339 
to balance harms to land against those to the ocean, but it is not 
permitted to do so in that strict, formal sense. 
Nevertheless, I think the draft amendments that we have before 
us do strike a reasonable balance between the approach in the 
Sofaer decision and the approach in EPA’s current regulations in 
mandating consideration of the availability of prudent and feasibile 
alternatives. It makes it marginally more difficult to utilize the 
ocean for waste disposal than under a simple balancing kind of ap- 
proach, but I think that sort of approach is called for and is appro- 
priate in the case of the ocean because, unlike the land, it lacks the 
protections of private property and marketplace mechanisms. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. In your comments on the draft amendments to 
title II you indicate that NOAA may not be the appropriate agency 
to conduct some of the already newly assigned tasks. What agency 
would be better suited to do this work? 
Mr. KaAMLeET. I am not sure any agency within the current ad- 
ministration would be particularly well suited to it, but I suppose it 
does fall most directly in EPA’s purview of the array of existing 
Federal agencies. 
Mr. ForsytHe. Later testimony will be given concerning the 
problem associated with finding and using land alternatives due to 
strong public pressures. Do you have any comments as to how mu- 
nicipalities can deal with this problem? 
Mr. KAM LET. The problem of public opposition to siting waste dis- 
posal facilities in their backyard is a very serious problem. We rec- 
ognize that it is a problem. 
On the other hand, we believe that responsible governmental of- 
ficials really need to make their decisions about selection of waste 
disposal sites on the basis of the overall environmental and public 
health merits. I think a lot of the problem arose because of situa- 
tions such as Love Canal which have given land disposal a bad 
name. 
The answer to the problem is to deal with the public in a more 
forthright, open way from the very outset; attempt to bring com- 
munity leaders into the process from the earliest planning stages; 
and do everything possible to resolve legitimate concerns that are 
expressed. If after a full and open public review process it appears 
that a proposed site still makes the most sense from an environ- 
mental and public health protection standpoint, then I think it is 
the responsibility of the officials involved to adopt use of the site. 
There inevitably is going to be resistance to sites located in peo- 
ple’s neighborhoods, but the alternative is to go to the ocean in 
every instance because that happens not to be anyone’s backyard. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. Thank you. My time has expired. 
Mr. D’Amours. Mr. Hughes, do you have any questions? 
Mr. Huaues. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you, Mr. Kamlet. 
I have some concern over the bottom line, which is of course sup- 
port of the draft recommendations for structural changes in the 
law. I am curious because you echo my sentiments at the bottom of 
page 14 when you say, “In short, not much has changed with re- 
spect to dumpsite designation since the advent of the ocean dump- 
ing law, except that EPA is now operating in violation of an act of 
Congress, an international treaty, a court order, and its own regu- 
