fg 
Depths in the Bight generally exceed 100 feet about 50 miles off shore but are 
substantially less than that in most inshore areas. The bottom is mostly sandy 
and is subject to shifts due to tidal actions or storm surges. Consequently, 
channels have been dredged and maintained by the U.S. Engineers to accom- 
wodate the large volume of sea commerce into the industrial and commercial 
complex of Greater New York. Sandy Hook Channel leads into Sandy Hook Bay 
and Raritan Channel branches off into Raritan Bay. Ambrose Channel is the 
principal entrance into New York Harbor leading to Upper Bay and New York 
City. The inlets to the east (East Rockaway, Jones, and Fire Island) are also 
subject to shifting sands from time to time. 
The New York Bight is a contrast in extremes. It contains the only remaining 
strip of virgin barrier beach between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras (Island Beach 
State Park, New Jersey) and supports the most heavily populated and indus- 
trialized complex in the country—between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and J amaica 
Bay, New York. The Bight supports some of the most heavily utilized and 
valuable recreation areas in the country. For example, New Jersey’s four-county 
coastal waterway supports a two-billion dollar recreation industry annually and 
New York’s Coney Island beach recorded 22 million visitors in 1968. The Bight 
area also supports excellent sport and commercial fishing resources. Some of 
the finest oyster grounds are found in this area; approved shellfish harvesting 
operations for inshore and offshore clams continue within sight of the New York 
skyline. Both New York and New Jersey contemplate removal of inadequately 
treated sewage effluent from condemned inshore shellfish waters that will assure 
even greater shellfish production in this area. 
Mr. Murruy. Each member of the subcommittee has received copies 
of these materials. 
Pollution is greatest in the Bight because, for 40 years, the dumping 
grounds in this area have been used by the Federal Government, local 
political subdivisions, and private industry in varying degrees for the 
dumping of sewage sludge, industrial wastes, dredging spoils, and 
other harmful litter. 
The issue of permitting the dumping of wastes in the Bight has 
become mired in confusion and misinformation every bit as murky as 
the waters in question. Antipollution has become a “warm puppy” 
issue, assuring happiness to anyone opposing a befouled environment. 
Over night we have created a group of instant ecologists. 
But curbing pollution, in this particular case the blight of our 
waters, takes more than tons of adjectives and good wishes. Pollution 
has been going on for so long that suddenly putting the brakes on is 
more an act of alarm than actually stopping. 
Quite simply, there are no simple solutions. In this Congress there 
have been more than 470 environmental bills introduced, of which 205 
deal with water pollution. Only a few, however, offer effective long 
range solutions. 
Operation of the dumping grounds in the New York Bight is 
under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, which draws 
its authority from the act of Congress of June 29, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 
441), and the River and Harbor Act of 1905 (33 U.S.C. 419). Over 
the years, considerable concern has developed over the effects of this 
waste disposal on the balance of the marine environment in the dump- 
ing area, and in the harbor itself. This concern has been amply 
justified. 
In 1866 and 1967, the Public Health Service studied the dumping 
operation to determine if any changes in the operation seemed to 
be in order. The report found that the dump area was “badly fouled,” 
but made no specific recommendations for remedy. It did, however, 
unequivocally state that moving the dumping areas to other locations 
