visory Harbors Act from supersession by the 1899 Act. The Supervisory Harbors Act provides a special authority to control transit in and from the harbors of New York, Baltimore, and Hampton Roads, Virginia. This authority has been used to regulate ocean dumping. The proposed Act would replace that authority. A portion of the Act of August 5, 1886 (33 U.S.C. § 407a), which pertains to deposits of debris from mines and stamp works, and which is covered by this bill or the Refuse Act, is also repealed. A provision contained in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1905 (33 U.S.C. § 419), which has been used to buttress the Corps of Engineers' authority to regulate ocean dumping, is superseded, insofar as it authorizes action that would be regulated by this proposal. Lastly, section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 407), commonly known as the Refuse Act, is superseded, but only insofar as it applies to dumping of material in the waters covered by subsection 4 (b) of this proposal.

Another portion of the proposed bill, section 7, deals with the relationship of this proposed legislation to other laws. Generally, except as provided in subsections 7(b) and 7(c), it provides that after the Act's effective date, existing licenses, permits, or authorizations would be terminated to the extent they authorize activity covered by this proposal, and that further licenses, permits, or authorizations of a similar nature could not be issued.

Subsection 7(b) maintains present responsibility and authority contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and provides that the prohibitory provisions of this proposal do not apply to actions taken under that Act. However, the AEC must consult with the Administrator before issuing a permit to conduct any activity otherwise regulated by this proposal. Moreover, the AEC must comply with the radioactive-material standards set by the Administrator, and the Administrator is directed to consider the policy expressed in this proposal along with the proposed criteria-basing factors in setting such standards for the waters covered by this proposal.

Subsection 7(c) relates to authorities contained in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, respecting dredging, filling, harbor works, and maintenance of navigability. The powers are exercised by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers. Except for the limited supersession respecting the Refuse Act discussed earlier, the Rivers and Harbors Act authorities are not negated or abrogated, nor are existing licenses or permits issued under the Act terminated. Rather, in situations where this bill would but for the provisions of 7(a) and (c) also apply to dumping of material in connection with a dredge and fill or other permit issued by the Corps of Engineers, such permit is conditioned upon a certification by the Administrator of EPA that the activity is in conformity with this proposal and any regulations issued under it. The Administrator would not issue a separate permit.

(3) Alternatives to the proposed bill

(a) The Federal government's present, scattered regulatory authority over dumping in the oceans and other similar waters could be retained, but each official responsible for administration of a part of the mosaic of laws could implement the policy reflected in the Council's report. Such an approach would give direction to the presently largely uncoordinated regulatory efforts, but it would mean that serious jurisdictional gaps in Federal authority would remain. Most of the relevant Federal laws are not written to reach activity which occurs beyond United States territorial sea. Yet most dumping takes place beyond these waters, notwithstanding the fact that the dumped material originates within the United States.

(b) Greater responsibility could be placed on the States through development of a regulatory system akin to that found in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, where States would develop criteria and procedures for dumping permits, and the Federal government would approve suitable State systems. But, the interstate character of the oceans and the direct effect upon them by actions taken in such similar areas as estuaries suggests that a unified control is desirable. Also, the authority of the States is limited to their territorial seas.

(c) A complete ban on all dumping in the oceans. Great Lakes, and other similar waters could be declared and enforced. This alternative, however, would have unnecessary and undesirable environmental effects. It would force all disposal to land modes and create undue air and water pollution problems as well as hamper land use of some areas which would have to be used as solid waste and dredge spoil disposal sites. Such action would arbitrarily place the oceans

and similar waters in a preferred environmental position at the expense of other portions of our surroundings.

(d) A system of taxes on massive disposal could be used in lieu of a permit system. At present, such a tax approach would be difficult to administer because the relative impact of the different materials dumped is difficult to determine. When the variable of dumping locations is added, as would be necessary, the rate of taxation to be assessed for a dumping action seems almost impossible to determine.

(e) The present permit system could be modified to incorporate a requirement that the Administrator of EPA consult with the Secretaries of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) and Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) respecting each permit application. Such a requirement would ensure that added environmental expertise was brought to bear on the application of criteria as well as in the development and modification of the criteria. However, the added administrative burden of mandatory comment in each permit application could be overly burdensome. The proposal now gives the Administrator discretion to consult when he deems such consultation to be necessary.

(4) Relationship between local short-term uses of man's environmental and the maintenance of long-term productivity

The proposal provides adequate authority to protect the oceans and similar waters from the degradation resulting from dumping wastes in them. In the short term, adoption of the proposed bill would involve (1) markedly increased dredging costs, particularly for areas where the dredge spoil was polluted, (2) increased expenditures for sewage treatment facilities, especially in the New York area where much undigested sewage sludge is dumped at sea, (3) increased funding demands for both public and private solid waste disposal and research, and (4) development of methods to detoxify or render harmless the nation's outdated chemical and explosive munitions. The oceans would no longer be a least-cost, convenient sink for many wastes. In the short term the proposed bill would increase pressures on land disposal sites and may also contribute to some air and water pollution.

In the long term, advances in recycling and resource development technology should decrease the pressures placed on land-based disposal, except perhaps in the case of polluted dredge spoil. Presently, alternatives to diked land disposition of such spoil appear limited, but research and management efforts are being stepped up, as evidenced by the program contained in Section 123 of the recentlyenacted River and Harbor Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611).

(5) Any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources

The bill would commit Federal funds to the administration of the new regulatory machinery. It would also require increased Federal and private financing of efforts to develop alternative means of waste treatment and disposal. Certain activities such as dredging would become sufficiently expensive in some cases that the dredging either might not be done to the detriment of navigation, or might take a greater show of Federal or private funds than at present. And, it would force industries and municipalities to construct new and environmentally desirable methods of disposing of wastes on land.

D. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

The proposed bill was prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality with the guidance and assistance of an interagency task force including representatives of the Office of Management and Budget.

Enclosure.

[H.R. 285, H.R. 983, 92d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL

To amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to provide additional protection to marine and wildlife ecology by requiring the designation of certain water and submerged lands areas where the depositing of certain waste materials will be permitted, to authorize the establishment of standards with respect to such deposits, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 4 661 et seq.) is amended by inserting immediately following 5 section 5A thereof the following new section:

6

"SEC. 5B. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, acting

7 through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall

2

1 designate those portions of the navigable waters of the United 2 States and those portions of the waters above the Outer Con3 tinental Shelf as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 4 Act, and those portions of the submerged lands beneath the

navigable waters and beneath the waters above the Outer 6 Continental Shelf into and onto which he determines sewage, 7 sludge, spoil, or other waste can be safety discharged. In

8

making such designation he shall consider all ecological and 9 environmental factors, including, but not limited to, the effect 10 of such discharging on the marine and wildlife ecology.

11

"(b) No designation shall be made by the Secretary of 12 the Interior under authority of subsection (a) of this section 13 for the two-year period beginning on the date of enactment 14 of this section. During such two-year period the Secretary of 15 the Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall make a full and 17 complete investigation and study of potential water and sub

16

18

19

20

21

merged lands areas for designation and shall identify those

areas most suitable for such designation.

"(c) As soon as practicable after the designation of an

area under subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of the 22 Interior shall establish standards which shall be applicable to

225

23

24

25

the discharge of material within such designated area. Such

standards shall be for the purpose of insuring that no damage

to, or loss of, any wildlife or wildlife resources or pollution of

3

1 the navigable waters of the United States will result from any 2 such activity. Such standards shall be applicable to all of the 3 departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal 4 Government, and, except as otherwise provided in this sec5 tion, in the case of a designated area containing any sub

6

merged lands within the jurisdiction of the States, to the 7 States and their agencies, including any person having any 8 license, permit, or other authorization from such State or 9 agency for any such activity with respect to any of such submerged lands.

10

11 "(d) If a State establishes within one year after the 12 date that a Federal standard is established under subsection

13

14

(c) of this section its own standard with respect to the activity covered by such Federal standard, such standard 15 shall be applicable to such activity within the jursidiction 16 of such State if within such one-year period the Secretary, 17 after public hearing, determines that such State standard 18 is equal to or more stringent than the Federal standard 19 established under this section with respect to such activity 20 and that there are adequate procedures for the State to en21 force such standard, then such State standard shall apply to 22 such activity within the State's jurisdiction, and the Federal 23 standard shall not apply. If he determines that such State 24 standard is not as stringent as the Federal standard, then