471 



of the high seas with reasonable regard for the interests of other States 

 in their exercising the freedoms of the sea. So that if another country's 

 flag vessel were to dump in an area of the high seas, which adversely af- 

 fected the rights of our Nation — for example, to carry on fishing or 

 another of the high-seas rights — we would have a right to complain to 

 that the country, and have a valid international claim under the 

 High Seas Con^^ention, because they would be unduly interfering w^ith 

 our interests. 



Mr. Everett. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I have, 

 thank you. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you very much, sir. The committee is grateful 

 to you for your very helpful testimony. We appreciate your kindness.. 



Our next witness is Mr. Henry Douglas, chief of planning, Mary- 

 land Port Authority. 



Mr. Douglas, we are happy to welcome you for such statement as 

 you choose to give, and if you will identify yourself in full for purpose 

 of the record, identifying the associates with you at the main table,^ 

 you may proceed to give your statement. 



STATEMENT OF HENEY T. DOUGLAS, CHIEE OP PLANNING, 

 MAKYLAND PORT AUTHORITY 



Mr. Douglas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



My name is Henry Douglas, chief of plamiing for the Maryland 

 Port Authority. 



The Maryland Port Authority is an agency of the State of Mary-- 

 land, charged with the responsibility for promoting the waterborne 

 commerce of that State. 



I am here to address myself to House bill 4723, the Marine Protec- - 

 tion Act of 1971, and I have given Mr. Everett copies of my prepared, 

 statement. However, I would like to follow your wishes, Mr. Chair- 

 man, as to whether I simply give a brief summary of the position set 

 forth in that statement, or read the entire statement. 



Mr. DiNGELL. As far as the Chair is concerned, it is a matter 

 of choice to you. If you were asking the counsel of the Chair in this . 

 matter, I w^ould make the statement to you we will be happy to have' 

 your entire statement in the record; and you may then choose to high- 

 light such sections as you may wish. 



Mr. Douglas. Mr. Chairman, we are fully in accord with the 

 intent of the bill to prevent or limit dumping into the ocean, coastal; 

 or Great Lakes waters, of hazardous, noxious, or environmentally 

 detrimental substances. 



However, we think that it would be a mistake to include dredging 

 spoil in the same category as "solid waste, garbage, sewage sludge, 

 munitions, chemical, biological and radiological warfare agents, ra- 

 dioactive materials, etc.". Also, we do not think that waters for which ^ 

 the States have been authorized to establish water quality standards by 

 the Water Quality Act of 1965 should be included, with ocean and;. 



