369 



Mr. DiNGELL. Are there any further questions? 



Captain Heyward. 



Mr. Heyward. I would like to ask a couple of questions on section 

 11, Mr. Reynolds. 



I am sure the Army Engineers tomorrow will probably be able to 

 address themselves to the same problem. However, if I can straighten 

 my own thinking out in connection with section 11, I don't think 

 that we are talking about subsection (a) here in connection with your 

 statement. 



Is that correct? 



Mr. Reynolds. No, we do not believe subsection (a) should be 

 repealed. 



Mr. Heyward. In connection with subsection (b), does your state- 

 ment address itself to the repeal of subsection (b), which has to do 

 with the New York Harbor refuse control ? 



Mr. Reynolds. We do not believe it should be repealed. 



Mr. Heyavard. I am merely asking whether or not the Engineers 

 issue any dredging deposit permits presently mider subsection (b), 

 which is being repealed by this act. 



It is my impression that they do not, but I may be mistaken. 



Mr. Reynolds. Let me ask Mr. Cone. 



Do you know whether any permits are presently issued under this 

 statute of EPA? 



Mr. Cone. One of the big points here is that the Corps of Engi- 

 neers determines where the channel shall be dredged, and where the 

 spoils shall be deposited at the present time, after taking into con- 

 sideration the views of all the other Government agencies. 



Mr. Heyward. I understand that, Mr. Cone, but I am really trying 

 to focus our attention on what specific act we are talking about. As 

 you are perfectly well aware, the Rivers and Harbors Act contains so 

 many different features, as well as these other acts that we are talk- 

 ing about. 



For instance, I call your attention to subsection (c), wliich repeals 

 407(a). We are not concerned with that. That is mine tailings, 

 et cetera. 



When you ^et down to subsection (e) , this act supersedes the Refuse 

 Act, this section 13, to the extent that it applies to dumping. 



If you look at 407_ in the act, you will find it does not prohibit 

 operations in connection with the improvement of navigable waters 

 or construction of public works. So, to the extent, it seems to me, that 

 407 is superseded, you are not superseding anything about public 

 works. 



Am I wrong in my interpretation? 



Mr. Cone. You can not only look at this section 11. I think you 

 have to turn back to section 7(c), subsection (c), paragraph 2* on 

 page 11. 



Mr. Heyward. I understand that. I was trjdng to narrow down the 

 effect of these repealers first, before I get back over to the cooperation. 



Mr. Cone. I realize what you are driving at. 



I would like to call your attention to paragraph 2 on page 11, tlie 

 proviso clause. 



Mr. Heyward. I was coming to that next. 



