the Army is acting under a Congressional 

 mandate to collaborate and consider all of these fac- 

 tors.^^ 



To judge the ebb and flow of the national tide, he 

 can look to the Report of the House Committee on 



2BFor like reasons the following disclaimer in the Fish and Wild- 

 ILte Act of 1S5G, 70 Slat. 119, IG U.S.C.A. §§74 J -754, specifically 

 70 Stat. 1124, 16 U.S.C.A. §742i is not decisive: 



"The rights of States, - Nothing in this Act (subsec- 

 tion 742a and note - 742d, 742e - 742j of this title; 15 

 subsection 713c -3 and note) shall be construed (1) 

 to inter-fere in any manner with the rights of any 

 State under the Submerged Lands Act (Public Law 31, 

 Eiglity-tl\ird Congress) (43 subsection 1301 and notes - 

 1303, 1311-1315) or otherwise provided by law, or to 

 supersede any regulatory autliority over fisheries cx- 

 erci.sed by the Stales cither individuaUy or under in- 

 terstate compacts;" 



