735 
like to add for the record a reference from a 1978 report by the Na- 
tional Academy of Sciences, which indicates that nutrients in 
sewage increase production of fish and other food organisms in 
coastal waters. 
The second point I would like to touch on is we strongly support 
the concept of the Ocean Waste Management Commission. Howev- 
er, in keeping with my previous remarks, we think that the mis- 
sion should be modified to emphasize the beneficial effects of 
proper utilization of sewage solids in the ocean, along with the gen- 
eral negative effect of sludge dumping. We support the funding of 
the Commission rate of $2 million a year for a period of 8 to 10 
years. 
With respect to user fees, we believe that user fees are proper 
when the Government performs a service, such as the operation of 
a landfill. However, we believe that these fees are improper when 
they are imposed as a tax without some service being performed. 
We have no problem with paying reasonable costs for permit and 
site designation, but if there is a dispute over what is reasonable, 
we suggest that the Ocean Waste Management Commission arbi- 
trate this matter. 
With respect to monitoring, monitoring of the ocean manage- 
ment program should be handled by the sewage agency in the same 
manner that we presently use for all of our discharges under the 
NPDES permit system. This has proven very effective in the past 
and regulatory authorities have ample means to achieve 
compliance. 
In conclusion, the gentleman from EPA accused me and our field 
agencies of being polluters. I want to emphasize that we are not 
polluters. We are concerned public officials representing the mil- 
lions of people that we serve. We are committed to sound manage- 
ment and fiscal principles. There have been many programs in the 
past and there will be others in the future but we are accustomed 
to complying with guidance by regulatory agencies. 
Given a reasonable set of regulations, we can accomplish your 
objectives. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. D’Amours. Thank you very much, Mr. Borberg, for abbrevi- 
ating your testimony as you did. 
I take it then, Mr. Borberg, that you support the Commission 
idea as funded and as suggested in the draft recommendations? 
Mr. BorBeErG. Yes, we do, primarily because it sets up an agency 
where we have an input and can get research that benefits not 
only our agencies but the public in general. 
Mr. D’Amours. You have heard the administration witnesses 
who preceded you testify that this was another layer of bureaucra- 
cy and really unnecessary. 
How would you respond to that if you were in a position to do so? 
Mr. BorBerc. It certainly is another organization, but I think it 
is a unique one. The legislation specifically limits its size, and it 
provides that most of the money is to be used for research. 
We certainly subscribe to that, and we feel that the bureaucracy 
in this organization is a small price to pay for obtaining research 
from most of the funds that we will contribute. 
