368 



Mr. Everett. 



Mr. E\'t:rett. I have one question, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Reynolds, is it your opinion that if this legislation passes, 

 it is gx)ing to prohibit the dumping of dredged spoils back into some 

 of the areas where they are presently being dumped? 



Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Everett, I thmk that it would only depend on 

 Avhether or not the Administrator of EPA determines that it was 

 a suitable place and site for their disposition. 



If he so decided after due deliberation, then the spoil could be 

 deposited exactly as it is being placed today. And, hopefully, that 

 may be what will happen, because if my thesis is correct, that 

 the Corps of Engineers is acting responsibly, and is using a whole 

 list of criteria, and not just the economics of the situation, then I am 

 sure there will be an agreement. 



Mr. Everett. That brings up another pomt. 



The National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the Fish and 

 Wildlife Coordination Act, in essence requires the corps to meet the 

 same requirements that the Environmental Protection Agency will 

 have to meet under the bill. 



So, in effect, these areas that you are probably dumping in now 

 are probably already spoiled, and of no further use for fish and wild- 

 life resources, or for sound ecological programs. It might be that 

 after the study is made, many of these areas over which you are 

 concerned will still be available for dmnping. 



Mr. Reynolds. This may very well be, Mr. Everett, but no one 

 can be certain of that. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Could I ask at this point : How^ would you be differ- 

 ently served by having EPA issue the permit ? With the corps doing 

 essentially what this statute is going to impose on it, how would 

 you be in any worse state if EPA issued the permit, using the same 

 general criteria? 



Mr. Reynolds. I think that the application of the criteria by an 

 organization which for a generation has been engaged in the improve- 

 ment of waterways of this Nation might conceivably, bluntly, come 

 to a different result than if a group, very laudably and commendably 

 given only the mission of preser^dng the ecology, were to apply the 

 same criteria. 



I think it is as blunt as that, Mr. Chairman. 



I believe that the delay, the waiting for the permits, the evaluation 

 of permits by individuals who are not attuned to the engineering- 

 methods, or the waterway needs, or the broad concepts of the need of 

 the merchant marine and need of commerce, but only ecology, would 

 add to cost and delay. 



IMaybe that is what is desired. I will be very frank about it. If the 

 Nation is prepared to say that it is the ecology which shall be para- 

 mount, and all other considerations take second and third i^lace, then 

 one would say let us put the permit-issuing authority in the hands of 

 the Administrator. 



I think, frankly, it would be a mistake. I don't think there is that 

 much of a monopoly on concern for the ecology. 



I believe the Corps of Engineers share that view. I believe they have 

 the same devotion to the basic objectives of this bill as the director 

 of EPA. 



