178 
Moving the dumping ground 25 miles farther out to sea is only a 
stop-gap measure and cannot solve the real problem of what to do 
with waste materials. However, it is vitally needed now to halt the 
damage that is being done to the rich productive fragile coastal en- 
vironment that extends in a narrow band along the shore, the area 
within 30 miles of shore which the former director of the Sandy Hook 
Marine Lab has called “our most precious marine resource.” 
The second half of H.R. 15827, providing for research into the pos- 
sibilities of reclaiming the current dumping grounds, is at least as 1m- 
portant as the first half. We cannot allow this area to stagnate, nor 
should we sit idly back and hope that the ocean currents and tides 
will dilute or carry off the accumulated wastes. 
The only difference I have with H.R. 15827 is minor and technical. 
I believe the law should amend the most specific existing law which is 
the 1888 act relative to New York Harbor, 33 U.S.C. 443-448. Adding 
the proposed bill to the Environmental Policy Act detracts from that 
act as a general statement as well as adding confusion to the laws. 
The Environmental Policy Act declares that the policy of the United 
States is to assure every American a safe and healthful environment. 
What we are doing in this bill is simply moving a noxious area farther 
from shore, rather than eradicating all polluted coastal waters which 
would be more consistent with the act. I think the proposal bill would 
be more proper if appended to the laws affecting matters in and 
around New York Harbor, although the problem certainly is not re- — 
stricted to the New York Harbor area, 
There can be no question of the need for the enactment of this legis- 
lation. It coordinates well with the approach suggested by the other 
two bills being considered today. I strongly support this bill, H.R. 
18527. 
These other bills, H.R. 17603 and H.R. 18454 offer an approach to 
the solution of the problem. I am cosponsor of H.R. 18454, but this 
is not to say that H.R. 17603 is without merit. I would urge that the 
final bill reported by this committee combine aspects of both bills. 
I would stay with the basic approach of H.R. 18454, establishing 
ecologically sound standards for dumping, but I believe that the final 
bill should also instruct the Secretary of the Interior to designate areas 
within which wastes may be dumped, as H.R. 17603 advocates. 
Mr. Drnertu. At this point, Mr. Howard, the Chair would like to 
interrupt and ask this: 
You have made suggestions which I believe will be quite helpful. 
Would you submit to us the suggested language at a time that is con- 
venient, through the counsel? We would like to have the benefit of 
your guidance and assistance on this particular matter. 
Mr. Howarp. Thank you. I would be very happy to, Mr. Chairman. 
(The information follows :) 
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
Washington, D.C., August 6, 1970. 
Mr. NED EVERETT, 
General Counsel, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Com- 
mittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1834 Longworth House Office 
Building, Washington, D.C. 
DEAR Sir: Pursuant to Mr. Dingell’s request at the hearings on July 28, I am 
submitting my draft of a “clean” bill, incorporating the suggestions I made to 
the subcommittee. 
