525 



Mr. DiNGELL. You have been referring to what would happen under 

 existing law, General, or under a transfer to EPA or a compliance 

 with section 102(c) and (d) ? 



General Groves. My understanding of the question was, sir, that 

 it involved the assumption that we would have some requirement to 

 haul the dredged spoil to some more distant location than we now 

 put it. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Let me ask you a hard question here. Is it your as- 

 sumption that the Environmental Protection Agency would behave 

 strikingly different under the legislation in H.R. 4723 than you would 

 under the existing law, your agreement with the Interior Department, 

 and under the Environmental Protection Act? I am talking about 

 issuing permits generally for the dumping of polluted dredgmgs. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Do you see any basic difference in terms of the cost 

 of the project before and after the enactment by reason of the fact 

 that you are going to have to get formal certification from EPA in- 

 stead of having informal certification as you do at this particular 

 time? 



General Groves. Here I think, sir, the main difference is one of 

 timing. I think that if we were to apply the rule that we are applying 

 in section 13 which is that EPA governs water quality standards, they 

 are the same. 



Mr. DiNGELL. They are the same ? 



General Groves. They would be the same. If on the other hand 

 we were to consider the total public interest it might be slightly 

 different. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you. 



Mr. Everett? 



Mr. Everett. General Groves, would the Corps be immediately 

 capable of maintaining the harbors and channels at their authorized 

 project depth if alternate disposal methods should become necessary 

 as a result of this legislation ? 



General Groves. Would you repeat the beginning of that, please, 

 sir. 



Mr. Everett. Would the Corps be immediately capable of main- 

 taining the harbors and channels at their authorized project depth 

 if alternate disposal methods should become necessary as a result of 

 this legislation ? 



General Groves. I think the answer to that is that we would be 

 unable to maintain our total level of effort. 



In other words, we would have to maintain a lesser amount initially 

 for the reasons that I mentioned, that the available plant, both corps 

 and contractor and especially the corps hopper dredge are fully 

 employed. 



If we went to diked land disposal, our experience leads us to believe 

 that it would be several years before we would enter into the agree- 

 ments necessary and get the funds necessary and to build the 

 enclosures. 



It would be quite a while, maybe a period of 5 years. If we went to 

 scow and dipper type operation it would take industry or we or both 

 several years to get the funds to build these things and put them in 

 operation. 



62-513 O - 71 - 35 



