740 
conserved. Today, the oceans, a resource held in common for all citizens, are under- 
priced and in danger of being overused for purposes of waste disposal. An ocean 
dumping user fee would supplement regulatory control, deter unnecessary ocean 
dumping, and spur the search and utilization of economical and environmentally 
sound alternatives. 
THE DRAFT USER FEE PROPOSAL IS INSUFFICIENT 
The staff draft proposal which is the subject of this hearing is deficient in two 
important respects: 
Ocean dumping fees should be levied for all classes of users, including dredged 
material; 
Ocean dumping fees should relate to the fair market value of ocean disposal, 
rather than simply keeping the Federal government “whole” for its administration 
of the dump site designation and permitting program. 
The Federation strongly supports a fee structure that would extend to dredged 
material. Presently, there is a bias toward ocean disposal in the Corps dredging pro- 
gram that results from the requirement of local sponsors to provide the lands and 
easements, retaining works, and stablization measures required for the disposal of 
dredged material. Local sponsors of federal navigation projects should bear a paral- 
lel responsibility for the costs involved in open ocean disposal. The user fee proposal 
advanced by the Merchant Marine Committee last year as part of the Omnibus Rec- 
onciliation Act applied to local sponsors of Federal navigation projects, and we are 
still convinced that this is the most appropriate way of proceeding with an ocean 
dumping user fee. 
One important principle for the Congress to follow in establishing user fees for 
ocean dumping is that the user should pay according to the benefits he receives and 
the costs which he imposes on society. The draft proposal now before the subcom- 
mittee takes an unduly narrow view of the costs to society of ocean dumping, i.e., 
the Federal government’s administrative costs, and bears no relationship to the fair 
market value of ocean dumping when compared with other waste disposal options. 
We urge the Congress to consider ocean dumping in this larger context, and end the 
practice of offering valuable waste disposal sites at nominal cost. The market value 
can be established by a review of the costs of competing disposal alternatives. It 
need not be imposed immediately, but rather could be phased in over a period of 
years. We recognize that the composition of material that is dumped in the ocean 
varies widely, and suggest that consideration be given to allowing a range of admin- 
istrative flexibility in establishing the fee based upon the degree of degradation of 
the marine environment. Finally, we recommend that some minimum fee or floor be 
set initially by the Congress for Fiscal 1983, such as $2 per wet ton, keeping open 
the options for adjustments in future years. 
A NEW COMMISSION IS NOT NECESSARY 
At this time, the Federation cannot recommend the establishment of the ocean 
waste management commission and advisory board contemplated by the draft 
amendment to H.R. 6324. We do not discern any powers or authorities extended to 
this commission that do not now reside within the Executive Branch agencies that 
have principal responsibilities for this program at the present time. Our preference 
is to deal with agency shortcomings more directly, in the reauthorization and appro- 
priation process. The commission and advisory board do not, in our opinion, consti- 
tute an effective substitute for Congressional oversight and public involvement in 
the existing legislative and administrative processes. 
We appreciate this opportunity to present these views, and I would be happy to 
respond to any questions the subcommittees might raise. 
Mr. D’Amours. Thank you, Mr. Osann. I appreciate your testimo- 
ny. 
How do you set a fair market price on the use of the ocean for 
disposal? 
Mr. OSANN. Well, if there were a larger number of competitors, 
one way, a very straightforward way, of setting a fair market price 
would be by auction. But our concern is that there are relatively 
few potential users for some sites of the 12 dozen or so sites. There 
may be only one user, and that wouldn’t be a terribly satisfactory 
way of establishing market value. 
