534 



The Poet of New York Authority 



l^cw York, N.Y. April 13, 1971. 

 Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, 



Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

 U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. 



Dear Chairman Garmatz : The Port of New York Authority is vitally inter- 

 ested in H.R. 4723, titled the "Marine Protection Act of 1971", which was 

 considered jointly at public hearings held by the Subcommittee on Fisheries 

 and Wildlife Conservation and Subcommittee on Oceanography in Washington 

 on April 5, 6 and 7, 1971. In general, we agree with the statement you made 

 at the hearing on April 5, with particular regard to provisions for dredge spoils 

 in the proposed bill. 



Under the Port Compact of 1921, the Port Authority is responsible for pro- 

 moting and protecting the commerce of the Port of New York, as well as for the 

 development of transportation and terminal facilities in the Port District. 

 Development of these facilities often entails the creation of land along the 

 waterfront by fill, the dredging and maintenance of ocean vessel berths, and 

 the provision of safe, efficient and economic Federal navigation channels to 

 serve the Port of New York. Such activities involve moving dredged spoils, rock 

 and sand from one area to another in and around the waters of the Harbor 

 under permits granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, since land areas 

 in the Port of New York have been deemed unsuitable for this purpose in 

 various Corp navigation improvement reports. It is the sections of the proposed 

 legislation dealing with spoils disposal on which we wish to comment. 



The Port Authority believes that H.R. 4723, sensibly interpreted, would pro- 

 vide a reasonable approach to balancing development needs with environmental 

 needs in the matters of spoils disposal in the Port of New York. The proposed 

 Act obviously recognizes that while disposal in ocean and adjacent waters must 

 be intelligently regulated, it cannot be capriciously or arbitrarily prohibited. 

 All uses of the world's oceans — for transportation as well as for food and as 

 a source of natural resources — must be accommodated. 



We feel, however, that the bill may be negating some of its general spirit of 

 reasonableness and unbiased regulation by expressing a policy "to prevent or 

 vigorously limit the dumping into the oceans, coastal and other, which could 

 adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environ- 

 ment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities" as prescribed in Section 

 (2)(b). It is suggested that the world "could" be changed to "will", or the 

 phrase "prevent or vigorously limit" revised to read "control", thus avoiding 

 a situation in which a harsh curb might be levied against materials which 

 have not been proved to be harmful. 



Section 3(e) would appear tO' apply the proposed Act vdth equality to both 

 Federal and non-Federal dumping activities. We trust this means that non- 

 Federal requirements will be made no more restrictive than Federal require- 

 ments of compliance. We are also assuming that the wording in Section 3(f) 

 excludes fill operations from application of the term "dumping", and thus, from 

 inclusion in the proposed Act. 



In Section 5, we commend the inclusion of such criteria as "unreasonable 

 degrade", "unreasonable endanger", "likely impact" and "probable impact", 

 since these terms evidence an intent to attain not only desirable but practical 

 goals in a field which still lacks considerable scientific knowledge about cause 

 and effect. The Federal, State and local consultative obligation is likewise 

 desirable, as is the establishment and issuance of various categories of permits 

 commensurate with the nature, volume, dumping location and impact period 

 of the material to be dumped. Particularly commendable is the option of issuing 

 general permits for materials which will have a minimal adverse impact The 

 designation of dimaping sites is also reflective of the constructive approach to 

 the dumping problem displayed throughout much of the proposed Act. 



There is another section which gives us some cause for concern, namely, 

 Section 7(a), which rescinds all outstanding permits "after the effective date 

 of this Act," which is established as "six months after its enactment". We 

 recommend an additional six month grace period after enactment, to soften 

 hardships during the period for conversion to new permits, and to permit proc- 

 essing of applications with minimum delay to ongoing dumping needs. 



Dredged spoils in their natural state, unlike other materials such as sewage 

 sludge and certain industrial wastes which are obvious pollutants, are no more 



