313 



opportunity to contribute our knowledge of the marine environment, and to seek 

 protection of the wildlife, mineral, and recreation resources for which we have 

 primary responsibility. In this connection, we agree with the Council on Environ- 

 mental Quality that regulatory authority should be vested in an agency whose 

 chief role is enforcement of environmental standards. Amendment of the Fish 

 and Wildlife Coordination Act, as several bills propose, would tend to disi)erse 

 regulatory authority and to discourage effective coordination with air and water 

 quality programs already administered by EPA. 



We urge prompt enactment of H.R. 4247 or H.R. 4723, as the President asked 

 in his environmental message of February 8, "to assure that our oceans do not 

 suffer the fate of so many of our inland waters, and to provide the authority 

 needed to protect our coastal waters, beaches, and estuaries." Dr. Linduska and 

 I would be pleased to answer your questions. 



Mr. DiNGELL. The Chair is going to recess this hearing very briefly to 

 allow the members of the subcommittee an opportunity to go over and 

 answer their names. 



We will be back within 10 or 15 minutes, so the subcommittee wiU 

 stand in recess for that period of time. 



(Kecess taken.) 



Mr. DiNGELL. The subcommittee will come to order for continuation 

 of the hearings conducted on the subject of ocean dumping and bills 

 relating to that matter. 



I would like to insert in the record a statement the subcommittee 

 received from the Maryland Port Authority. 



(The statement follows:) 



Statement of Maryland Pokt Authoeity 



The Marylond Port Authority is an agency of the State of Maryland charged 

 with the responsibility for promoting the waterborne commerce of the State. 

 This is centered primarily in the port of Baltimore which is the third ranking 

 port in the country. 



We are fully in accord with the intent of the Bill to prevent or limit dumping 

 into ocean, coastal or Great Lakes waters of hazardous, noxious, or environ- 

 mentally detrimental substances. 



However, we think that it would be a mistake to include dredging siKvil in the 

 same category as "solid waste, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical, bio- 

 logical and radiological warfare agents, radioactive materials", etc. Also, we do 

 not think that waters for which the States have been authorized to establish 

 water quality standards by the Water Quality Act of 1965 should be included 

 with ocean and coastal waters. And finally, we believe it would be desirable tO' 

 leave the permit authority for disposal of dredging spoil within the U.S. Army 

 Corps of Engineers. 



Consequently, we urge that the Bill be amended to exclude from its coverage 

 the deposit of dredging spoil in waters to which State or Federal-State water 

 quality standards apply. 



The reasons for our position are that we believe that : 



1. Dredging spoil disposal is already adequately regulated by the States and 

 the Army Corps of Engineers. 



2. Transferring the Federal permit authority for dredging spoil disposal from 

 the Corps of Engineers to the Environmental Protection Agency will increase 

 the time involved in processing applications for such permits, and thereby impede 

 navigation channel projects. 



With respect to the adequacy of the preesnt regulatory setup: 



1. At the State level, deposit of dredging spoil requires compliance with the 

 water quality standards which have been established by the State, or where a 

 State has not established such standards, compliance with standards established 

 by the Environmental Protection Agency. 



2. At the Federal level, dumping of dredging spoil requires a permit from the 

 Corps of Engineers which, under current Federal statutes and regulations, 

 requires : 



(a) Certification that State water quality standards are complied with. 



62-513—71 21 



