200 
teachers, sanitation workers, and a whole host of other expendi- 
tures. To spend scarce dollars in exchange for no significant bene- 
fits, particularly during a time of budgetary pressure, would, in my 
judgment be a misplacing of priorites. 
Finally, the proposed amendments replace the current test of 
“unreasonable degradation,’ which gives appropriate consideration 
to all environmental factors, with new tests that protect the ocean 
at all costs—where people do not live—over the land, the ground 
water, and the air. 
Now just a brief word, Mr. Chairman, about the decision of Judge 
Sofaer. All that the Sofaer decision dictates is that EPA must 
consider the actual impact of continued ocean disposal of wastes and 
the environmental and economic consequences of available alterna- 
tives before compelling New York City to stop current disposal 
practices. He did not say, carte blanche, that we can dump with no 
restraint if environmental assessments show that we are degrading 
the environment to a greater degree by our current practices than if 
we dumped elsewhere. He simply said, which is eminently reason- 
able: weigh those factors, and then make a decision; and pending 
that decision, do not rush forward with new requirements. 
We recognize the importance of adequate monitoring of ocean 
disposal activities. At the moment, the monitoring program re- 
quired of those disposing of sewage sludge in the Bight Apex costs 
about $300,000, of which New York City contributes about $150,000 
as one permittee. There are other local and Federal monitoring dol- 
lars being spent in the region and elsewhere in the country. It may 
very well be that our monitoring responsibilities should be expand- 
ed. I do not disagree with that at all. 
Linda Seale points out that in Suffolk County, Mr. Carney’s dis- 
trict, the purity of the water can be affected by land disposal. We 
want to make sure that does not happen to Long Island residents. 
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we know this committee wants to be 
reasonable: in the words of Jacques Cousteau, we should be “‘pru- 
dent and realistic.” That is what he said. I concur, and I know that 
you do as well. Together, in a spirit of cooperation—because we are 
not adversaries; we are seeking to find an appropriate solution that 
is prudent and realistic—we will find a way to do what you want 
done, which is not to degrade the environment when this can be 
avoided. We all recognize that there is a balancing of interests and 
impacts. 
I want to say that when I was in the Congress, the top two 
issues, in terms of everyday mail, were: ‘Mr. Congressman, save 
the whales.”’ The second one was, “Save the porpoises.” I am trying 
to save the people, as the mayor of the city of New York, in deliv- 
ering services and making sure that there is a balancing of inter- 
ests and that we do things in a prudent and realistic way. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. 
[The statement of Mayor Koch follows:] 
