240 



site to 106 and what you buy for that, that is really what we are 

 saying. Let us do it on a scientific technical basis and we will know 

 where we are going and we will not be back here talking about the 

 change in data base, we will have set it down and know what we 

 are doing. If we have to ^'ome out of the ocean a technically sound 

 basis will strengthen our hands with our populace. Right now the 

 populace when we go for land disposal or incineration will say if it 

 is no good for the fish, why is it good to put it in my backyard or 

 incinerate it in my backyard? Let us get a technical basis. If we get 

 the technical basis to get out of the ocean, it strengthens our hand 

 as I have described. 



Mr. Dyson. Thank you very much. I thank the chairman for the 

 time. 



Mr. D' Amours. We now recognize the gentleman from Delaware 

 who I think shares your antipathy toward use of the 106-mile site. 

 Mr. Carper. 



Mr. Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome 

 you here to the committee again, all three of you. 



I would like to ask questions that relate to alternative land dis- 

 posal. But first let me say in northern Delaware, a State I repre- 

 sent, our sewer costs for the residents have gone up many-fold over 

 the last decade to reflect the fact that we, as users, pay for the cost 

 of water treatment. If the city of New York were forced to stop 

 sewage dumping in the 12-mile site and were forced to use either a 

 land-based alternative or to dump in the 106-mile site, would you 

 not simply pass on to the users the extra cost of doing so? 



Mayor Koch. Not necessarily, although that is a possibility. It 

 becomes a question of what the cost is, what is the impact on the 

 one- and two-family homeowner, and in some cases you would con- 

 clude that it has to be in part subsidized out of the operating 

 budget. So there is not a simple answer that I can give you. 



Mr. Carper. The question I am asking is. Is the cost of sewage 

 treatment borne by the users in New York City, or is it subsidized 

 through other sources of revenue? 



Mr. McGouGH. We do not collect from our water and sewer 

 rates, the money to cover the operation of our water pollution con- 

 trol. What the Mayor alludes to is the cost of the total tax and fee 

 structure we have in the city, that separation was not niade, you 

 have to look at the total burden on the one- and two-family home- 

 owners, and when you do that you find that while other locales can 

 point to higher sewer rates, when they look at tax rates and real 

 estate taxes, and sales tax rates and other rates, they find the com- 

 parisons are not consistent. So you have to look at the total bundle. 



Mayor Koch. We are the only city, if not the only one, one of the 

 few, that has a city income tax. 



Mr. Carper. I understand the EPA has given some considerable 

 sums of money to New York City to develop land-based alterna- 

 tives. Is that correct, and could you quantify those for us? 



Mr. McGouGH. When the deadline was in being we did spend $30 

 million, 75 percent of which was Federal money, to develop the 

 land-based alternative, which was a composting and tilling alterna- 

 tive with a 7-year duration. We also at that time estimated ap- 

 proximately $250 million in construction costs for which we had al- 

 ready bid contracts for substantial portions which were canceled 



