667 
Mr. D’Amours. I want to move the questioning along and I want 
to therefore turn to somebody else, but before I do, Mr. Eidsness, I 
promised you you would have a chance to get your shot in on that 
other question I asked. Go ahead. 
Mr. ErpsnEss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
The question of the appropriateness of allocating research costs 
into the user fee system is a key question and this is what I meant 
by what is the basis for cost allocation. 
I think there is another set of principles that the Congress has 
used in the past that I think we all accept in making decisions. The 
principle is that the polluter pays, in relation to the amount of 
problem it creates and the beneficiary pays in the amount of bene- 
fit it gains. It is a broad concept and it is sort of a juggling act one 
has to go through, I think, in one’s own mind, as to where you 
come out in terms of deciding what is eligible to allocate to whom, 
the polluters or the beneficiaries. 
On one hand you might argue that the Congress, and the public 
wanted an ocean program. They have a law, they want to know 
more about it, they want to protect it, but also they want to allow 
the ocean to be at least considered for dumping under certain con- 
ditions, so that one could say there is a general benefit there. Per- 
haps we can draw the line on research or certain kinds of research 
that are very broad to be allocated back to the beneficiaries. That 
suggests that broad research resulting in general benefits should be 
paid for by something other than the user fee system. 
Looking at the other side, we could say the polluters have to pay 
for things more directly attributable to their own specific oper- 
ations, such as site designation or monitoring and things of that 
nature. I am not saying that all research should not be supported, 
but I think that some cutoff could be made by the committees, if 
they can, or certainly EPA under rulemaking, as to where that 
would be eligible. 
Ae D’Amours. What is EPA’s position on user fees for research 
cost’ 
Mr. Erpsness. I don’t believe we would support that in the broad- 
est context. The problem is what is research? 
Mr. D’Amours. Is EPA’s position the same as NOAA’s? 
Mr. Expsness. I think that is right. A broad-based research activi- 
ty, partly for the purposes of stability and partly for purposes of 
equity ought to be financed in some other way than through a user 
fee system. 
I should add though EPA strongly supports the need for contin- 
ued research. 
Mr. D’Amours. I appreciate that. 
Mr. Forsythe. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I want to apologize for being so late, but we are trying to find out 
what is happening on the floor with respect to legislation with 
which we are involved. I apologize to the witnesses for not having 
been able to hear their testimony, but I think you have some idea 
where I stand on the issue of user fees. 
I do have great concern about the research-cost problem and am 
very interested in seeing that it be coordinated over a broader 
range of interests than just between the Federal agencies. I think 
