384 



As Dr. Max Blumer, senior scientist at Wood's Hole, notes : 



The marine food web is so involved and the biochemical processes necessary 

 for the survival of every species are so complex that it is virtually impossible 

 to foresee which species might be damaged by a certain persistent chemical. 

 The award of the Nobel Prize to the discoverer of the insecticide DDT illustrates 

 our ignorance in this area. Lacking sufficient foresight we need to be much 

 more cautious in the use of persistent chemicals lest we disrupt inadvertently 

 processes in the sea upon which our survival may depend. 



According-ly, section 5B(a) of my bill requires that the person 

 wishing to dump sustain a burden of proof that the materials that 

 are dumped will not endanger the natural environment of these waters 

 and will meet any additional requirements as the Administrator 

 of the EPA deems necessary for the orderly regulation of such 

 authority. 



I feel that placing the burden of proof on the dumper is an impor- 

 tant part of this legislation. It is time that those who wish to dispose 

 of refuse material be required to consider the ecological consequences 

 of their actions. 



The public must not be asked to assume the risk of environmental 

 damage because there has been insufficient time to study the problem 

 thoroughly. 



The Federal Government should not have to do all the work in 

 this one area. Dumi^ing is a privilege — not a right. The right mvolved 

 here is the right of every American to a decent environment. This is 

 neither a new nor particularly startling concept. 



I have introduced a constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 522) 

 to accomplish this end. The right to a decent environment is as basic 

 as the right to life and liberty, for without a decent environment we 

 can have neither. 



Therefore, it is the obligation of the j^eople and the Govermnent 

 to protect the environment as the Government. 



Burden of proof does not require the person wishing to dump to 

 prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that tlie materials will be harmless. 

 Rather, burden of proof requires a preponderance of evidence which 

 demonstrates that the dumper can abide by the standards. 



In addition, this legislation takes into account the fact that in 

 some locations materials can be dumped without harm to the waters, 

 whereas the same materials would be harmful to other areas. 



I have always felt that a unilateral prohibition against dumping 

 was both unjust and unrealistic. Ocean currents in some areas will 

 disperse most refuse material to the point where it does no harm. In 

 other locations, however, the materials may stagnate. 



H.R. 805 also provides that different amounts of the same type of 

 refuse may be dumped in different locations. Each dumping site and 

 material has its own particular characteristics and these must be 

 taken into account, as they will have to be by the person wishing 

 to dump. There are, of course, certain materials, such as mercury, 

 which would not be dumped at all. 



The standards set by the Administrator of tlie EPA and the burden 

 of proof required by the dumper would effectively prohibit any 

 dumping of such materials. Therefore, this section provides a flexible 

 approach to the problem of dumping into the coastal waters. 



