406 
Mr. BrEAux. Given a choice of working on the staff draft and 
trying to improve it or just having a continuation of the present 
law, which would be your preference? 
Mr. Haar. You are saying we would have a choice of just one or 
the other? I couldn’t have improvements in the present? 
If I am given a choice of just the two, I think we prefer to con- 
tinue with what we have. 
Mr. BrREAUx. From this member’s individual standpoint, I have 
yet to be convinced that some serious and substantial changes in 
the current law need to be made. As we rush to completion of this 
Congress with all the other things that we have going, I think that 
one of the options these two committees are going to have, particu- 
larly with the words I am getting back from the Senate, is not to 
act on this legislation. 
I am asking the question if that is one of the options. Would you 
prefer spending time trying to improve this one or to let this one 
go for the time being? 
Mr. Haar. If the practical considerations as you have outlined 
are such as they are, then I think that we would opt to go with the 
present legislation rather than what has been proposed here as 
amended. 
Mr. BREAUx. Discuss for a little bit concerns that you and the as- 
sociation indeed has with the standard that is used in the discus- 
sion draft to prohibit all ocean dumping that will degrade the 
marine environment unless there exists a prudent and feasible al- 
ternative. 
I guess I think any dredging material is going to have an effect, 
and that is an impossible standard to meet. 
Ete Haar. I will let Mr. LeBlanc get into some of the details on 
that. 
Mr. LEBLANC. The basic problem we have with the approach 
taken in the discussion draft is that it would prohibit any degrada- 
tion unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative as defined 
in the discussion draft. 
Some of the problems that we have relate to definitions, with the 
genatgD of the term degrade. It would encompass any adverse 
effect. 
We think that is too broad. It should encompass significant ad- 
verse effects. We have serious concerns about including within the 
definition of degrade any interference with customary uses of the 
sea in the area of the dump site. This we feel in some cases could 
go beyond protection of the intrinsic marine environment and 
could get into deferring to or recognizing rights of use of third par- 
ties, individuals, and that sort of thing. 
We have a concern about any consideration of customary uses 
not also including the historical use of a dump site for ocean dump- 
ing purposes. In any consideration we feel that would be relevant. 
We are concerned about including in the definition of degrade 
any instance where there will be a permanent change in the dump 
site by the dumping. 
Ocean dumping of dredged material may result in a change in 
the dump site. 
When we turn to the criteria to be utilized to determine whether 
a feasible and prudent alternative exists, we feel that a bias 
