385 
still adjacent to marine waters of high quality. Complacency, however, is not in 
order. Given the magnitude and variety of pollutants deposited in the New York 
Bight, and the associated potential ecological and economic disruptions such dump- 
ing may cause, the degradation of water quality in the New York Bight poses a 
severe threat to both the commercial fishing industry and the tourism/outdoor rec- 
reation related economy of Suffolk County. 
Commercial fishery landings data from 1880 to the present time indicate that 
over 100 species of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans have been landed by New York 
marine commercial fishermen. In fact, the Suffolk County hamlet of Blue Point lent 
its name to the renowned Blue Point Oyster from Great South Bay, which is now 
almost extinct in that body of water. 
For the most part, New York State’s commercial fishing industry is based in Suf- 
folk County. In 1981, 28.2 million pounds of fish and shellfish with a value of $39.3 
million were landed in Suffolk. This harvest amounted to 78 percent by weight and 
87 percent by value of all marine fishery products landed in New York State in 
1981. The fishing industry has a considerable impact upon both the local and state 
economies, the local impact has been estimated at about $100 million and the 
impact on the State as a whole at $160 million in 1981. These figures do not reflect 
the additional impact of retail seafood sales. 
As stated previously, the county’s tourism and recreation oriented industry is 
also, to a large part, dependent upon both the perception and reality of clean beach- 
es and marine waters of high quality. The island’s south shore oceanfront beaches 
are world renowned. Marine parks and recreation facilities, such as Jones Beach, 
attract tourists from both the United States and abroad. We cannot let this $2.5 bil- 
lion industry be threatened by continued ocean dumping in the New York Bight. 
In June 1976, Long Island’s south shore beaches were inundated by large amounts 
of floatables, litter and debris. Local and State officials found it necessary to close 
many ocean beaches to swimming, because of a feared potential health threat. As a 
result, there was a severe disruption to Long Island’s tourism/outdoor recreation re- 
lated economy. Over only an 18-day period, there was an estimated loss of $25 mil- 
lion to local recreation-oriented businesses. 
The floatables were dispersed over an area of 7,500 square nautical miles in the 
New York Bight, mostly to the south and west of Long Island. This debris was 
driven ashore by southerly winds. The type and source of floatables included: trash, 
plastic and rubber objects; grease from wastewater and combined outfall discharges; 
street litter from bays and minor estuaries; sewage; garbage; and oil wastes from oil 
spills, commercial ships, and recreational boats; charred wood from pier fires; solid 
waste originating from landfill sites; and oil and grease from industrial waste. It is 
believed that increased river runoff from the Hudson River, and intense persistent 
southerly winds, combined to cause the transport of the large and continued supply 
of floatables to Long Island’s beaches in 1976. Even though many people have stated 
that these two factors, excess runoff and prolonged southerly winds, do not frequent- 
ly occur together, even once was too often for the residents of Long Island. 
High nutrient loadings have also caused extensive algal blooms in the New York 
Bight. Such conditions result in extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen and high 
levels of hydrogen sulfide in bottom waters, with the subsequent mortality of 
bottom-dwelling shellfish and finfish species. During the massive fish kill of 1976, 
which occurred almost simultaneously with the pollution of our beaches that year, 
dissolved oxygen levels were extremely low in an area 100 miles long by 40 miles 
wide. Commercial fishing activity, especially for surf clams, was severely impacted. 
Dumping in the bight must be brought under control. Until this occurs, the public 
will be faced with the possibility of sporadic beach closures and economic hardship. 
With the above considerations in mind, I am here today to support the reauthoriza- 
tion and amendment of the Ocean Dumping Act. As stated in the proposed changes 
to the act, prudent and feasible alternatives to ocean dumping must be explored. 
The ocean should be used as a dump site only as a last resort. It is my belief that 
the least cost approach to waste disposal is often not the best approach. Therefore 
the proposed amendments to the act, dealing with the expanded evaluation of 
dumping based upon whether the dumping will degrade the marine environment, 
and the requirement that prudent and feasible alteratives to ocean dumping be con- 
sidered, should be implemented. 
I also support the proposed amendment that would phase out all dumping in the 
New York Bight apex; specifically, the ban on dredge spoil disposal by the end of 
1985, and the ban on the disposal of all other material by December 31, 1982. 
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] moved to prohibit all ocean 
dumping of sludge; however, New York City successfully challenged this dumping 
ban in court, and the Environmental Protection Agency did not appeal the ruling. 
