344 



in recent years and I am well satisfied that they have been behaving 

 both from an engineering standpoint and from the standpoint of 

 preservation and care of the environment. They have been doing 

 some mighty good thin^. 



I have a feeling you will not find yourselves afflicted with radically 

 different situations if EPA does it than you will if the corps does it. 

 I will be glad to have your suggestions, but I also would like to have 

 your suggestions raised in the cold light of reality. 



Mr. Langlois. I might comment and tell you that I share your re- 

 marks regarding the corps' performance to this country and to our 

 ports and keeping in mind its responsibility as far as ecology is con- 

 cerned and dredging is concerned. We understand it and we appreciate 

 it, and we work with them very closely. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I am satisfied that you want them to behave in a 

 responsible fasMon so far as enviromnent is concerned, and I know 

 you will not do anything clearly outrageous or anything of that sort. 

 If you will give us your suggestions as to amendments to the admin- 

 istration's bill, we will be happy to consider them very sympathetically. 



Mr. Langlois. Thank you. 



(The following letter was received in reference to the above:) 



The American Association of Port Authorities, 



Washington, B.C., April S, 1971. 

 Cliainnan John D. Dingell, 



Sutcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House Com,mittee on Mer- 

 chant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. 



Dear Mr. Chairman : Thank you for tlie courtesies afforded in hearing the 

 statement of The American Association of Port Authorities on April 6th. Sup- 

 plementary to our testimony, the following would apply : 



You asked if the ports would not fare just as well under EPA as they now do 

 under the Corps, in the disposition of dredge spoil, in view of the recent stringent 

 environmental activity of the Corps. We would note that the Corps has hoth a 

 navigational and an environmental approach. We suggest that the alternative to 

 planned permitting under the Corps could often be the navigational emergency, 

 resulting in turn in emergency permitting and chaotic disposal. 



In connection witli specific amendatory language, we appreciate your offer 

 that we send our suggestions, which are as follows : 



i ( 1 ) Strike the words "dredge spoil" from line 20, page 2. 



(2) Exclude the civil functions of the Corps of Engineers from this act, specif- 

 ically those functions involving the Corps responsibility for the navigable waters. 

 This exclusion should replace the language of Section (d) which begins on page 

 12, line 3. 



We would re-emphasize in this connection that ocean dumping of dredge spoil 

 is not a national problem. Rather it is a series of specific localized problems the 

 complexities of which have been alluded to in our statement and which are more 

 than adequately dealt with by the sections of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

 1970 previously cited. 



We would like to see this material in its various forms much more definitely 

 characterized, as the result of the Corps study authorized in that Act, before 

 any further national legislation affecting spoil disposition is considered by the 

 Congress. 



Respectfully submitted. 



Edward Langlois, 

 Chairman, Committee on Environmental Affairs. 



Supplementary Statement of the American Association of Port 

 Authorities 



We would like to compliment Chairman Edward Garmatz of the House Com- 

 mittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries for his very perceptive plea, as these 

 hearings opened, for balanced consideration of all of the factors. We share the 

 Chairman's concern that bills such as H.R. 4723 as now drafted could seriously 



