306 
dumping when the Secretary of the Army certifies that there are 
no prudent and feasible alternatives. 
On the other hand, dredge material which contains black-listed 
constituents as other than trace contaminants could not be ocean 
dumped, as is true under present London Dumping Convention re- 
quirements. No waiver could be obtained from this prohibition. 
Similarly, the prohibition against dumping in unstudied and undes- 
ignated dumpsites would and should unwaivably extend to dredged 
material dumpsites. We wholeheartedly support the thrust and 
intent of these amendments. 
In conclusion, as long as society and our political leaders permit 
ocean dumping to be regarded as the path of least cost and resist- 
ance, it will continue to proliferate. Just as bulldozing a road 
through a public park costs less than going around it, ocean dump- 
ing is almost always a coastal facility’s least expensive means of 
getting rid of waste. If only the wastes being dumped were treated 
as resources to be recovered rather than as waste to be disposed of, 
then perhaps economics might dictate a different and more sensi- 
ble result. 
The draft amendments being considered today are a much- 
needed step in the right direction. We urge every member of this 
committee to support these amendments so that another genera- 
tion of children does not have to ask with regard to a polluted 
ocean, “Why did you let them do it?” 
Thank you. 
[The statement of Mr. Kamlet follows:] 
