422 



Its the same in the area of ocean dumping ; if we set standards for 

 ocean dumping — and there is bound to be conflict of opinion about 

 these standards — there are going to be people who disagree. If States 

 want to have strict standards so the beaches are absolutely pristine in 

 their purity, it again seems to me within their jurisdictional right they 

 ought to have the power to do that. And it is for that reason that we 

 have not provided for preemption in this bill. 



Mr. DU Pont. I am not sure that I agree with you. It seems to me 

 that there is an opportunity here for dumpers to select their jurisdic- 

 tion. If a barge of sludge and sewage is coming down the Delaware 

 River from Philadelphia, and Delaware has one kind of a law and 

 New Jersey has another one, that guy has an option. You are dealing 

 with navigable waters of the United States and it seems to me here is 

 a clear opportunity to get rid of a whole layer of redtape. I have a lot 

 of confidence that you can set some good standards and enforce them, 

 and I would appreciate if we could get for the record your considered 

 tlioughts on whether you really think it would be not in the best in- 

 terests of preserving our oceans to eliminate the State clause from the 



bills. ^ - , , . T 



:Mr RucKELSHAUS. Certainly the State would have no power to be 

 anv more lenient than we should be. They can only be stricter and it is 

 :not onr intention to make these standards lenient. We intend to pro- 

 tect the oceans in the sense that I think the ocean dumping report ot 

 the Council on Environmental Quality implies. It is a preventive meas- 

 ure in those cases where we haven't gotten m trouble m the ocean. 

 Althouo-h off of Delaware we already have problems, and m many 

 other a?eas of the country, and we don't want to see that proliferate. 

 It is our intention to set standards that are strict m their application to 

 the prevention of any degredation of the marine environment. 



Ml'! DU Pont. If v^e could have some detailed comments from you 

 for the record. 



(The information follows:) 



Federal Preemption of State Control of Ocean Dumping 

 Wp have long opposed eomolete Federal preemption of water quality control. 

 SelfonKb of mfFederal Water Pollution Control Act expresses a Congres- 

 stonTpoUcy S favor of State action to control pollution and recognizes the 

 i^vi m fl rv rPSDonsibilities and rights of the States m this regard. 

 ^ We leSze Sat theie are areas, such as the control of wastes from water- 

 craft n which an unnecessary burden on Interstate commerce or upon Federal- 

 State relationships would result if the States all exercised independent regulatory 

 powe\r Howe^^^^^^ that the existing partiiership between the Federal 



GoTernment aid the States is the most fruitful approach to dealing with most 



'"uncirSR Sf Tor example, the Administrator would be precluded from 

 issuSg permits for disposal which would violate water quality sandard^whic^^ 

 are set bv the States. In the event tiiat the Congress enacts S. 1014 the Adrnmis 

 tratron's proposed amendments to section 10 of the Federal Water PoUu^^^ 

 Control Act, the States would be required, pursuant to Federal i-egulations to 

 develop effluent limitations for discharges into all waters, ^"^ludmg ocean waters. 

 These limitations, as well as the other components of water quality standaids, 

 would be subject to Federal approval. A^^n 7 1Q71 • 



As the Administrator testified before this Committee on April 7, ^^^i- 

 m is mv own feeling that, as a general rule, the Federal Government should 

 set a base" line of treatment that is necessary aci^oss the country. If a StMe de- 

 cides in its own wisdom that it would prefer to have a much stricter standaid 

 in order to have cleaner air or cleaner water than provided imder Federal stand- 



