342 



they will, as I see it, dock in the channel, the deep channel, and then 

 the barges will be brought. So it will reduce the number of chan- 

 nels that have to be built because now the shij)S have to go right into 

 the industrial areas to load and unload, and it is going to simplify the 

 operation. I would think it would mean less in the way of dredging 

 and change the entire port operation. 



Mr. Lan-glgis. Without a doubt, there will be changes. I see because 

 of the Lash and the Sea Bee, however, an increase in the movement of 

 cargoes into overseas markets because it opens up new areas for the 

 exporter and importer. 



Mr. Pelly. Fewer ships? 



Mr. Langlois. Fewer in number of sliiiDS, but not fewer in number 

 of sailings. I think the cargo is going to increase enough so that the 

 larger vessel is going to operate even more today than it has in the 

 past. But I do agree with you regarding the fact that perhaps they 

 could go into a channel if that channel is self -protected enough so 

 that this intricate movement can take place. 



Mr. Pelly. Isn't it true that many ports today never were intended 

 by the Almighty to be ports? They channel rivers. So that those 

 of us who were blessed with deep water lost our advantage, and 

 the big ships have been going upriver. In the future that operation 

 would seem to me to be one in which the barges come down the river 

 and meet the ship in deeper water, at the mouth. But I am glad you 

 have studied it, and I want to say that I am glad to see you recognize 

 that we are going to have more trade. 



Thank God, in my community there is more cargo going over our 

 dock than ever before. It is the only bright spot we have, but I hope 

 it will continue, and under the new Lash type ship and the President's 

 new maritime program, I would think that our trade will expand,, 

 as you say. 



Thank you. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. 



Mr. Griffin? 



Mr. Griffin". No questions. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Gentlemen, I am curious as to the precise thrust of 

 your statement. I w^ould like your assistance, if you please. You are, 

 I assume, taking the position that you don't want to have two permits 

 to meet in connection with dredging and fill operations; is that 

 correct ? 



Mr. Langlois. That is correct. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Are you taking the position that the ocean dumping^ 

 will be entirely within the purview, as I understand the bill, of the 

 Environmental Protection Administration, the dredging would re- 

 main under the Corps of Engineer? Is that your complaint, 

 gentlemen ? 



Mr. Langlois. We understand from the bill that the permitting 

 to dump the spoils into the ocean would be granted by the EPA. 



Mr. DiNGELL. That is correct. 



Mr. Langlois. We think it should remain with the Army Corps of 

 Engineers. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I am curious to have you explain to me how you 

 would be differently treated by the Environmental Protection Agency 

 than you have been treated by the Corps of Engineers. You have 



