484 
sults in the marine environment and indeed other countries do not 
use the bioassay and bioaccumulation tests that we use. 
Other countries do and this was pointed out last year in testimo- 
ny before the full House committee by EPA, they use an overall 
form of risk assessment. They factor in the test results with all 
other circumstances relating to the dumping operation including 
need and other factors—— 
Mr. Hucues. That certainly is a reasonable interpretation of the 
convention, however. 
Mr. LEBLANC. We agree it is reasonable and our problem is that 
we haven’t done that. We have charged off and chosen to make the 
critical trace contaminants determination solely on the basis of lab- 
oratory testing in which we take results and don’t even know what 
they mean but have to presume it must be something that the con- 
vention prohibits, and it is a form of stringency not applied by 
other countries, and we think it has worked a disadvantage to the 
United States. 
Mr. HuGuHeEs. I understand your point of view. One of the things 
that I found interesting about the testimony of AAPA is that you 
oppose special fees being assessed. Do you think it is unreasonable 
for us to make a charge for those that would use public resources 
any more than we charge oil companies for the use of public lands 
and other resources? 
Why would you find the assessment of a fee to be unconscionable 
or unreasonable? 
Mr. LEBLAnc. Let me turn this over to Colonel Haar after saying 
that our concern is that most ports are public bodies and have cer- 
tain funding limitations inherent under applicable law. We wish to 
bring that to the attention of the subcommittees to point out the 
types of effects that a blanket imposition of fees would have on 
such ports. 
If any such fee is going to be imposed we think the requirement 
of the law should take into account the public status of ports and 
any funding limitations. 
Mr. HuGues. Why should it be shifted to the taxpayer when in 
fact it has a direct relationship to economic enhancement? 
Mr. Brinson. I think, Congressman, that this is the fundamental 
issue that we are now facing with this plethora of user fee initia- 
tives that we see in the Congress now. 
The question is, Where is the public interest? We would submit, 
sir, that the public has a very definitive interest in the movement 
of foreign commerce and indeed the flow of commerce generally. 
Ninety-five percent of the international trade moving in this 
country moves by ship, which means that it has to come into and 
out of our harbors and up and down our rivers. Dredging is abso- 
lutely essential to that function. So I guess when you draw the line 
and say what is the question, the question is, Does the Nation as a 
whole have an interest in that particular function? In this case, the 
disposal of dredged material in the ocean. 
We submit that it is very, very clear that the Nation does indeed, 
simply because the Nation wouldn’t get along without the flow of 
commerce. 
Also we have had a traditional role in this country of local and 
State port authorities providing the initiative toward port develop- 
