225 
I realize that the Committee is most concerned about saving our oceans, 
otherwise there would be no hearing today. The bills which are before you rep- 
resent somewhat different approaches to this problem. I have co-sponsored both 
Mr, Ottinger’s and Mr. Murphy’s bills because I believe it imperative that some 
legislation be passed to eliminate this hazard. 
‘ The New York Bight has a particularly acute problem, and aid to that area 
is obviously necessary. But, I believe that legislation, however necessary, which 
only prohibits dumping into the waters of the New York Bight or any other 
waters within a 25 mile radius begs the question. We need a nationwide pro- 
gram to prevent this from happening again, and we need to revitalize those 
areas where dumping has already caused grevious harm. Mr. Murphy’s bill is 
a good approach to the problem. I would like very much to see a study made of 
our entire coastal system. However, I do not believe that we can wait two years 
and permit continued dumping of dangerous materials while the study is going 
on. We must have standards now. That is why I have introduced my bill. Thirty- 
two members of the House have joined with me in filing this legislation. 
At the present time there are no adequate Federal standards which prohibit 
granting permits to dump into the coastal waters of the United States if such 
refuse material would harm the environment. The Corps of Engineers was au- 
thorized 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 early years 
of issuing permits under this authority, the guidelines were solely on the basis 
of the effect of the proposed work on navigation. 
The Corps of Engineers, in a letter to me dated April 29, 1970 stated: 
“By the Coordination Act of 1958, and subsequent amendments, the Corps was 
directed to coordinate this (dumping permit) activity with the Department of 
the Interior, and to consider their views on the effect of the proposed work on 
fish and wildlife and the ecology. The guidelines on issuance of permits have been 
broadened considerably over the past few years, and now consider the effect of 
the proposed work on fish and wildlife, conservation, pollution, and other factors 
affecting the general public interest, in addition to the effect on navigation. .. .”’ 
I have quoted this passage because it so clearly exemplifies the problem we 
face. The fact is that the Corps has not taken ecological factors into considera- 
tion. In the same letter, the Corps included a list of waste products which, under 
a permit which they issued, have been dumped into the coastal waters off Massa- 
chusetts—in fact, into the coastal waters off Gloucester and Rockport in my 
District. Included in the list is ‘‘mercury contaminated wastes.” In fact, for 
several years 35 pounds of mercury wastes were dumped 9.3 miles northeast of 
the Boston Light Ship. And that is not all. 750 pounds of beryllium, 1000 gallons 
of sulphuric acid and hundreds of gallons of other chemicals were dumped into 
these waters until the State insisted that the permit be suspended last February. 
The Corps has issued hundreds of permits over the years which allow for the 
dumping of industrial wastes and for dredging. I would like to insert in the 
record of these hearings a list of all permits issued throughout the country by 
the Corps since the 1899 law was enacted. 
It is clear that the Army Corps of Engineers cannot possibly be taking eco- 
logical matters seriously when they issue a permit to dump mercury. I need not 
go into the details of mercury poisoning. The papers have told the story many 
times recently. But I do believe that the problem of mercury poisoning points 
up the necessity for standards governing dumping into our navigable waters. 
Section 5B (a) of my bill would require the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in consultation with the Army 
Chief of Engineers to establish standards ‘which apply to the deposit or dis- 
charge into the coastal waters of the United States of all industrial wastes, 
sludge, spoil, and all other materials that might be harmful to the wildlife or 
wildlife resources or to the ecology of these waters.’’ The purpose of these 
standards is to ensure that no damage to the natural environment or ecology of 
these waters will occur as a result of this activity. ; ; 
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify certain language in this 
bill. Sec. 5B (a), (Page 2, line 7 of H. R. 18454) uses the term “navigable 
waters’. This term was used to provide the broadest coverage of environmental 
protection against dumping of materials into coastal waters. In addition, the 
term “coastal waters” is intended, throughout, to mean all waters off the United 
States Coast that are under United States jurisdiction. In reviewing my bill I see 
it might not be clear that the boundaries go that far, and consequently I will be 
happy to offer an amendment later to accomplish this purpose. 
