387 
to some extent on the ocean disposal of dredged material. For 
many ports, such as New York, it is crucial to operational survival. 
In 1978 we counted 16 major ports, plus the navigation channels 
at the entrance to the Mississippi and Columbia River systems, re- 
quired dredging and ocean disposal of dredged material by the 
Corps of Engineers. 
As one example of the importance of ocean disposal of dredged 
material to ports and the national economy, we should look at the 
situation in the lower Mississippi River. 
Maintenance of the deep draft navigation channels in 1978 at the 
Mississippi River/Gulf outlet accounted for 6.1 million cubic yards 
of dredged material disposed of in the ocean. 
Waterborne commerce in the stretch of the river from Baton 
Rouge to below New Orleans, a distance of slightly more than 100 
miles, totaled 540.5 million tons in 1977, making this the largest 
port area in the world. — 
Rotterdam and New York, by comparison, had waterborne com- 
merce of about 300 million tons and 180 million tons respectively. 
Ocean disposal of dredged material is the only feasible method to 
keep this vital shipping area of the lower Mississippi River open. 
The 5-year dredged material research program completed in 1978 
by the Corps of Engineers provided information on the environ- 
mental impacts of dredging and disposal operations. 
One conclusion reached was that the environmental impacts of 
most disposal operations, especially open water ones, are not as 
severe as has been generally believed. 
For each dredging project the corps must consider all likely al- 
ternatives to the disposal of dredged material by ocean dumping. In 
most instances, however, there is no environmentally and economi- 
cally suitable substitute for ocean disposal. 
Periodic maintenance dredging of our shipping channels is essen- 
tial for operations at our seaports. And efficient port operations are 
unquestionably essential to the orderly flow of foreign commerce in 
terms of the national interest. 
General planning for needed development and expansion of navi- 
gational channels has become almost impossible. 
Our seaports are responding to the changing face of the world’s 
maritime fleet. Technological advancements in ships dictate that 
port facilties must change, too. 
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that U.S. ports are anticipating 
these needs to develop and to expand by planning for projects 
wihch are, by any measure, expensive. 
A recent study by the U.S. Maritime Administration shows: one, 
U.S. ports spent $5 billion on new and modernized pier and wharf 
facilities from 1946 through 1978 and some $3.4 billion will be 
spent by ports for cargo-handling facilities from 1979 through 19838. 
These commitments have been and are being made in a spirit of 
serving the national interest and with an assurance that the Feder- 
al Government will, in a timely manner, fulfill its responsibilities 
to provide navigable channels. 
At a time when the importance of our seaports is being under- 
scored by the necessity to increase exports and by the consideration 
of national defense mobilization, we find that a pall of uncertainty 
