527 



It would be very helpful for the committee to have a complete 

 analysis of what you need to retain your permit authority consistent 

 with the scheme envisioned here in 7(c) (2) which would not be ad- 

 versely affected by any of the repealers in section 11. 



General Groves. All right, sir, we will be very happy to supply that 

 for the record. 



(The information requested follows :) 



Subsections 11(a) and 11(b) repeal the Supervisory Harbors Act of 1888, as 

 amended (33 U.S.C. §§441-451b), and the provision of the Rivers and Harbors 

 Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 418) which preserved the Supervisory Harbors Act from 

 supersession by the 1899 Act. The Supervisory Harbors Act provides a special 

 authority to control transit in and from the harbors of New York, Baltimore, and 

 Hampton Roads, Virginia. This authority has been used to regulate ocean dump- 

 ing. The proposed Marine Protection Act would replace that authority. A portion 

 of the Act of August 5, 1888 (33 U.S.C. §407a), which pertains to deposits of 

 debris from mines and stamp works, and which is covered by the proposed Act 

 or the Refuse Act, is also repealed. A provision contained in the Rivers and 

 Harbors Act of 1905 (33 U.S.C. § 419), which has been used to buttress the Corps 

 of Engineers' authority to regulate ocean dumping, is superseded, insofar as it 

 authorizes action that would be regulated by the proposed Act. Lastly, Section 

 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 407), commonly known as 

 the Refuse Act, is superseded, but only insofar as it applies to dumping of 

 material in the waters covered by subsection 4(b) of the proposed Act. Except 

 for the limited supersession found in subsection 11(e), the Rivers and Harbors 

 Act authorities are not negated or abrogated, nor are existing licenses or permits 

 issued under that Act terminated. Rather, in situations where the proposed Act 

 and the Act of 1899 both apply to dumping of material in connection with a 

 dredge, fill or other permit issued by the Corps of Engineers, issuance of the 

 permit requires a certification by the Administrator of EPA that the activity is in 

 conformity with this proposal and any regulations issued under it. The Adminis- 

 trator will not issue separate permits in such cases. 



After the proposed Act becomes effective, the Department of the Army's permit 

 program under the Refuse Act, which is administered in close cooperation with 

 EPA on all water quality matters, will continue to regulate the disposition of 

 any effluent covered by the Refuse Act from any outfall structure regardless of 

 the waters into which this disposition occurs, in addition to regulating all de- 

 positing of material into other navigable waters of the United States not covered 

 by subsection 4(b) of this Act. 



Mr. Heyward. There is one other question. 



In 7(b) (2) there is provisional authority as the EPA certification 

 comes only on permits issued after the effective date of the act, that 

 is to the extent that it does not repeal something, in effect, any permits 

 which you issued before the acts : 



Would the Corps of Engineers in those cases where permits have 

 already been issued but where disposal of the dredging had not been 

 undertaken confer with the EPA consistent with the policy required 

 in section 7(c) (2) even if the statute does not specifically require it? 



General Groves. I would expect so, sir. In any case, these permits 

 are for finite durations and when they came up for renewal, they would 

 have to be considered again. 



Mr. Heyward. Thank you. General. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Gentlemen, can you tell us about that impact of en- 

 actment of this bill on existing practices with regard to dredge and 

 fill operations in the Great Lakes ? 



General Groves. The dredge and fill operations in the Great Lakes, 

 sir, if this were enacted, would, of course, have to be conducted under 

 license from EPA, under permit from EPA. 



