103 
I would like to second the statement by the Chairman. I agree 100 
percent. I grew up along the banks of the Passaic River and I remem- 
ber one time we used to be able to swim in it, and now you go back and 
can almost walk across it without being in the water. 
As I understand the bill, the study would be 2 years to identify 
the areas suitable for discharges. Does that mean within the 2-year 
period there would not be any discharges whatsoever or dumping 
whatsoever ? 
- Mr. Murrny. No. One of the problems of dumping, or course, is that 
it is a daily problem, and it would take 2 years to identify these 
areas, and the present machinery have probably in the main the Corps 
of Engineers’ approval, with Interior concurrence in some areas, 
would continue to prevail. 
However, after 2 years the identification of those areas would be 
complete. I would think that the Department of Interior and the 
Corps of Engineers, both in determining where to approve dumping 
permits or where to revoke permits, authority which they presently 
nas be updated as data was collected during that 2-year 
period. 
And it would be a progressive move to prevent dumping in areas 
where it was obvious that it was harmful to marine life. 
Mr. Frey. How does this dovetail or does it dovetail with the Fed- 
eral Water Pollution Control Act introduced some time in February ? 
Mr. Mourruy. The end result is in concert with that act. However, 
that act does not address itself to the specific problems of dumping 
in areas that are vital to marine life, that is spawning areas, estuarine 
areas where the young fish have to go in order to complete a neces- 
sary part of their growth prior to the time they go back out and 
become fair game as part of the commercial fishery area. 
Mr. Frey. Then you think it has to be both? 
Mr. Morrny. Yes. 
Mr. Frey. I notice in looking through some of the reports that 
Interior is asking this be held off for a study to be submitted to the 
President, September 1, which will include effects of ocean dumping 
on the environment. 
What is your feeling on that? ; 
Mr. Murruy. We have had administrations asking for more time, 
and I will use as an example my harbor once again. 
In 1963, about 80 members of this body introduced legislation to 
clean up New York Harbor. It was supposed to be a 2-year study. 
That study lasted over six years and the Corps of Engineers finally 
made its recommendations and the latest outgrowth of those studies, 
of course, was a $28 million budget request to get on with the job of 
cleaning up the debris in New York Harbor, but the Administration 
came right back this year saying it wanted a further study of the 
harbor. y 
In other words, we can just continually have study upon study and 
no end results. That is the way I think I would address myself to 
that. 
Mr. Frey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Drycetu. Thank you, Mr. Frey. 
Mr. Goodling. 
