128 
waters of the United States of all industrial wastes, sludge, spoils, and 
other materials which might be harmful to the wildlife or wildlife re- 
sources of these waters. The purpose of these standards is to insure that 
no damage to the natural environment or ecology of these waters will 
occur as a result of this activity. I think most significant is section 
5B(a) of the proposed bill which would require for the first time that 
the burden of proof in such situations would be on the person who 
seeks the permit to dump. In other words, the person requesting per- 
mission, under the legislation, to dump in the navigable waters of the 
United States would be required to prove that the material that he was 
going to dump would not endanger the natural environment of these 
waters. The bill does not preempt the authority of the States in this 
area. It provides for a real and meaningful partnership with the 
States in establishing and enforcing standards covering these activi- 
ties within their jurisdiction. Under section 5B(d), the States could 
continue to have stricter standards than those provided in the Federal 
standards. We have recently adopted this system in the Federal] rail 
safety legislation which passed the House last week. 
The Corps of Engineers was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899 (the Refuse Act) to issue permits for all construction 
and dumping into the navigable waters. In the beginning, the issuing 
of permits under this authority was based solely on the effect of the 
proposed work on navigation. Only recently has the Corps of Engi- 
neers begun to upgrade its autority in this area administratively to 
condition the issuance of permits on such affects as conservation, pol- 
lution, and other factors affecting the environment. In other words, 
the Corps of Engineers now plan to use this statute as a powerful new 
tool in the Government’s effort to fight water pollution. I further un- 
derstand that the Department of Justice has currently authorized a 
number of U.S. attorneys throughout the country to bring actions in 
the Federal district courts to stop pollution in the navigable waters 
of the United States. I am most hopeful that we in Maryland will 
soon see some results of these new initiatives being taken under this 
law by the agencies that I’ve mentioned. 
The Federal Water Pollution Control Acts now on the books per- 
mit action only in the case of interstate water pollution. It is appar- 
ently cumbersome and administratively difficult to obtain definitive 
action under this law. For example, it requires water quality stand- 
ards only for interstate waters. Furthermore, it provides that dis- 
charges of wastes into interstate waters which reduce their quality 
below established water quality standards are subject to abatement 
only after notice and a waiting period of at least 180 days. The abate- 
ment proceedings may be instituted only upon the Governor’s con- 
sent unless the pollution “is endangering the health or welfare of 
persons in a State other than that in which the discharge or dis- 
charges . . . originate.” Moreover, the court in such abatement pro- 
ceedings need not confine itself to examining the issues of law and 
facts, but is authorized to give “due consideration to the practicability 
and to the physical and economic feasibility of complying” with the 
established water quality standards as well as reviewing the standards 
themselves. Perhaps the Refuse Act can be used as an effective substi- 
tute until new legislation is enacted. In fact it seems to me that my bill, 
