279 
the territorial sea and contiguous zone. Since such a study is being 
completed by the Council, we see no need for enactment of this addi- 
tional directive. 
H.R. 19077 would amend the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 to require a longer period of notice before a Federal agency 
commences any action significantly affecting the environment. 1 per- 
sonally agree with the need for more advance notice of such actions 
and have taken it upon myself on several occasions to alert specific 
agencies that present practice does not provide adequate opportu- 
nity for review of projects proposed by other agencies. 
H.R. 19859 would amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 
to provide additional protection to marine and wildlife ecology by 
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to designate certain water 
and submerged land areas where the depositing of certain waste ma- 
terials is prohibited and to require establishment of standards with 
respect to such deposits in all other areas. 
We are, of course, in complete accord with the intent of this bill. 
We believe, however, that this problem will be given thorough coy- 
erage in the CEQ report and, consequently, we ask the committee to 
defer action until it has seen the task force report and its reeommenda- 
tions. 
This completes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. My col- 
leagues and I will be pleased to attempt to answer your questions. 
Mr. Dincett. Mr. McCloskey, have you any questions ? 
Mr. McCtosxery. Doctor, it seems to me that between the report that 
is now under preparation and H.R. 15905 that we have a complete 
answer to the problems arising between the administration bill and 
any changes that may come out of the report that is now being worked 
on. 
Would you find it appropriate to point out why you think H.R. 
15905 has not received congressional action to date? It seems to deal 
with all the bills we are now considering. 
Mr. Guascow. I don’t know why it has not been considered. I am 
not trying to avoid answering your question, but I just don’t know. 
Mr. McCuosxery. Does that study that is now under way include 
consideration of the conflicts between the 1899 Refuse Act in the 
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction and the present Federal Water Qual- 
ity Administration jurisdiction? Perhaps Mr. Smith could comment 
on that point. iS ORE 
I understand Justice has issued a memorandum indicating the Ref- 
use Act would not apply to the local jurisdictions or local permit au- 
thority which has been granted by State or local governments to 
people who are putting refuse into the tributaries of navigable waters 
and that the 1899 Refuse Act would be enforced by Justice only as to 
those which have no permit from any level of government. Is that in- 
eluded in the report that is now under way, this legal question ? 
Dr. Suiru. Yes, Mr. McCloskey. This point has been given very 
careful attention and I think it may be resolved. 
Mr. McCnosxry. What is the date of this report ? 
Dr. Sarrrn. It is due in the White House next week. 
Mr. McCrosxey. In the White House next week. What about from 
the White House? 
