398 



comment on now. One is the port authorities, who are greatly con- 

 cerned over the time that would be consumed in their channeling and 

 dumping of what I would say would be non-toxic materials. They 

 sought to have the bill provide that they could get permission from 

 the Coast Guard, as I recall, without having to go to two different 

 agencies of Government. Do you think that in connection with the 

 necessary channeling of ports to provide for the adequate depth for 

 ships that come into the port, that this procedure could be simplified ? 



Mr. Etjckelshaus. I think it could, Mr. Pelly. Under the pro^dsions 

 of the present law, any dredging of a channel of that nature in a port 

 would be handled under the dredg-e and fill permits of the Coprs of 

 Engineers. There is a specific provision in H.E. 4723 providing that 

 w^here a permit is issued under section 403 of the Rivers and Harbors 

 Act of 1899 there is no necessity for two permits to be used. But there 

 is a requirement for consultation with the Environmental Protection 

 Agency by the Corps in the instances in which they issue such permits. 



Mr. Pelly. I should think that would be desirable and general for 

 EPA to keep surveillance over this commercial activity that is not 

 confined to just the channeling into port, but goes up rivers and has 

 a vast effect on the environment, I would think. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. Yes, I think it is under section 7(c)(3), 

 Mr. Pelly, where it provides that there is no need for duplication 

 of permit under tliis type of situation that you describe. 



Mr. Pellt. I know the chairman of this committee testified as to 

 his concern as to some of the effects of this legislation and his interest, 

 of course, was the Port Authority of Baltimore. And I know there are 

 others of us who have various ports and we do want to make it possible 

 to conduct this necessary work as expeditiouslj^ as possible. But I am 

 sure none of us want to violate the principles of good enviromnent. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. Yes, sir; that is precisely our position, too, 

 Mr. Pelly. 



Mr. Pellt. You would have no objection, would you, if we added 

 to the bill the provision which is in Mr. Rogers' bill for authorization 

 of — I think Mr. Rogers had a million dollars. Some seemed to think 

 it should be more than that. 



Mr. RuCEELSHAus. We have some preliminary figures which I can 

 give to the committee now as to implementation of our bill, and this 

 does not include an 3^ of the other pro^dsions which have been suggested 

 in other bills or in previous hearings. 



Mr. Pelly. Would you feel that there is reason to have an authori- 

 zation clause in the bill, so that we can fund ? 



Mr. RucKELSiiAus. There is a general authorization clause in sec- 

 tion 13 of the bill, as I understood the committee was interested in 

 how much we estimated the implementation of the act or the bill 

 would cost. 



Mr. Pelly. Chairman Dingell reminded another witness of the fact 

 tliat there is a new provision which is required that any legislation 

 noAY has to give the 5-year cost, and I presume j^ou have that ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. '^"es, we have the B-^^-ear cost, Mr. Pelly, so we 

 will be glad to provide that. 



Mr. Pelly. Will you put that in the record ? 



Mr. Rtjckelshaus. Yes, we will. 



