116 
Dr. Guascow. I think any time that waste is disposed of in 
navigable waters or interstate water, the Federal Government can 
enter the picture. 
Mr. Kern. The State has parallel responsibility and authority, does 
it not? 
Dr. Guascow. Yes. 
The Federal water quality standards that have been accepted by the 
State, have also been accepted by the Federal Government. So each 
shares the responsibility. 
Mr. Kerru. With reference to the New York Harbor situation, 
could the State exercise jurisdiction over the harbor area ? 
Dr. Guascow. I think the State could control the dumping of its own 
citizens. 
I think the Federal Government, though, would have to control be- 
yond the 3-mile limit. Inside that limit I believe the states can control 
the dumping of their own citizens based on standards approved by 
the Federal Government. Outside I think the Federal Government 
would have to assume responsibility. 
Mr. Kerrn. As long as the outfall must pass through the 3-mile 
limit, can the State exercise authority over outfall beyond this limit? 
Dr. Guascow. Yes. Certainly we would prefer the States control it 
themselves and not require the Federal Government to step in. But if 
the States do not, then there is not much recourse except for the 
Federal Government to enter it. 
Dr. Stncer. If I may break at this point, I believe the authorities 
that exist nowadays are not very clear cut in the sense that they are 
not based on water quality; that is, the effects that adverse water qual- 
ity have on people and the benefits. The authority that exists now is 
based on hazards to navigation. That is what is being invoked now to 
control dumping in certain areas. We would prefer to have clear-cut 
authority for the Federal Government to act in the continguous zone 
and beyond, and this is the purpose of the amendment to the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act. 
Mr. Keiru. In my view the Government has the authority to act 
on public health as well as navigation. 
Dr. Stncer. Yes; and also injury to shellfish. 
Mr. Dincet. Mr. Everett ? 
Mr. Evererr. Dr. Singer, Congressman Murphy’s bill covers the 
discharge of sewage, sludge, spoil, or other wastes. Are all of these 
items covered by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act? | 
Dr. Sincrr. The act is not specific; the act is broad. It then leaves 
it to the component Government agency, in this case the Federal Water 
Quality Administration, to set regulations which would fulfill the in- 
tent of the act. The intent of the act is to protect and enhance water 
quality. It leaves it to the Federal Water Quality Administration then 
to decide what kinds of discharges would deteriorate water quality 
and what kind of discharges would be okay. 
Mr. Dincett. That is a very good answer, but you have not told Mr. 
Everett in response to his question whether or not the Federal Water 
Quality Act would control the situation referred to in H.R. 17603, 
Mr. Murphy’s bill, or whether that statute would prohibit the kind of 
dumping to which H.R. 17603 addresses itself. 
