SECTION 404 OF THE FEDER AL WATER

CONTROL ACT AMEND MENTS OF A llbO O 7S 4b flfl

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE T H E

IITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 

fNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FO UR TH CONG RESS 

SECOND SESSION

JULY 27 AND 28, 1976

SERIA L NO. 94-H49

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

SECTION 404 OF THE FEDERA L WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972

H E A R I N G S

BEFORE TH E

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

NIN ETY-F OU RTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 27 AND 28, 1976

SERIAL NO. 94-H49

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

76-161 O

U.S . GOVERNM ENT PRINT ING OFFIC E

WASHINGTON : 1976
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

JE NNIN GS RA ND OL PH , West Virginia, Chairman

ED MU ND S. MU SKIE, Maine 

JO SE PH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico 

MIKE GR AV EL. Alaska

LL OY D BE NT SE N, Texas

QU EN TIN N. BURDIC K, No rth D ako ta 

JO HN C. CU LV ER , Iowa 

RO BER T MO RGAN , North Carolina 

OA RY HAR T, Colorado

JAMES L. BU CKLE Y, New York 

HOW ARD I I. BA KER , J r., Tennessee 

RO BE RT T. ST AFF ORD, Vermont 

JAMES A. MCCLURE, Idaho 

PETE V. DO MEN ICI, New Mexico

M. B arry Meyer, Chief Counsel and Chit) Clerk

Bailey Guard, Minority Sta ff Director

Leon G. Billings an d Richard D. Grundy, Senior Professional Staff Members

John W. Y aoo, Jr., Assistant Chief Clerk; Philip T . Cummings, Assistant Chief Counsel

Harold H. Brayman, Senior Professional Staff Member (Minority)

Professional and research staff: Karl R . Braithwaite, James W. Case (Assistant Counsel), P aul Chim es, 

T renton Crow, Katherine Y. Cudlipp, Paul F. Ebeltoft, Jr. , George F. Fenton, Jr., R andolph G. Flood, Kathaleen R. E. Forcum, J ohn D. Freshm an, A nn Garrabrant, Richard T. 

Greer, Richard M. Harris (Assistant Counsel), Wesley F. Hayden, Richard E. Herod (Assistant

Counsel, Minority), Veronica A. Holland, Ronald L. K atz, J udy F . Parent e, John B. P urinton, Jr., 

James D. Range, W. Lee Rawls, Charlene A. Sturbitts, E. Stevens Swain, Jr., Sally W. Walker, 

and H aven Whiteside

(n)
C O N T E N T S

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page Hart, Hon. Gary, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado__________ 3

Muskie, Hon., Edmund S., U.S. Senator from the State of Maine_______ 2

Randolph, Hon. Jennings, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia___ 1

LIST OF WITNESSES 

July 27, 1976 (p. 1)

Dole, Hon. Bob U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas______________ 33 Reed, Nathaniel P., Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks___________________________________________ 68 Taft, Peter R., Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources

Division___________________________________________________ 90 Train, Russell, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; Nathaniel 

Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks;

Victor Veysey, Assistant Secretary of Army for Civil Works; and Peter 

Taft, Assistant Attorney General for Land and Natural Resources___ 38 Veysey, Victor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works_______ 44 Prepared statement________________________________________ 53

July 28, 1976 (p. 129)

Barthauer, G. L., vice president, Environmental Affairs, Consolidation

Coal Co____________________________________________________ 384 Bartlett, Hon. Dewey F., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma_____ 147 Prepared state ment________________________________________ 148 Callison, Charles II., National Audubon Society__________________ 213 Prepared state ment________________________________________ 215 Clapper, Louis, National Wildlife Federation; accompanied by: Kenneth S. 

Kamlet, Federation Counsel; Laurence Jahn, ecologist, Wildlife Management Institute; and John Clark, ecologist, Conservation Foundation___ 390 Prepared statement________________________________________ 394 Curtis, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, presented by 

Jack Odgaard_______________________________________________ 129 Prepared s tatem ent________________________________________ 131 McCredie, William II., National Forest Products Association; accompanied 

by: Harriet B. Marple, environmental attorney, International Paper Co.; 

and David C. Nicholson, assistant director, Environmental Resources, 

Weyerhaeuser Co____________________________________________ 227 Prepared statem ent________________________________________ 233 Hawley, Bruce, assistant director, National Affairs, National Farm Bureau. 551 

Ritchie, William S., Jr., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials____________ 159 Prepared state ment________________________________________ 162 Speth, Gus, Natural Resources Defense Council__________________ 324 Prepared statem ent________________________________________ 335

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, questionnaire on permits for discharge of dredged or fill ma terial_________ 175 Interior, Department of, briefing supplement on wetlands____________ 73

(in)
IV

St atem en ts: PR ffe National Governors’ Conference________________________________ 4

Cleveland, Hon. James C., a Representative in Congress from the

Sta te of New Hampshire____________________________________ 27

McClosky, Hon. Paul N., Jr., a Rep resentativ e in Congress from the

Sta te of California__________________________________________ 144

Holshouser, Hon. James E., Jr., Governor, Sta te of North Carolin a.. 157 

Abourezk, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dak ota. 559 

Bartlett, Hon. Dewey F., U.S. Senator from the S tat e of O kla homa ._ 559

Bentsen, Hon. Lloyd, U.S. Senator from the Sta te of Texas_______ 561

Hansen, Hon. Cliff, U.S. Senator from the Sta te of Wyoming_____ 563

Hart, Hon. Philip A., U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan;

Hon. Frank E. Moss, U.S. Senator from the State of Ut ah ; and

Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., U.S. Senator from the Stat e of Connecticut, 

joint sta temen t............................... ................. . ....................... ............. 564

Long, Hon. Russell B., U.S. Senator from the Sta te of Lou isiana___ 565

McClellan, Hon. Joh n L., U.S. Senator from the Sta te of Arkan sas.. 578

McGee, Hon. Gale W., U.S. Senator from the S tat e of Wyoming___ 579

Tower, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the Sta te of Texas _________ 580

Vermont, Sta te of, De partm ent of H ighw ays_____________________ 587

Executive Office of the Presiden t, Council on Enviro nmental Q uality. 589 

Departm ents:

Agriculture______________________________________________ 590

Tr ansportat ion ___________________________________________ 591

St at es :

Califo rnia:

The Resources Agency of______________________________ 592

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission___________________________________________ 601

Florida:

Askew, Hon. Reubin O’D., Governor___________________ 602

The Canal Autho rity o f____ ________ 603 Georgia:

Busbee, Hon. George, Governor............. 603

Louisiana:

Edwards, Hon. Edwin, Governor_______________________ 604

Maryla nd:

De partm ent of A griculture____________________________ 613

Minneso ta:

Anderson, Hon. Wendell R., Gov erno r_________________ 614

Montana:

Judge, Hon. Thomas L., Governor______________________ 615

De partm ent of Fish and Game_________________________ 616

North Caro lina: (See page 157)

Nebrask a:

Exon, Hon. J. Jam es, Governor________________________ 618

Pennsylvan ia:

Fish Comm ission_____________________________________ 619

Game Commission________________ 620

South Carolina:

Ports Autho rity. ......................... 620

South Da kota:

De partm ent of Game, Fish, and Parks__________________ 625

Texas:

Briscoe, Hon. Dolph, Governor_______________________ _ 625

Utah:

Ram pton, Hon. Calvin L., Governor......................... ......... .. 627

Washington:

Evans, Hon. Daniel J., Governor_______________________ 627

Wyoming:

Herschler, Hon. Ed, Governor_________________________ 628

Allen, Ha rriet_______________________________________________ 629

American League of Anglers___________________________________ 630

American National Cattlemen’s Association______________________ 620

American Paper Ins titute , Inc_________________________________ 634

Anne Arundel Community College______________________________ 635
V

Sta tements—Continued Page American Road Builders’ Association___________________________ 636 Arkansas Fore stry Association_________________________________ 637 Associated General Con trac tors of America______________________ 637

Association of American Railroads______________________________ 635 Audubon Society:

Florida_________________________________________________ 639 Fort Wo rth______________________________________________ 640

Baetjer, Mrs. H. Norm an, Jr__________________________________ 641 Bodycombe, David___________________________________________ 641 Brazos River Au tho rity_______________________________________ 641

Calcasieu Rod and Gun Clu b__________________________________ 643 California Alpine Clu b________________________________________ 644 California Committee of Two Million___________________________ 644

Childs, Elizabeth L___________________________________________ 644 Citizens Committee on Na tural Resources_______________________ 645

Clark, Mildred and James_____________________________________ 647

Coalition for Natural Stream Valleys, In c_______________________ 648

Colorado Public Inter est Research Group_______________________ 648 Committee to Preserve Assateague Island_______________________ 649 Conservation Council of V irginia_______________________________ 656 Conservation Foundation, Th e_________________________________ 658 Conservation Society of Southern V erm ont______________________ 659 Cromeans, Th ere sa___________________________________________ 660 Curtis, Evelyn M ____________________________________________ 661 Dieke, Sally H., Maryland Wetlands Comm ittee_____________ '___ 661 Doerr, Ms. Nancy P__________________________________________ 661 Diepen, Sondra______________________________________________ 662 Dowler, Forre st______________________________________________ 662 Duvinage, Thelma C_________________________________________ 662

Environmental Defense Fu nd __________________________________ 662 Falkenheiner, Doris___________________________________________ 668

Federation of Fly Fishermen___________________________________ 669

Field and Stream _____________________________________________ 671 Fishing World_______________________________________________ 675

Florida Agriculture Water Council______________________________ 675

Fucil, Groff_________________________________________________ 675

Forest Farmers Association____________________________________ 675

Galloway, Thomas and Ro bin_________________________________ 677 General Development Corp____________________________________ 678 Gordon, William G___________________________________________ 680 Greaser, Maylin, American Dredging Co________________________ 681 Grether, Clara E_____________________________________________ 682 Hennessey, Gera rd J__________________________________________ 682 Garcia, Erica C______________________________________________ 682 Hutchins, Mrs. John A________________________________________ 683 Institute for Environmen tal Stud ies____________________________ 683 Iowa Wildlife Federation, Inc__________________________________ 688

Izaak Walton Leag ue_________________________________________ 688 Kimberly-Clark Corp_________________________________________ 691 Kirk, Carol M_______________________________________________ 692 Kunz, Mr. and Mrs. Joh n B___________________________________ 692 Landels, Riple y & Diamond___________________________________ 693 League of Women Voters:

United State s____________________________________________ 695 Houston________________________________________________ 695 Levering, V. H _______________________________________________ 696 Major China Clay Prod ucers___________________________________ 696 Mac Farland, James W________________________________________ 702 Mark, Dr. Rob ert____________________________________________ 702 Marylan d Wetlands Comm itte e________________________________ 703 Ma rty, Beatrice H____________________________________________ 703 McFarling, Jame s____________________________________________ 703 Morley, Mr. and Mr s_________________________________________ 704 Nageotte , Richard R_________________________________________ 704 Nation al Association of Home Builders__________________________ 706

Nation al Association of Re altors________________ ______ _______ 707

National C oalition for Marine Conservation , In c_________________ 710
VI

Sta tements—Continued Base

National Conference of Sta te Legislatures____ ______ 711

National Construction Indu str y Council_________________________ 715

National Coordinating Committe e on Fish and Wildlife in Federal

Water Resources Proje cts_____________ 716

National Council of Farmer Coo peratives _______ 717

National Crushed Stone Association____________________________ 719

National Env iron men tal Development Association________________ 719

National Farm ers Un ion ______________________________________ 722

National Gra nge ______________________ 723

National Livestock Feeders Association_________________________ 724

National Parks and Conservation Association____________________ 726

Nicolaus, Nick and Kr ist ina___________________________________ 727

No rth St. Lucie River Water Manage ment District _______________ 728

Northe rn Virginia Conservation Council_________________________ 728

Osborne, Jo an _______________________________________________ 729

Pacific, Rober t D____________________________________________ 730

Packer Riv er Terminal, In c___________________________________ 731

Parks, Ira A_________________________________________________ 737

Peterson, John C____ _________________________________ 737 Pine, James C_______________________________________________ 737

Plymire, Mrs. James E__........... 738

Rankin, Ki rk________________________________________________ 738

Rector, Thomas L____________________________________________ 738

Rivers Unlim ited _____________________________________________ 739

Rockefeller, Lau rance_________________________________________ 740

Rood, R. F enton _____________________________________________ 740

Save Our Seashores of Delawa re________________________________ 741

Save San F rancisco Bay Association_____________________________ 741

Sierra C lub :

Washington, D.C_________________________________________ 748

Fort Worth______________________________________________ 758

Loma P rie ta_____________________________________________ 759

Flo rida_________________________________________________ 759

Potomac Chapter, D elaware Group__________________________ 760

Rio Grande______________________________________________ 761

San Francisco B ay________________________________ 762

Southern Plains Regional Conservation C ommittee ____ _____ 762

Tennessee_______________________________________________ 763

Southern Fo rest Products Association__________________________ 764

Sport Fishing I ns titu te ________________________________________ 765

Starkweath er, Je an ___________________________________________ 766

Steele, W. K ._ _ ________ 766 Strauss, Fra ncic______________________________________________ 767

Tennessee Conservatio n League_________________________________ 767

Tennessee Association of Conservatio n D istricts___________________ 768

Thorneley, E thel W ___________________________________________ 770

Trinity River A uthority of Tex as_______________________________ 770

Upper Colorado River Commission______________________________ 771

Valk, Ann Dickinson____________ 773 Virginia F orestry Associatio n..................................................... 773

Vosti, Jessie_________________________________________________ 778

Water Resources Congress_____________________________________ 778

Weaver, Gr ant I I_____________________________________________ 781

Weingath, La rry _____________________________________________ 781

West, Shirley________________________________________________ 781

West Contra Costa C onse rvation League_________________________ 782

Wilderness Society ____________________________________________ 782

Wildlife Manage ment In st itute _________________________________ 783

Wildlife Society, Th e__________________________________________ 791

Wisconsin Inland Wate rways Association________________________ 791

Wisconsin, State of___________________________________________ 792

Wood, Betty_________________________________________________ 793

Worcester En vironm ental T ru st________________________________ 793

• WTAX Radio________________________________________________ 794

Zimmerman, Charles J., J r _______ 794

West Con tra Costa C onservation League, an analysis of the Wright-Breaux 

Amendment___________ 218
SECTION 404 OF THE FED ERA L WATER POL LUT ION 

CONTROL ACT AMENDM ENTS OF 1072

TU ESDA Y, JU LY 27, 197 6

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Public Works,

Washingto n, D.C.

The committee met at 7:12 p.m., pursu ant to call, in room 4200, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jennings Randolph (chairman of 

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Randolph, Muskie, Burdick, Hart, Baker, and 

Domenici.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIR GIN IA

Senator Randolph. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

The Committee on Public Works this evening and also tomorrow 

evening will conduct two hearings on a difficult subject as we review 

the environmental pioblems with which the Congress is faced.

We hope to further our understanding of the problem or problems 

and to receive recommendations for an effective resolving of these 

issues.

The situation has arisen, as members of the committee know, from 

the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, section 404 

of that legislation requires the Army Corps of Engineers to issue 

permits for the disposal of dredge and fill material in our navigable 

waters.

When we wrote the act, we were concerned primarily or even solely 

with controlling the way in which these materials were disposed. 

Dredge and fill materials often are highly contaminated, and thus a 

situation should be addressed in the terms of water pollution control.

All the members of the committee have expressed an interest in this 

subject, and we are appreciative that many of them arranged their 

schedules to be here tonight.

We did not understand earlier that a judicial decision would subsequently broaden the impact, as I have referred to it, of section 404. 

As a result of the action in the courts, the Corps of Engineers has 

set down regulations covering an extensive range of activities. These 

are proposed to be implemented in three phases. The first phase has 

already gone into effect. The regulations covering phase two were to 

have been implemented on July 1, bu t were ordered postponed by the 

President pending action in the Congress.

(1)
2

These hearings have been planned by the committee to review the 

implication of the Corps of Engineers’ regulations. Legislation has 

been adopted by the House of Representatives, and there are proposals pending in the Senate.

The witnesses counseling with us during these two evenings represent a broad spectrum of affected parties. I am sure all members of 

the committee welcome the opportunity to hear the witnesses and 

discuss with them in dialog the problems tha t we know are necessary 

to be discussed. The exchange, I am sure, between members of the 

committee and those who testify will be helpful, as well as the formal 

statements.

Senator Robert Dole of Kansas is at the witness table. We are 

prepared to hear his testimony at this time.

Are there comments from members of the committee? Senator 

Muskie?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Senator Muskie. I have a brief statement which I hope will be 

helpful. I had hoped tha t the Senate could defer until next year 

consideration of the substantive issues associated with the 1972 

Clean Water Act.

Unfortunately, much of the debate, much of the regulations, and 

much of the suggested legislative responses stem from what I regard 

as a misinterpretation of congressional intent.

Section 404 is designed to require the corps, because of their existing 

authority to maintain navigation, to regulate the dumping of polluted 

dredge spoil at specified disposal sites, the EPA having veto power 

over the selection of the sites. That was the inte nt precisely and 

specifically stated.

Section 404 was an exception to the otherwise comprehensive 

regulatory program embodied in section 402. But implementation of 

section 404 has not led to the end of open water dredge spoil discharge, 

which was the specific objective of section 404.

No specified disposal sites have been established. Instead, the 

section 404 regulations have led to confusion, irritation, and divisiveness t ha t have undermined the confidence in the basic Federal role in 

water pollution control.

They have created a perception of needless interference in the 

affairs of farmers, foresters, miners, and ranchers whose activities 

were by no means comprehended as coming under the section of 404 

when it was written.

At this point, the most appropriate course of action for this committee may be to strike section 404, eliminate this exception, and 

return to the basic regulatory structure anticipated by the act.

If we adopted this course, dredge, spoil, and fill would be considered

g

ollutants. Where they are discharged, they would be regulated by the

Invironmental Protection Agency or the States. Where they are 

nonpoint sources, they would be regulated by the States pursu ant to 

section 208. This was the original position of the Senate in 1972.

Given all the problems that section 404 has created, perhaps it 

should be in its saddest position now. I am not wedded to this position. 

My mind is open, whatever my emphasis may indicate to the contrary.
3

I hope the statements of our witnesses will help clarify these issues 

and provide us with a course of action which will preserve our ability 

to regulate the disposition of polluted dredge spoil w ithout creating 

another unnecessary duplicated Federal regulatory program.

Senator Randolph. Thank you> Senator Muskie, for your continuing leadership on the committee. We are grateful as members 

of our committee and the Senate as well.

Senator Baker, do you have any comments?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared state ment at 

this time. Possibly I will have suggestions to make as we proceed. B ut 

I prefer to hear the testimony of the witness.

Senator Randolph. Than k you, Senator Baker.

Senator Hart?

OPENING REM ARK S OF HON. GARY HART, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

TH E STATE OF COLORADO

Senator Hart. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement. As 

with other members of the Senate, I have my own proposal which I 

will be discussing with this committee and perhaps tne full Senate on 

section 404 to deal with problems that Senator Muskie has so articulately identified.

It is a classic of a case th at all of us in the Congress are faced with 

time and time again: the congressional intent and administrative 

implementation, between which there seems to be a gap.

The people of the country are upset. We are upset. Somehow the 

Congress and the executive branch must get together on the laws that 

are passed and implemented to free the people of this country from 

what they definitely consider to be burdensome regulations.

I think all of us have the same intent. We are here to try to solve tha t 

problem.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Domenici?

Senator Domenici. I have no comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you.

Senator Randolph. For the record, Governor Marvin Mandel of 

the State of Maryland had indicated to the committee tha t he would 

appear this evening and would address himself to the subject m atter, 

not as a Governor of that State but for the National Governors’ 

Conference.

The change of time and other commitments made it impossible for 

Governor Mandel to be with us tonight. He has submitted testimony 

which will be a part of our record. Did the Governor provide copies so 

that they might be available to those who will be covering the hearing 

or interested parties? Do you have knowledge of that?

Mr. Meyer.

1

 Yes, sir.

Senator Randolph. There are copies, then.

[The statement of the National Governor’s Conference follows]

1

 M. Barry Meyer, Chief Counsel, Senate Public Works Committee.
4

^-National Glamors

* > 1150 Seventeenth Street N.W Suite 600

♦ * Washington. DC 200 J6

(202)785 5600

Cecil 0 . And ru s 

Governor o / Idaho

Choaman

Stephen B Farber 

Pr ret lor

TESTIMON Y OF

WARREN K . R IC H , COU NSE L

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATU RAL RE SO UR CE S

ON BEH ALF OF THE NA TION AL GO VE RN OR S' CO NFERE NCE

ON

SE CT IO N 404 o f P . L . 9 2 -5 0 0

BEF ORE THE

SE NA TE COMMITTEE ON PU B LIC WORKS

JU L Y 2 7 , 19 76
5

I wish to thank the members of this Committee for extending 

to me the opportun ity to testify at this hearing. My testimony 

represents not only the views of the State of Maryland, but 

also those of the National Governors Conference, comprised 

of states which have ongoing regulatory programs directed to 

the same subject matt er as the legislation you are considering 

today.

We support the inclusion of the Wright Amendment in S.2710 

because it is an attempt to avoid duplication of effort and 

is a recog nition of State prerogatives to manage and control 

land use within its own boundaries. For the past three years 

we have pointed out that Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 was not 

passed by C ongress to serve as a national land use authority. 

This section, as enacted, did not set up a program, did not 

contain enforcement mechanisms or gu idelines for the
6

regulation of wetlands, floodplains, water courses, or

agricultural drainage areas. This section clearly was

intended to regulate the unconfined deposition of dredged 

spoil into the nation's waterways. We have taken the liberty 

of documenting this point by attachi ng the relevant sections 

to the legislative history with citations to the printed 

testimony. Suffice it to say, however, the conferees who 

approved P.L. 92-500 did not intend to create a new bureaucracy 

in the Federal government, but their attention was focused 

primarily on one issue, the unconfi ned dumping of dredged 

spoil. Nor did the Corps of Engineers then believe that 

they posses sed authority to establish a program regulating 

critical areas of land use. Their present regulations 

resulted from the case of Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. Ca ll ow ay , decided in the District Court in the District 

of Columbia, — and an opinion delivered by the District 

Court for the Middle District of Florida in U.S. v. Holland. 

These two cases did not really discuss the legislative 

history behind Section 404. Their determination principally 

relied on the de finition of "navigable waters" found 'in P.L. 

92-500 whic h laterally expanded the traditional definition 

to include areas beyond the hig h water mark. We further 

note that the various District Court decisions were not 

hotly contested, and it is our further contention that even 

if that definition were upheld, considering the history of 

Section 404, the Corps of E ngineers was not mandated to 

manage every dredge and fill activity for every "natural and

2
7

artificial water in the United States including marshes,

swamps, bogs, inland and coastal shallows contiguous to

those waters, regardless of whether these areas are regularly 

or only periodically inundated".

We believe, therefore, that the two above cited judicial 

decisions were clearly contrary to the intent of Congress.

The amendment to the section before you today will return 

some sense of balance to this continuing conflict between 

the States and the Federal government over m atters clearly 

within states' traditional police powers.

For instance, in controlling w etland activities, the 

vario us states of this Union are enforcing their public 

trust which historic ally has been imposed on various subaqueous 

areas. In Maryland, as in most eastern states, land below 

mean high wate r is held by the state in trust for its 

citizens. This resp onsibility emanated from the language of 

the variou s grants from the English King to the lord proprietors 

of each of the provinces prior to the formation of this Union. 

This trust was preserved as each colony became a state and

enter ed the Union.

Throughout the years, various private interests have 

attempted to set aside the public trust, but by and large,

-the decisions of the state courts and Supreme Court have 

sustained the states' respo nsibility to administer the trust

for the benefit of its citizens as a traditional state 

3/ police power. — The trust has extended at times beyond a

3
8

technically navigable stream to what is considered a "public" 

stream, one to which certain public rights are attached 

although the stream is non-tidal in nature. The various 

states' prerogatives in administering these areas for its

citizens have been reinforced by numerous state court

4/ decisions. — These cases also support innovative state

legislation which set up the procedures to carry out and

enhance the public trust doctrine. The authority to protect

state waters is grounded upon common law doctrines as well

as judicially sanctioned legislation.

The policy of the various states is to preserve wetlands. 

Existing and pending legislation of environmentally concerned 

states seeks to prevent despoliation and destruction of 

their wetlands while considering the various ecological, 

economic, developmental, recreational, and aesthetic values 

of these very important natural resources, as well as 

considering and dealin g with unique local conditions.

With the enactment of these water protection laws, many 

states have taken a firm and consistent posture in the 

management of state waters and adjacent wetlands. "The hydrologic 

areas to which protection extends are statutorily delineated 

by the states. The implementation of this delineation has 

been accomplished by means of various types of surveys and 

photography at an expenditure of millions of dollars.

4
9

Under existing legislation, boundaries have been clearly 

defined and the issuance of permits has become an orderly 

and comprehensive process. The legislation generally reserves 

to the state the right to include conditions in the permits 

to insure proper protection. Additionally, civil and criminal 

penalties for violations have been established.

The Maryland Wetlands Law of 1970 can serve as an 

example of an effective program. Our wetlands are defined 

on the basis of astronomical tides and are delin eated by 

aerial infra red photography. They are now systematically 

categorized as privat e or state wetlands, and notice is 

provided by registe red mail and inclusion of Wetland Maps 

in the local Court Records. This provides due process to 

the regulated citizens. No such procedure to insure these 

safeguards has been included in the Corps of Engineers

progrt ..

Except for projects clear ly in the public interest, State 

wetlands may not be filled for developmental purposes, 

because that action would violate the public trust. Consistent 

with traditional riparian rights, limited areas may be 

dredged to enhance navigation, and small areas may be.filled 

to arrest erosion. &/

This ability to deal quickly and impartially with all 

wetlands issues is the result of our e xtensive State regu lations. They provide a versatility that is to be found nowhere 

in the present Corps regulations. They allow the State to be 

responsive to both the needs of its citizens and ecological 

req uir eme nts .

5
In addition to administering the wetlands law, the 

Water Resources Admin istration of the Department of Natural 

Resources is charged with protecting the quality of the 

waters of the State in accordance with the State of Maryland 

Pollution Abatement Laws and the provisions of the Federal 

Wate r Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Projects 

including dredging, filling or other activities which do or 

could affect the quality of the water, not only during 

construction, but also subsequently, are evaluated. For 

every project, determinations as to whether state and 

federal water quality standards will be achieved are carried 

out. Additionally, a Section 401 water quality certification 

must accompany every project involving a federal license.

The State's regulatory program for water quality 

management includes the assessment of the ecological affects 

of any project by Fisheries Administration, the Wildlife 

Administration, the Maryland Geological Survey and the Water 

Resources Administration. Included in this review are 

persons with expertise in marsh ecology, water quality, 

hydrology, and land and water uses of the area involved.

So much for a brief description of Mar yland's waterway 

progra m in tidal waters. Maryland law and regulations also

provide for five types of waterway permits for projects

• • *7 / including the 50-year floodplain of non-tidal streams. — 

Unless the Wright proposal as passed by the House is 

approved by the Senate, the Corps of Engineers Section 404 

program will attempt to duplicate almost every one of Maryland'
11

initiatives. We emphasize the term "attempt" because the Corps 

of Engineers does not have the personnel to monitor these 

water related activities. Enforcements at the Federal level 

will be insufficient. Only after new positions are added 

and the bureaucracy is expanded with the addition of mone y 

and personnel would such Federal enforcement action become 

eff ect ive .

On the other hand, the State initiatives have resulted

in the reduction of the rate of de struction of wetlands. In

Maryland, for instance, we have estimated on the basis of 

comparative inventories for the period 1942-1967 that approximately 1,000 acres per year were lost prior to regulation. 

However, in Fiscal Year 1974, of 247.72 acres requested to be 

filled, only 78.27 acres were recommended for approval. Much 

of this was for public marine and recreational facilities as 

well as for shore erosion control. The area filled constitutes

less than 0.02 percent of the shallow bo ttom of the State. In 

Fiscal Year 1975, a mer e 10.52 acres in shallow wetlands were 

filled. Moreover, bulkhead construction has decreased from 

Fiscal year 1974, in which 13.5 miles of b ulkhead was approved. 

In Fiscal Year 1975, only 10 miles were approved, one-third 

of which was for re placement purposes.

In Virginia, the rate of loss reached 450 acres annually 

during the period 1955-1969. That rate of despoliation was 

projected to increase to 600 acres annually for the period 

1970-1974. In 1973, no more than 27.6 acres of wetlands for 

single family residences were filled, and less than 5 miles 

of shoreline were bulkheaded. —/

- 7 -

76-161 0 - 76 - 2
12

Due to indiscriminate alteration, Massachusetts lost 

1,010 acres of coastal wetlands during the period 1954-1964. 

Subsequent to the enactment of the Massachusetts Wetlands

Statute in 1969, a major reduction in the rate of loss has 

9 / been achieved.

Admittedly, not all states have current legislation.

However, 32 states could be immediately considered for

delegation under the Wright proposal, and 46 states have

expressed a desire eventually to be considered for delegation.

At least twenty-two states now control over 20 activities

each w hich would involve the permanent disturbance of wat er

bodies. — / Furthermore, of the 16 areas subject to the

Corps current regulation, 8 states manage all 16; 8 states

manage 15 areas; 2 m anage 14 areas; 2 manage 13 areas and 9 

12/ states manage 12 areas. — • Dredge criteria have been

listed by 22 states, while 20 have formulated criteria for

fill materials. — / The laws of 18 states contain wetlands

definition, 15 of which utilize the definition for regulatory 

14/

purposes. —

These figures indicate that the states have the • 

capability to afford adequate protection to both wetlands 

and other areas of concern. The figures also indicate the 

states' intention and wi llingness to protect their resources.

Existing state legislation not only affords adequate 

protection to wetlands, it also provides due process to 

citizens. Some states mandate the recordation of wetland

8
13

boundaries, thereby affording notice to current and future 

landowners. A-=*z Our experience indicates that due process 

suffers severely when, for the favorable purpose of protecting 

our natural resources, our citizens are subjected to the 

dual jurisdiction of the state and federal government. This 

problem is exacerba ted when one recalls that some states are 

divided among a plurali ty of Corps districts and divisions.

The potentiality of divergent procedures and interpretation 

of regulations will prove formidable at best.

The provisions of S.2710 which include the Wright A mendment, afford ample latitude for the formulation of broad 

federal guidelines. The amendment returns the definition of 

"navigable waters" to its traditional meaning. — Additionally, 

with the consent of the Governor, the Wright proposal affords 

sufficient flexibility to authorize Federal regulation of 

wetland areas adjacent to navigable waters, thereby including 

large areas of inland wetlands as well as all coastal wetlands. 

For other water bodies, the states maintain sole responsibility. 

For instance, the Wright proposal exempts activities involving 

normal farming and ranching activities as well as maintenance 

projects for dikes, dams, bridges and breakwaters, and also 

exempts the construction or maintena nce of farm ponds and 

irrigation ditches. Many of these activities as we have 

noted above are regulated under state law, but it is 

imperative to understand that legislation is needed to provide 

an exemption for these activities. Although the Corps of

9
14

Engineers attempts to provide such an exemption in their current 

regulations for certain acricultural and silvicultural pursuits, 

the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia ruled on

March 24, 1975, that EPA could not exempt certain c lasses of 

point sources from the permit requirements of Section 402. 

Without legislation, therefore, this same rule would apply 

to Section 404 and these categories could not be exempted by 

the Cor ps of Engineers' regulations. The present broad 

de finition.of "navigable waters" would apply to Section 404 

unless altered by legislation. *

With a view toward efficiency, S.2710 authorizes the 

Corps to delegate control and managem ent of the subject 

areas to those states which can meet established federal 

guidelines. Current state programs should not be trampled 

under the onslaught of an ever broadening federal bureaucracy. 

Adequate protection can be accomplished through the utilization 

of existing procedures which, having been formulated at a 

regional level, are more likely to reflect local needs as 

well as ecosystem requirements. This results in protective 

legislation which is economically, environmentally and 

politically sound.

In those situations where the respective states have 

undertaken the expense and effort of implementing comprehensive programs attuned to satisfy local needs, these efforts 

must be recognized at the Federal level. Otherwise, the 

concept of Jeffersonian democracy is lost. Delegating 

authority to issue permits to the states, as proposed, would 

recognize state competency and allow the states to meet the 

particular needs of their constituents.

10
15

In actuality, S.2710 represents the original intent of 

Congress in passing Section 404. As we have noted, the legislative 

history of the Act indicates that Congress never intended to 

create a federal wetlands or land use program. The intention 

was simply to restrict the unconfined dumping of dredged

spoil. — / \

The preamble of the P.L. 92-500 (the Federal W ater Pollution 

Con tro l Act Am endments of 1972), 101b, states the policy 

of the Act. It states:

It is the policy of the Congress to recognize 

preserve, and prote ct the pr imary responsibilities 

and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and 

eliminate pollution, to plan the development and 

use (including restoration, preservation, and 

enhancement) of land and water resources, and to

consult with the Administrator in the exercise of

his authority under this Act. It is further the 

policy of the Congress to support and aid research 

relating to the prevention, reduction, and 

elimination of pollution, and to provide Federal

technical services and financial aid to State and

interstate agencies and municipalities in conn ection with the prevention, reduction, and 

elimination of pollution.

We ask nothing m ore now but that Congres s carry out that 

policy. The passage of the Wright proposal will recognize 

the initiatives that the States have already taken to protect 

their vital natural resources, and hopefully will have the 

effect of influencing and encouraging future State efforts.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
16

Footnotes:

1. NRDC v. Train, 510 S.2d 692 (1975).

2. 373 F.Supp. 665 (1974) .

3. State and Local Wetland Regulatio ns, 58 V.L. Rev. 876 

(1972), and Shively v. Bo wl by , 152 U . S . 1 (1894).

4. Marks v. Wh itney (California); Just v. Marionette

County (Wisconsin); and Potomac Sand & Gravel v. Mandel

(Maryland).

5. The following states have enacted laws regulating tidal 

and/or non-tidal wetland areas in addition to the regulations 

of waterways per se :

Connecticut - GS 22a 1-45

Delaware-7 Del. Code §§6601-6620 (1974 Rev.)

Georgia-45 Ga. Code' 136-147 (1972)

Louisiana-12 LRS 51-1361-1365 (1972 pocket)

Maine-38 MRSA 471-478 (Supp.1976)

Maryland - Md.Ann .Code, Nat.Res.Art. 9-101 et se q. (Supp.1976) 

Massachuse tts-130 Mass.Ann.L. 105 (Supp.1976); 131 Mass.

Ann .L . 40, 40A (Supp.1976)

Michigan-1955 Acts Ch.247 (Great Lakes Submerged Lands)

1972 Acts Ch. 346 (Inland Lakes), wetlands legis. 

pending

Minnesota-105 MS .37-47.5 (1974)

New Hampshire- RSA 483A:1 et se q. (Supp.1975); RSA 

4:40a-d (1570 Rep.VolTT; RSA 4:40e (Supp.1975)

New York-CLS §§24-0101 et se q. (Supp.1975); CLS §§25-0101 

et seq. (1973)

North Carolina-11 3 GSNC 229 (Supp.1975); 113a GSNC 

1 s e q - 1975 Repl., (Supp.1975) Env. Policy

Virginia - Va.Code Ann. §§62.1-13.1-13.20 (Supp.1976) 

Washington - RCW 90.58.030 et se q. (1975)

Wisconsin - WS §59.97,62.23 STATS (1973)

6. Private wetlands projects are placed in three categories:

1. Notification or permit by a State agency is*not 

required for certain uses such as piers, boat 

houses, pilings, and tidal gates for agricultural 

drainage ditches;

2. Notification to the State Department of Natural 

Resources is required for alterations or mod ifications customary and normal to conserve soil, 

vegetation, water, and fish and wildlife; and,

3. A wetlands permit is required for all other 

activities in wetlands involving dredging and 

filling. Application for such permit is made 

to the Departm ent of Natural Resources. Review 

and public hearing procedures comparable to 

those for State wetlands applications are followed 

with the Secretary of Natural Resources determining 

whether a permit should be issued, and, if 

approved, the conditions and terms of the permit.

13
17

Footnotes: (continued)

7. These permits in n on-tidal waters include:

1. Small ponds — Each pond with a drainage area 

exceeding one square mile, or a surface area 

exceeding 12 acres, or a depth exceeding 15 feet.

2. Waterway obstruct ion — All dams and reservoirs 

with a dr aina ge area exceeding 400 acres.

3. Waterway construction — Any change the c ou rs e, 

current or cross-section of a non-tidal stream, 

with a drainage area exceeding 400 acres.

4. Temporary waterway crossings — Any placement of 

a pipe, cu lv er t, bridge or ford across a stream 

to provide access to ad jacent property.

5: Maintena nce and repair — An y in-channel maintenance

or channel improvement to remove sediment deposits 

or control erosion.

8. Coastal Wetlands of V ir gi ni a, Interim Repoft No. 3, 

Spe cia l•Report No. 46 pp 35-36. Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science, Gloucester Point, Va. 23062 (Feb. 1974)

9. Massa chusetts Estuarine Research and Protection Progra ms ,

pp 11-12, Dept. of N atural Resources, The C ommonwea lth of

Mass achusetts (March 1970) .

10. Interim Summar y Report on Threshold Tests of State 

Regulatory Programs, ICWP/SSAC Taskforce on Navigable Waters 

(June 30, 1976).

11. Water Information News Serv ic e, Vol. 1, No. 5 (June 14, 

1976); The Institute of Rational Design, Wash., D.C. 20005.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. See e.g., Maryland, Mass achusetts and Connect icut and, 

to some extent, Delaware.

16. Although the reference to the "historical" test is 

omitted, obviously any stream, whether or not it was ever 

navigable, which could be rendered navigable by "reasonable 

improvement", is subject to the Wright proposal.

17. See L egislative History of the FWPCA A mend ments of 1972, 

Vol. 1, p. 177, 236, 1392.

14
18

AMESO COULTER

H C M T *R » LOUIS N. PHIPPS. JR.

STATE OF VLAND d s p u t v s k c r c t a r v

D E P A R T M E N T O F N A T U R A L RESO URCES

TA»ES STATE OFFICE DUILOiNG

ANNa PQl IS 2U 0I

Ju n e 4, 1975

C h ie f o f E n g in e e r s

Array C o rp s o f E n g in e e r s

F o r r e s t a l B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 31 4 •-

A t t n : DAEN-CWO-N

Re: P ro p o se d R e g u la t io n s f o r D is p o s a l o f D re d ge o r F i l l

M a t e r i a l in N a v ig a b le W a te rs o r O ce an W a te rs 

D ear S i r :

Th e S t a t e o f M a ry la n d t a k e s t h i s o p p o r t u n it y t o re sp o n d to 

th e May 6, 1975 P u b l i c N o t ic e is s u e d by th e Army C o rp s o f E n g in ­

e e r s c o n c e r n in g i t s p ro p o se d r e g u l a t i o n s f o r th e is s u a n c e o f 

p e r m its f o r c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s on n a v ig a b le w a t e r s o f th e U n it e d 

S t a t e s .

The a d v ic e s an d comments c o n t a in e d h e r e w it h h av e b een c o ­

o r d in a t e d w it h an d r e p r e s e n t th e v ie w s o f th e v a r io u s i n t e r e s t e d 

S t a t e a g e n c ie s , s p e c i f i c a l l y th e M a ry la n d D ep art m en t o f N a t u r a l 

R e s o u r c e s , th e M a ry la n d D ep a rt m en t o f S t a t e P la n n in g , th e M ar yla n d D ep art m en t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , an d th e o f f i c e o f th e A t t o r n e y 

G e n e r a l.

As a p r e lim in a r y m a t t e r , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to co m pr eh en d how* 

th e tw o U .S . D i s t r i c t C o u rt d e c i s i o n s o f N a tu r a l R e s o u rc e s De - 

f e n s e C o u n c il v . C a ll a w a y , in th e D i s t r i c t C o u r tf o r th e D i s t r i c t

_C o lu m b ia , an d th e M id d le D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a d e c i s i o n , U .S . v . 

H o lla n d , ca n bo s u s t a in e d a s th e l e g a l im p e tu s and b a s i s f o r th e 

a tte m p te d e x p a n sio n o f th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e Army C o rp s o f
19

Chief of Engineers

.IMIC 4, 19 75

S’age T wo.

Engineers under Section 404 of the 1972 Amendm en ts . The Corps 

relies upon those two cases as its basis for the lateral expa nsion of its jurisdiction w hich w oul d include specific areas be ­

yond the mean high water mark. This departure from the traditional "navigational-" water jurisdiction is all the more amazing 

consi dering the fact that the Corps has recently appealed the 

Callaway decision.

It is unne cessary at this stage to point out and argue the 

legal reasons why we believe these recent Discrict Court deter ­

minations may render Section 404 of the 1972 Act unconstitutional 

as violati ve of the Interstate Commerce Clause, for that is a 

matter which is subject to the ultimate decision by the Supreme 

Court. Ey en should the District Court's definition of "navigable 

waters of the United States" be upheld, that fact would not mandate the extension of Army Corps' jurisdiction to every dredge and 

fill activity' for every "natural and artificial " water in the 

Unite d States, incl uding "marshes, swamps, bogs, inland and 

coastal shallows contiguous to those waters regardless of w he ther these areas are regularly or only peri odically inun dated by 

water." It is fallacious to assume that the d eposition of a fill 

material above the m ean high w ater line wo uld eventually find its 

way into the water below the hi'gh wa ter mark especially since the 

purpose of its placeme nt is to keep it separate.

The usage of the ter m "specified disposal sites" is inconsistent with the Corps of Engineers procedures as set out in the 

proposed regulations and the legislative history of this Section. 

Subsection(h)of Section 404 was not intended to create a proce ­

dure which is totally duplicat ive of ongoing State efforts. The 

Corps of Engineers progra m for all four alternatives will mimi c 

the State of Maryland private and State w etla nd programs, the 

State of Maryland floodplain program, and the waterway con str uction program.

Neither the Cal law ay nor Holland decision discuss the legis ­

lative backgr oun d for Secti on- 404. It is obvious, however, that 

this Section was intended to control the unconfined deposition 

of drgdgcd spoil into navigable waters. The conference report 

for the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments emphasizes 

this point '

1- Sec Lccj_isJative History of the Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 19 72 , Volume 1, page 17 7T
20

Chief of Engineers 

June 4, 1975 

Page Three.

"A major difference between the Senate bill and the 

House amendment related to the issue oT dredging. The 

Sena te Committee had reported a bill which treated the 

disposal of dredged spoil like any other pollutant. 

Pursuant to ah amendment accepted on the Senate floor, 

dred ged spoil disposal was made subject to a different 

set of criteria to determine any envir onmental effects. 

The House bill not only establis hed a differ ent set of 

criteria to determine the envir onmental effects of 

dredged spoil disposal but also designated the S ecretary 

of the Army rather than the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as the permit issuing authority. 

The Conference agreement follows those nspects'of the 

House bill w hich related to the Secretary of the A rm y’s 

regulatory authority. However, consistent wi th the 

Sena te provision, the Adm inistrator of the Envi ron men ­

tal Protection Agenc y has three clear respo nsibilities 

and authorities.

First, the Administrat or has both responsibility and 

authority for failure to obtain a Section 404 permit 

or comply with the condition thereon. Section 309 authority is available because discharge of the "pollutant" 

dredge spoil without a permit or in violation of a permit woul d violate Section 301(a).

Second, the Environmental Protection Agency must de ­

termine whether or not a site to be used for the dis ­

posal of dredged spoil is acceptable when judged 

against the criteria esta blished for fresh and ocean 

wate rs similar to that whic h is required under Section 

403.

Third, prior to the issuance of any permit to d i s - * 

pose of spoil, the Admi nistrator must determine that 

the material to be disposed of will not adversely affect municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and 

fishery areas (including spawning and breeding ar ea s) ,

' wil dlife or recreational areas in the specific site. 

-Sho ul d the Administrator so determine, no permit may

issue."
21

C h ie f o f E n g in e e r s 

.Jun e 4, 19 75 

Page P o u r.

In th e H ouse c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e C o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t , R e p re ­

s e n t a t i v e O 'N e i l l a l s o sp o k e i n te rm s o f a d re d g e d s p o i l d i s p o s a l 

s i t e :2 3

"'I n m ak in g a - d e t e r m i n a t i o n to d en y a p e r m it u n d e r s u b ­

s e c t i o n 4 0 4 ( b ) , th e S e c r e t a r y i s r e q u i r e d to e v a l u a t e 

th e e f f e c t o f su c h d e n i a l on th e e co n o m ic im p a c t on 

n a v i g a t i o n and a n c h o r a g e . T h is f i n d i n g w i l l o v e r r i d e 

th e d i s c h a r g e c r i t e r i a o r g u i d e l i n e s w h e re t h e r e i s no 

e c o n o m ic a lly f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e a v a i l a b l e t o th e 

s p e c i f i e d d i s p o s a l s i t e . A ls o , t h e p r o v i s i o n f o r r e ­

m oval o f i n - p l a c e t o x i c p o l l u t a n t s t o s e c t i o n 115 i s 

n o t l i m i t e d to G r e a t L ak e s H a rb o rs b u t i s i n te n d e d to 

a p tj ly to a l l c r i t i c a l p o r t an d h a r b o r a r e a s . '"

Army

S e n a to r M u sk ie in th e S e n a te 

C o rp s o f E n g in e e r s p r o j e c t s

d e b a te r e f e r r e d s p e c i f i c a l l y 

f o r d r e d g e d d i s p o s a l : 2

t o

" 'I. do n o t know o f an y l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t a p p ly t o th e 

S e c r e t a r y o f th e Army in p u t t i n g t h o s e p r o j e c t s t o g e t ­

h e r . I re m e m b e r, a s G o v e rn o r o f my S t a t e , t h a t I was 

i n t e r e s t e d in d r e d g in g h a r b o r s , and I d id n o t f i n d th e 

C o rp s o f E n g in e e r s th e f a s t e s t a g e n c y on e a r t h i n m e e tin g r e g u i rem ent. s . I f tim e l i m i t a t i o n s a r e g o in g to be 

a p p l i e d , l e t th em a l s o b e a p p li e d to th e C o rp s o f 

E n g i n e e r s . ' "

M ost o f th e c o n f e r e e s d id n o t i n t e n d to c r e a t e an e n t i r e l y 

new b u r e a u c r a c y , b u t f o c u s e d upon d e t e r m i n a ti o n o f th e u n c o n f in e d 

dum pin g o f d re d g e s p o i l .

"T he C o n f e r e e s w e re u n iq u e ly a w a re o f th e p r o c e s s by 

w h ic h th e d r e d g e and f i l l p e r m its a r e p r e s e n t l y h a n ­

d le d and d id n o t w is h t o c r e a t e a b u rd en so m e b u r e a u ­

c r a c y in l i g h t o f th e f a c t t h a t a s y s te m to i s s u e 

p e r m its a l r e a d y e x i s t e d . At th e sa m e tim e , th e Comm i t t e e d id n o t b e l i e v e t h e r e c o u ld be an y j u s t i f i c a ­

t i o n f o r p e r m i t t i n g th e S e c r e t a r y o f th e Army t o ma ke 

v d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s to th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l i m p l i c a t i o n s

2 . .•i.Mllti? < Vol um e 1 , p a g e 2 36

3 . S u p r a , Volum e I I , p a g e 13 92
22

C h ie f o f E n g in e e r s 

Ju n o 'I , 19 75 

Pag o F iv e .

o f c i t h e r th e s i t e to be s e l e c t e d o r th e s p e c i f i c s p o i l

J ? Ve ? 2 1 S ^

S C d ° f i n ° S i t C - 

T h u s ' L h c C o n f e r e e s a g r e e d 

t h a t th e A cnuni 5 1 r a t o r o f th e E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o t e c t i o n 

A gen cy s h o u ld h av e th e v e to o v e r th e s e l e c t i o n o f th e 

s i t e f o r d re d g e d s p o i l d i s p o s a l and o v e r any s p e c i f i c 

s p o i l to be d is p o s e d o f in an y s e l e c t e d s i t e .

The d e c i s i o n i s n o t d u p l i c a t i v e o r cum bers om e b e ­

c a u s e th e p e r m it a p p l i c a t i o n t r a n s m i t t e d to th e Adm in ­

i s t r a t o r f o r re v ie w w i l l s e t f o r t h th e s i t e to be u se d 

an d th e c o n te n t o f th e m a t t e r . o f th e s p o i l t o be d i s ­

p o s e d . The C o n f e r e e s e x p e c t th e A d m i n is tr a t o r to be 

e x p e d i t i o u s in h i s d e te r m i n a ti o n a s to w h e th e r a s i t e 

i s a c c e p t a b le o r i f s p e c i f i c s p o i l m a t e r i a l can be d i s ­

p o se d o f a t s u c h s i t e .

At th e sa m e tim e , t h e C o m m it te e e x p e c ts th e Adm in ­

i s t r a t o r and th e S e c r e t a r y t o move e x p e d i t i o u s l y to 

end th e p r o c e s s o f dum pin g d re d g e d s p o i l in w a t e r — 

t o l i m i t to th e g r e a t e s t e x t e n t p o s s i b l e th e d i s p o s a l 

o f d re d g e d s p o i l i n th e n a v ig a b le i n la n d w a t e r s o f 

th e U n it e d S t a t e s i n c l u d i n g th e G r e a t L a l ; e s - - t o id e n ­

t i f y la n d - b a s e d s i t e s f o r th e d i s p o s a l o f d re d g e d 

s p o i l a n d , w h ere la n d r b a s e d d i s p o s a l i s n o t f e a s i b l e , 

t o e s t a b l i s h d ik e d a r e a s f o r su c h d i s p o s a l .

A ll o f t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e a v a i l a b l e . The o n ly 

j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r c o n ti n u i n g to u t i l i z e o p e n w a te r 

d i s p o s a l i s th e c o s t o f a l t e r n a t i v e s . The C o n f e r e e s 

b e l i e v e t h a t th e e c o n o m ic a rg u m e n t a lo n e i s n o t s u f ­

f i c i e n t to o v e r r i d e th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l r e q u ir e m e n ts o f 

f r e s h w a te r la k e s an d s t r e a m s . T h e r e f o r e , e a r l y 

a c t i o n s h o u ld be ta k e n by th e A d m i n is tr a t o r to d e ­

v e lo p a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s an d a l t e r n a t i v e m eth o d s o f 

s p o i l d i s p o s a l . " 4

.

to 

o f 

o f

The D e p a rtm e n t o f 

th e B oard o f P u b lic 

a p e r m it to c o n d u c t 

P u b l i c W orks i s th e

N a t u i a l R e so u rc e s now m ak es re c o m m e n d a ti o n s 

W or ks r e l a t i v e to th e i s s u a n c e o r d e n ia l 

an a c t i v i t y on S t a t e w e t la n d s . Th e B oard 

r i n a l a u t h o r i t y f o r th e is s u a n c e o r d e n ia l

4 . S u p i a , Vo lume 1 , p a g e 17 7
23

C h ie f o f E n g in e e r s 

.Jun e -J, 19 75 

Pag e S ix .

o f ti re p e r m it s i n c e by C o n s t i t u t i o n a l f i a t , i t c o n t r o l s th e d i s ­

p o s i t i o n o f a l l S t a t e p r o p e r t y , and th e la n d bc lo v.’ mean h ig h 

w a te r m ar k b e lo n g s t o th e S t a t e in a p r o p r i e t a r y s e n s e a s w e ll 

a s in a t r u s t e e c a p a c i t y f o r th e c i t i z e n s o f M a ry la n d .

A d d i t i o n a l l y , th e D e p a rtm e n t r e g u l a t e s a c t i v i t i e s on w h a t a r e 

dee m ed t o be p r i v a t e w e t la n d s . T h e se a r e a r e a s a b o v e mean h ig h 

w a te r m ar k w h ic h a r c r e g u l a r l y o r p e r i o d i c a l l y i n u n d a t e d . T h o se 

a r e a s s u s t a i n a q u a t i c v e g e t a t i o n ; h o w e v e r, r e g u l a r o r p e r i o d i c 

in u n d a t i o n r e l a t e s o n ly to t h a t i n u n d a t i o n c a u s e d by a s t r o n o m i c a l 

c o n d i t i o n s . M a ry la n d r e f e r s to no s p e c i f i c t i d a l p l a i n , b u t c o n ­

t r a r y t o t h e r a t h e r v a g u e a q u a t i c v e g e t a t i o n l i n e and s a l t w a te r 

v e g e t a t i o n l i n e i n t o th e p ro p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n , we r e g u l a t e t h o s e 

a r e a s p e r i o d i c a l l y in u n d a te d by n o n - m c te o r o lo n ic a l t i d e s . B v f a c t o r i n g o u t m e t e o r o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , we r e g u l a t e v i a b l e a q u a ­

t i c m ars h a r e a s .

In o r d e r to a c c o m p lis h th e p r o p e r r e g u l a t i o n o f m ars h a r e a s , 

th e Army C o rp s o f E n g in e e r s w o u ld h a v e t o sp e n d m i l l i o n s o f d o l ­

l a r s to p r o p e r l y d e l i n e a t e and p r o v id e p r o p e r n o t i c e to th e p r o ­

p e l t y o w n e rs d e s c r i b i n g th e n a t u r e o f t h e i r la n d w h ic h i s to be 

r e g u l a t e d . W it h o u t p r o p e r d e l i n e a t i o n , e n f o rc e m e n t w o u ld b e im ­

p o s s i b l e .

In M a ry la n d we h av e g one t o e x t r a o r d i n a r y e f f o r t and e x p e n s e 

to h o p e f u ll y p e r f e c t a s y s te m w h ic h w o u ld i d e n t i f y th o s e a r e a s 

n e c e s s a r y to be r e g u l a t e d and p r e s e r v e d , p r o v i d in g n o t i c e t o th e 

l o c a l c o m m u n it ie s and p r o p e r t y o w n e rs o f o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , o u r 

g u i d e l i n e s and r e g u l a t i o n s w h ic h h av e e v o lv e d th r o u g h th e p ro g ra m .

Lo an d b e h o ld , now th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t i s e n t e r i n g th e 

s c e n e and th r o u g h th e s t r o k e s o f th e j u d g e 's p en s u p e r im p o s e s i t s 

w i l l on an e x i s t i n g S t a t e p r e r o g a t i v e w h ic h w i l l t o t a l l y d u p l i ­

c a t e an e f f e c t i v e s y s te m . We do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t 33 1JSC S e c ti o n 

1344 ( S e c tio n 404) was i n te n d e d to a c c o m p lis h t h a t r e s u l t . ,

Of th e f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d , we f i n d th e 

g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s o f A l t e r n a t i v e I I Ic a s L o b j e c t i o n a b l e . Our 

p r i n c i p a l re a s o n f o r p r e f e r r i n g A l t e r n a t i v e I I i s th e s i g n i f i c a n t 

o v e r la p p in g j u r i s d i c t i o n and d u p l i c a t i o n o f r e g u l a t o r y p ro g ra m s 

t h a t w o u ld e x i s t at th e fe d e ra l* , s t a t e and lo c a l l e v e l s i f A l t e r ­

n a t i v e s I o r l i t a r e a d o p te d . E x te n d e d r e v ie w p e r io d s and r e ­

s u l t a n t f r u s t r a t i o n o f a p p l i c a n t s w o u ld r e s u l t fr om th e o v e r l a p ­

p in g j u r i s d i c t i o n .
24

C h ie f o f E n g in e e r s 

J lino '1, 19 75 

Pag e S e v e n .

We p r e f e r A l t e r n a t i v e I I o v e r A l t e r n a t i v e IV b e c a u s e A l t e r ­

n a t i v e IT p r o v id e s f o r c o n c u r r e n t re v ie w by f e d e r a l and s t a t e 

r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c ie s . Th e p r o c e d u r e i d e n t i f i e d u n d e r A l t e r n a t i v e 

IV , w h e reb y f e d e r a l re v ie w d o e s n o t co mm ence u n t i l r e c e i p t o f a 

S t a t e d e c i s i o n , w o u l’d r e s u l t in a d d i t i o n a l d e l a y s . R e g a r d le s s 

o f w h ic h j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n i s a d o p te d , th e C o rp s o f Eng i n e e r s s h o u ld a d o p t p r o c e d u r a l r e g u l a t i o n s w h ic h f a c i l i t a t e 

c o o r d i n a t e d , c o n c u r r e n t re v ie w o f a p p l i c a t i o n s whe n s t a t e s a d ­

m i n i s t e r r e g u l a t o r y p ro g ra m s w ith o v e r la p p in g j u r i s d i c t i o n .

U nder e a c h a l t e r n a t i v e we w o u ld u rg e th e i m p o s itio n o f a o n e - 

y e a r ti m e c o n s t r a i n t fr om d a te o f a p p l i c a t i o n Fo r Army C o rp s o f 

E n g in e e r s f i n a l a c t i o n ; i f - A l t e r n a t i v e I I i s c h o s e n , we w ould 

s u g g e s t t h a t f i n a l C o rp s a c t i o n be a c c o m p lis h e d w i t h in s i x m onth s 

o f S t a t e c e r t i f i c a t i o n s .

We s u g g e s t d e f i n i t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s on f e d e r a l r e g u l a t o r y 

j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r th e a l t e r n a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s : (1 ) l i m i t f e d e r a l 

j u r i s d i c t i o n to s tr e a m s o r w a te r b o d ie s w ith a minim um c o n t r i b u ­

t i n g d r a in a g e a r e a ; f o r e x a m p le , l e s s th a n 100 s q u a r e m il e s ; and 

(2 ) e x c lu d e fr om f e d e r a l, j u r i s d i c t i o n d re d g e d o r f i l l m a t e r i a l 

l e s s th a n 1 ,0 0 0 c u b ic y a r d s . We f e e l t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s o f f e d ­

e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l n o t c o m p ro m is e b a s i c f e d e r a l i n t e r e s t s and 

w i l l e l i m i n a t e f e d e r a l " re d t a p e " .

A num ber o f te rm s r e q u i r e f u r t h e r d e f i n i t i o n . The d e f i n i ­

t i o n o f " o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m ar k" s h o u ld be d e f in e d by f lo o d 

f r e q u e n c y su c h a s th e 10 0 y e a r f l o o d p l a i n . The p h r a s e " o v e r ­

r i d i n g n a t i o n a l f a c t o r s o f th e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " r e q u i r e s c l a r i ­

f i c a t i o n . [S ee A l t e r n a t i v e IV , S e c ti o n ( f ) ( i i ) ( b ) ) . T h e re i s 

no i n d i c a t i o n o f w h a t s p e c i f i e f a c t o r s w o u ld o v e r r i d e a f a v o r ­

a b le s t a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The p ro p o s e d R e g u la tio n s t a t e s t h a t 

"a p e r m it w i l l g e n e r a ll y ^ be i s s u e d f o llo w in g th e r e c e i p t o f a 

f a v o r a b l e s t a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n " . H ow ev er, t h e r e a r e no i n d i c a ­

t i o n s o f th e b a s i s f o r e x c e p ti o n to th e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .

In th e C o r p s ' p ro p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n , 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( c ) d e f in e s 

th e a q u a t i c v e g e t a t i o n l i n e a s th e l i n e b ey o n d w h ic h a q u a t i c 

p l a n t s d e p e n d e n t upon p e r i o d i c i n u n d a t i o n f o r g ro w th do n o t 

t h r i v e . T h is d e f i n i t i o n w o u ld , t h e r e f o r e , i n c lu d e th o s e u p la n d 

a r e a s ..w hi ch may , on o c c a s i o n , b e th e r e c i p i e n t s o f a l i q u i d 

s p r a y . T he te rm " t h r i v e " a p p e a r s to be s u b j e c t i v e , l o r w hat one 

b i o l o g i s t w ould b e l i e v e to be s u f f i c i e n t to be dee m ed to t h r i v e , 

may n o t be s u f f i c i e n t f o r a n o th e r b i o l o g i s t .

The u sa g e o f th e te rm " s a l t w a te r v e g e t a t i o n l i n e " w h ic h 

i s d e f in e d in th e d e f i n i t i o n a l S e c ti o n ( d ) ( 2 ) (c ) t o me an th e l i n e 

b ey o n d w h ic h p l a n t s s u b s i s t d e p e n d e n t on s a l i n i t y c o n d i t i o n s f o r
25

C h ie f o f E n g in e e r s 

•Jun o I, 19 75 

Page E i g h t .

v ig o r o u s g ro w th f o r s u r v i v a l do n o t t h r i v e . What i s " v ig o r o u s 

y io w ti i a g a in i s a t o t a l l y s u b j e c t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n . T he g e n ­

e r a l c o m p la in t w h ic h p e r t a i n s to b o th o f t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s 

a ssu m e s t h a t t h e r e i s , i n f a c t , a l i n e and t h i s j u s t i s n o t th e 

c a s e .

In c l o s i n g we w is h t o r e a f f i r m o u r g e n e r a l o b j e c t i o n to th e 

p ro p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n s , i . e . , t h a t th e f e d e r a l al.Tem pt to u s u r p 

wh al. h a s b e e n a l e g i t i m a t e o n g o in g S t a t e p r e r o g a t i v e w i l l n o t 

e n h a n c e th e e n v ir o n m e n t, b u t w i l l o n ly r e s u l t in a d d e d b u r e a u ­

c r a t i c m an e u v cri. n g s . Vie im p lo r e t h e f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s t o a c k ­

n o w le d g e e x i s t i n g S t a t e p ro g ra m s w h e re th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 

m a c h in e ry t o p r o t e c t a r e a s b ey o n d th e t r a d i t i o n a l C o r p s ' j u r i s ­

d i c t i o n a r c a lr e a d y in e x i s t e n c e .

I n d e e d , u n d e r I lie p r e s e n t R iv e r s and H a rb o rs A ct p r a c t i c e s 

t h e r e i s a l i m i t e d o v e r l a p w h ic h w o u ld be c o r r e c t e d by u t i l i z i n g 

j o i n t h e a r i n g s an d by d e l e g a t i n g d e c i s i o n m ak in u to th e S t a t e 

l e v e l . I n s t e a d o f a d d in g a n o th e r l a y e r o f b u r e a u c r a c y , p e r h a p s 

f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s and s t a t e s can w ork t o g e t h e r to s i m p l i f y p r o ­

c e d u re !. c a r r y i n g o u t th e i n t e n t o f b o th f e d e r a l and s t a t e la w to 

p r o t e c t th e e n v ir o n m e n t w h ile g i v in g a d e q u a te c o n s i d e r a t i o n to 

th e c i t i z e n s t h a t a r e b e in g s e r v e d .

I w is h to n o te a l s o t h a t A tto r n e y G e n e ra l B u rc h li as a u t h o r ­

iz e d me to a n n o u n ce t h a t he s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n c u r s w ith o u r co mm en ts h e r e i n .

S i n c e r e l y ,

JB C/W KR/jh h

c c : G o v e rn o r M an del

A tto r n e y G e n e r a l B urc h 

S e n a to r M a th ia s 

S e n a to r B e a ll 

Co ng re ssm a n Ba um an 

C o n g re ssm an B yro n 

C o n g re ssm an Gu dc

Jam es B. C o u l te r 

S e c r e t a r y

C ongre ss w om an B o lt 

C o n g re ssm an bo ng 

C o n g re ssm an M itc h e ll 

C o n g re ssm an S a rb a n e s 

C ongre ss w om an S p e ll m a n
26

Senator Baker. Before we begin, Congressman Cleveland asked 

me to include his statemen t in the record a t the appropriate place. I 

ask unanimous consent that it be included.

Senator Randolph. Without objection, it will be carried in the 

appropriate place in the record.

[The statement follows:]

C o n g r ess o f t h e U n it e d Sta t e s,

H o u se o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s,

Washington, D.C., July SI, 1976.

Hon . H ow ar d H. B a k e r, Jr.,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r H o w a rd: I und erstand th at your Committee on Public Works has 

scheduled hearings for July 27 and 28 on w’ate r pollution control amen dments 

addressing the controversy over dredge and fill regulation under section 404 of 

1.1 .92-50 0.

In this connection, I respectfully commend to your consideratio n an am endm ent 

(f-autho red by Bill Harsha and myself to meet the dual objectives of undiminifled wetlands protection, and prevention of undue and excessively burdensome 

regulation of farming, forestry and other practices.

It would achieve these objectives by establishing statutory exemptions for 

routine farming and forestry practices, plus sta tutory autho rity for issuance of 

general permits for other activities whose scope or natur e would involve more 

Etb flantial environmental impact.

Thus, it would avoid the dangers of overreaction inherent in severe c urtailm ent 

of the Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction under a separate, narrow definition of 

navigable waters exclusively for the purposes of section 404.

Concededly, our provision was prevented from coming to a vote by adoption 

of the Wright amendment to H.R. 9560 on Jun e 3. However, if you have your 

staff review the floor debate, you will find it significant in two respects: (1) The 

problems fully addressed by the Cleveland-Harsha amendmen t were cited as 

arguments for the Wright amendmen t; (2) the Cleveland-Harsha amendment, 

availab le for scrutiny for a full week before House floor action, was not challenged 

by the floor managers of the Wright amendment, who had no option bu t to talk 

aro un d it in terms of the Corp s’ regulations.

It is my hope th at you will share my conviction th at Cleveland-Harsha repreen ts a responsible compromise between existing law and the Wright amen dment.

Sincerely,

J am es C. C lev ela n d,

Member of Congress.
STATCIEN T OP JA 'tE S C . CLEVELAND, M .C .

COMIITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS - U.S . SENATE 

JULY 27, 197o

Mr. Chairma n and Members o f th e Con mitt ee , as p rin c ip a l co -a ut hor o f an 

amendment to re so lv e th e c o n flic t ove r wet la nd s p ro te cti o n an d th e pr op er 

ex erc is e o f Fed er al re g u la to ry pow er, I welcome th is o p p o rt u n it y to sh ar e my 

view s w ith you.

T hi s is su e re p re sen ts a c la s s ic chall enge. How can we p ro te c t our we tla nds w ithout su bje cti n g pe rh ap s m il li o n s o f Americ ans to excessi v e o r bu rd en - 

so re in tr u s io n o f gov ern ment in to th e ir la w fu l and le g it im a te p u rs u it s?

The sta k es a re hig h. The is su e co nc er ns no le s s th an th e fu tu re o f a 

v i t a l and ir re p la c e a b le en vi ro nm en tal re so urc e, pe rh ap s th re e —fo urt hs o f th e 

wet la nd s in tl ii s co untr y.

Thi s i s a p r io r ity o b je c ti v e and one we a l l sh are , b u t th a t fa c t in no way 

di m in is he s th e d if f ic u lty o f dev is in g s u it a b le means. Th ese mu st re p re se n t a 

bal an ce d, wor ka bl e, p ra c tic a l and cor.mon -sense approach th a t ta k e s in to ac co un t 

tir e im pact on o th e r in te r e s ts . And th ey mu st ac hi ev e a c c e p ta b il ity and c re d ib i l i t y to su s ta in su pp or t fo r our en vi ro nm en tal p ro te cti o n e f f o r ts .

At th e b e s t o f tim es t h is would be a d i f f ic u lt ta sk . And th es e a re not th e

b e st of tin e s . Not w ith th e cli m at e o f m isin fo rm at io n and e ro ti o n th a t ha s bee n 

ge ner at ed ov er t h is and o th e r are as o f Fed er al re g u la to ry a c tiv ity . I un de rst and i t . I sympa thize w it h i t . And gi ve n th e tr ack re cord o f th e Fed er al 

bu re au cr ac y I ’ve been ar m -w re st ling with fo r n earl y 14 y e a rs , to some ex te n t I • 

sh are i t .

No c itiz e n in h is r ig h t mind ca n be blam ed fo r co nc er n ’■•hen to ld th a t th e 

Un ite d S ta te s Army Cor ps o f Eng in ee rs is go ing to occ upy h is ba ck 40, tr e a tin g
28

eart h turne d ove r b y h is pl ou gh as a dredg e de posit, re gu la ti ng a ny st re am he 

can' t jump across, requiring a permit t o put in a st ock pon d.

No Mem be r of Congress — least o f a ll t his on e — is a bo ut t o let that 

happen.

No w y ou an d I k no w thi s is a myth. Th is wa s n ev er i nt en de d b y t he Con ­

gre ss, it was n ev er intended b y tlie Ad ministra ti on and it w as ne ve r intended by 

the e nvironmental groups p re ss in g for the b ro adest in te rp re ta ti on of s ection 404 

of P ublic L aw 92-500. But look how far tha t m yt h lias b ro ug ht us. It h as 

br ou gh t u s to the poin t wh er e leg isl ation is b efore u s to c ho p ba ck Fe deral 

auth or it y a nd po ssib ly lea ve ex te nsive a rea s o f w etlands at th e m er cy of th e 

develo per s. Le gislation is be fo re us whi ch co ul d con ce iv ab ly preve nt Fed eral 

regulation of ac tivities crea ti ng a he al th liazard for s ou rc es o f the pu blic's 

dr in ki ng water.

Thos e m yt hs were slow to grew, in terms of tr an slating ini tial pro paganda 

ag ai ns t a Feder al c our t d ec is io n into l egi slative proposa ls. They'l l be ev en 

slower in dying.

But our bas ic res ponsibility is to dea l n ot wit h m yt hs bu t wit h facts, 

devi si ng a reasonable co mp ro mi se a nd t hen exerci sin g o ur res po ns ib il it y for 

political leader sh ip by pr ov id in g the p ublic assur anc es th at w e' ve don e the j ob 

an d protected t heir interests.

In the pr oce ss, w e mu st as su re that r egu lat ion do es n ot g o too far. But

v.e mu st al so ma ke s ure we do n' t c ut ba ck too far.
29

On this basis, I authored, with the support of William H. Harsha,

Hanking Iiinority Member of your counterpart Committee in the House, an amendment to meet the legitimate concerns raised with respect to fa mi ng , forestry 

and other interests facing at least the threat if not the realit y of overregulation, excessive or burdensome regulation.

First, it would meet head-on many of the concerns raised by exempting by 

statute a number of routine, normal farming and forestry practices from any 

regulation whatsoever. Significantly, it picked up certain safeguards built 

into the Corps' regulations specifically and expressly to put to rest the concerns of tj 

agricultural community. But we didn't stop there. We added to the enumerated 

statutory exemptions the construction and maintenance of farm and stock ponds 

and irrigation ditches. We also exempted the maintenance, althou gh not new 

construction or extension, of irrigation ditches. The truth of the matter is 

that these statutory exemptions in themselves would go far toward meeting the 

concerns of farming and forestry interests. By virtue of being built into 

statutory law, they would be intnune from court challenge or administrative reversal. So much for tire spectre of the Feds in the farm yard.

Our amendment recognized too that other activities — in addition to 

those exempted flat-out by statute — should not be subjected to the burdenseme requirement of individual permits issued by the Corps. Accordingly, we 

provide statutory authority for issuance of general permits to provide blanket 

coverage for activities constituting minimal environmental imnact. We thus 

met the problem cited by the Majority of the House Committee, in its discussion 

ca' t e Breaux a a j h b a i t , to th e e ffe c t th at ge ne ra l n e ir its naw prov ided by re dilation might not withs tan d co ur t challeng e,
30

At this juncture, X doubt whether anyone can identify with precision 

the reach of the Corps’ regulatory jurisdiction conterplated by the regulations, 

particularly when Phase III goes into effect. But I submit that the ClevelandHarsha approach counters this uncertainty by exempting — before the fact — 

a broad range of activities which are known, normal and routine. Plus which, 

the device of the general permit will have increasing applicability to activities 

of minimal environmental impact as Phase III goes into effect.

These benefits are not limited to activities covered either by statutory 

exemptions or general permits. While reducing the scope of individual permit 

activity, we would free the Corps from expense and divers ion of inanpcwer so 

that resources could be devoted to processing of i n d i v i d u a l permits for more 

environmentally significant practices and reducing the delays to the individual 

applicant.

So what happened to our amendment?

It was published in the Record and highlighted by letter to all House 

Members a full week before the matter came to the floor for debate and action. 

Thus it was made public and available for scrutiny and challenge. It was 

supported by all major environmental organizations and the V/hite House, the 

latter after exhaustive review of the options.

During debate, floor opposition was virtually negligible. Tb the distinct 

credit of my friend Jim Wright and Conmittee colleagues supporting his substitute, they did not denigrate our amendment but instead foc used on the court 

decision in question and the Corp s’ regulations. Indeed, in the Wi ght amendment 

they picked up the principles of statutory exemptions and general permits — 

titough in excessively broad terms. And the problems specifically addressed by
31

tn e Cl ev elan d-IIa rslia amendment were c ite d in su ppo rt o f th e W righ t amendment.

Acc or di ng ly , tlie fa c t tl ia t th e Wrig ht amendment - - w it h i t s su rf ace 

s im ila ritie s to Cleve land -IIa rsha and prom oti on as a remedy to th e same prob lem s 

— was ad op ted as a s u b s titu te pre se nte d f i r s t in no way d is c re d its ou r amendment.

Today as on th e da y i t was o ffe re d , i t rep re sen ts a re sp o n sib le and 

re as onab le com promise, av oi di ng th e p i t f a l l s o f o v e r-r e a c ti o n to a prob lem .

It dae3 not rotbf ina the Jafi n it im of navigable wa ter. Spe cifica lly , it thus 

re je cts the approach of curbing the ju risd ic tion of the Corps and crea tin g an incon 

sis ten cy .of sta tutory scope with in the to ta l framework o f P.L. 92-500. And it 

does not rely for it s appeal on any ill us ory notions with resp ec t to State capab il it y to assume resp on sibi lit y for the program.

J u s t one fin a l p o in t on S ta te d ele g ati o n . As a m att er o f p r a c tic a lity 

as w el l as pl iilo so ph y, I am p ers onall y carm it te d to th e p r in c ip le o f en co ur ag ­

in g and enAhl i ng th e s ta te s to a s s e rt th e maximum a u th o rit y an d re s p o n s ib ili ty 

o f which th ey a re ca pab le in th e achievem ent of p u b li c p o li c y o b je c ti v e s .

As Members o f th is Committee a re w ell aw are, t h a t 's n o t ju s t a lin e I 

came up w ith fo r th is o ccasi on, in th a t I au th ore d th e S ta te C e rtific a tio n 

are ndment to th e T itle II co n str u cti o n g ra n ts pro gra m. Tha t ex per ie nce ha s 

de mon strated as noth in g e ls e co ul d th e f a c t th a t when we g e t in to th e f ie ld 

o f F ed era l- S ta te re la tio n s we can ’t le g is la te by la b e l. In t h i s p a rtic u la r case, 

tl ia t pro vis io n had th e b e n e fit o f ex hau st iv e sc ru ti n y by th e P ubli c Works In ­

v e sti g a ti o n s Su bc om nitte e, and exte nsi ve co n su lt a ti o n w ith th e En vir on mental 

P ro te cti o n Agency and — most im po rtan t — w ith th e w at er p o ll u ti o n c o n tr o l 

ad m in is tr ato rs in th e v ari o u s s ta te s th em se lv es . D ra ft s and re -d ra fts we re consi d ere d , to th e p o in t where th e fin a l pro duct s p e c ific a lly en um erate d th e
32

fu ncti ons bo be d ele gate d, pr ov id ed fund ing to do th e jo b , an d as su re d 

ju d ic ia l review w ith re sp ect to th e A dm in is tr ato r' s d ete rm in ati on of s ta te 

c a p a b il it y to assume del eg at ed powers and re s p o n s ib ili tie s .

S im il a rl y , I would hav e no obje cti o n to having th is p rin c ip le embodied 

in th e Clev elan d-Ha rslia amendment, w ith th e ca ve at th a t sta n d ard s and c r i t e r i a 

be sp e ll e d out and Fed er al o v ers ig h t as su re d. That , I su bm it , would be a fa r 

cry from th e Wright amendment in i t s cu rr e n t form . Fat her th a n th e Wrig ht 

amendment, a d ele gati on modeled on th e 402 dis char ge pe rm it sy stem would be 

f a r p re fe ra b le .

In ur gi ng yo ur co n sid era ti o n o f th e Cleve la nd -lia r si a ap pr oa ch , I would 

su ggest th a t I hav e some c re d e n ti a ls in ad d it io n to au th o rs h ip of S ta te 

C e rtific a tio n . And I'm not ta lk in g ab ou t membership on th e N at io nal Commission 

on Water Q uali ty , t h a t I am ta lk in g ab ou t i s th e fa c t th a t a s much as any 

Member o f th e House, 1 hav e be en ou tsp ok en in my opposi ti on to th e ex ce ss es of

I

th e Fed er al bu re au cr ac y — bo th th e re ac h o f re g u la ti o n and th e manner of i t s 

ex e rc is e .

I hav e co n sis te n tl y ad vo ca ted eli m in ati on o r re ducti on o f re d ta p e, c itin g 

damage to v i t a l , jo b -c re a ti n g pro gra ms in ho us in g, w at er p o ll u ti o n co n tr o l and 

hig hw ays. P a rti c u la rly w ith re sp e c t to highways and j wear th e sc ars to prov e i t . 

In th e same vein , I hav e bee n le e ry o f Fed er al la nd -u se c o n tro ls , p art iru la r- ly 

any pro vis io n th a t would en co ur ag e s ta te s to o verr id e lo c a l la nd-u se d e te rm in at io ns. Zmd I hav e c o n s is te n tl y su pp or ted th e le g it im a te in te r e s ts o f th a 

fo re s tr y in dust ry in my s ta te , a la rg e p o rt io n o f ’which i s ac co un te d fo r by th e 

Wh ite Itou ntain N at io nal F o re st, by op po sin g il l- c o n s id e re d w il d ern ess pro posa ls .

Aga in st th is backgrou nd , I ur ge you to co nsi der th e ap pr oa ch au th or ed 

by B ill Harsha and m ys el f, and hope you w il l sh ar e th e co n v ic ti o n th a t th is 

ap pr oa ch — tli e p rin c ip le s i t embod ies — goes fa r enough b u t not to o f a r, 

and w ill do th e jo b.
33

Senator Randolph. There are many other members of the Congress 

and those who head certain organizations and groups who wish to file 

statements. They will be welcome as a part of this record. I want to 

provide the opportunity now for others to participate, because we 

want these hearings to be the very fullest from the standpoint of 

receiving information tha t will help us in the determination of these 

matters.

Senator Dole?

STATEM ENT OF HON. BOB DOLE, U.S. SENATOR FROM TH E STATE 

OF KANSAS

Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear and speak briefly 

to the committee in this extraordinary evening session.

I think Senator Muskie has outlined the problem. I think he may 

have his finger on a possible solution.

I would like to set forth my comments as quickly as I can, recognizing tha t you have some very distinguished witnesses and it is late in 

the day.

First of all, I think it has been suggested by Senator Ha rt and 

Senator Muskie and Senator Baker and the chairman, of course, and 

Senator Dornenici, and probably others who appear here, tha t there 

is a continuing concern among farmers and cattlemen and highway 

and housing contractors and others regarding the dredge and fill 

permit program administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.

I speak, I think, for most of those people, and it is a reassuring fact 

that the committee is having the hearings, as set forth by the chairman.

I don’t think the problem is going to go away. I think this is one 

that does need some attention right now.

T was privileged to be a member of this committee when the landmark Water Pollution Control Act amendments legislation was considered in 1971-72. It was, and is, a credit to the environmental 

consciousness of Congress and represented valuable progress tow aid 

protecting the purity of our Nation’s waters.

Bu t it was not a perfect measure; nor were its provisions sacrosanct. 

We have all learned a great deal about the weaknesses and the shortcomings of tha t measure’s watei pollution control programs during 

the past 5 years.

We have witnessed, particularly in rural areas, a tendency of 

regulatory agencies, whether as OSHA or the Corps of Engineers, to 

go beyond what the intention of the Congress was. We take a look a t 

the Federal program under OSHA and look at the safety of beef 

cattle pamphlet costing several thousands of dollars to the farmer, 

which is not only an insult to his intelligence but a wasteful expenditure of funds. This may fall somewhere in tha t area.

Section 404 of the 1972 act gives the Army Corps of Engineers 

primary authority to regulate dredge and fill operations in navigable 

waters of the United States.

Historically, the corps’ duties have related to preventing navigational obstructions and facilitating interstate commerce. The corps’ 

expanded powers under section 404, however, resulted from a broader 

concern for environmental protection.
34

The matter of protection, per se, is no t at issue. Instead, it is the 

mechanism and the extent of jurisdiction reflected in the administration of section 404 tha t is justifiably challenged today.

Until congressional intent is clarified, there will be challenges and 

counterchallenges to the corps’ regulatory authority.

Congressional intent as reflected in the language of section 404 was 

admittedly vague and unspecific with respect to the issues of Federal 

wetlands protection, tribu tary protection, and of defining dredging 

and filling activities.

A 1974 district court decision in Florida {United States vs. Holland) suggested that:

Even though it seems certain t ha t Congress sought to broaden Federal jurisdiction under the act, it did so in a manner tha t appears calculated to force courts 

to engage in verbal acrobatics.

Subsequent attention to section 404 in scattered judicial decisions 

has led to interpretive gyrations tha t bear questionable relationship 

to congressional language.

What is more, confusion and uncertainty about the scope of section 

404 in the wake of the corps’ regulations of last July result from the 

haziness of guidelines for distinguishing between legal and illegal 

conduct.

Just as the farmer needs clear-cut guidelines addressed to his specific 

daily activities, so does the Corps of Engineers require an easily 

definable scope of authority to facilitate permit processing.

For these reasons, Congress needs to take positive steps now to 

clarify the proper scope of the section 404 permit program and to 

resolve jurisdictional questions.

In my opinion, House approval of the Wright Amendment to 

H.R. 9560—now S. 2710—last month was an appropriate step in 

the right direction. I think it is now up to the Senate to act, and to 

act expeditiously.

In our review and our visits with farmers and others who have an 

interest, we find there are at least two very basic issues that must be 

resolved a t this time by the Congress. What specific types of normal 

and routine activities—as practiced by farming, forestry, mining, 

and construction industries—are to be considered dredging or filling 

for the purposes of the permit program? To what extent is Federal 

regulation of small waters desirable or necessary to achieve the purposes of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act?

These two questions strike at the very heart of the controversy 

that has engulfed the section 404 provision since its enactment.

A practical and definitive resolution of both issues at this time by 

Congress would, I believe, largely eliminate the distress caused by 

undue Federal interference into routine aspects of private business.

Following the district court decision in NRD C vs. Calloway, op­ position to the section 404 permit program arose from agricultural 

and forestry interests who feared an expanded program would interfere 

with normal daily activities near inland waters and on wetland areas, 

such as plowing, digging irrigation ditches, et cetera.

There is certainly no obvious language in the 1972 act to arouse 

such concern, but the imprecise definitions of dredging and filling, 

and the court’s order covering lakes, ponds, tributaries, headwaters, 

and adjacent wetlands, made such regulation of normal farming acts 

a very real possibility.
35

The anticipated delay, expense, and general burden of imposing 

such permit requirements on farming, forestry, and construction 

industries is mind-boggling. From a logistical standpoint, the Corps 

of Engineers is certainly not presently capable—in terms of manpower 

or money—of administering comprehensive oversight over routine 

agricultural discharges or forestry functions.

Furthermore, it is doubtful tha t the Corps possesses the technical 

and scientific competence necessary for such a regulatory permit 

program.

In view of these considerations, I believe the Corps of Engineers 

made a wise gesture when it included exemption provisions for normal 

farming, silviculture, and ranching activities in its July 1975 

regulations.

But those provisions did not eliminate concern, because they are 

inherently weak. In the first place, agency regulations do not carry 

the definitive character of public law; the Corps’ exemptions do not 

foreclose the possibility of later court challenges based on the 1972 law.

In the second place, the exemption provisions do not completely 

eliminate all routine agricultural activities. A sample list of exclusions 

contained in the regulations do not refer to such practices as dredging 

for irrigation supply or filling in farm roads, fords, and bridges; and 

language concerning erosion prevention devices such as ripraps and 

groins is ambiguous. These common agricultural practices might or 

might not be judged normal by the corps at the time of permit application.

Similarly, I understand that the beef cattle industry is concerned 

about potential permit requirements for terracing, digging irrigation 

canals and livestock ponds, and for cleaning out lagoons. Normal 

forestry activities including construction of culverts, drainage ditches, 

and temporary roadways could be subject to 404 regulation.

The Kansas Department of Transportation advises me th at routine 

cleaning of culverts, repair and replacement of bridge abutments and 

piers, and even debris clearance could possibly require a permit under 

current Corps regulations.

I do not believe that Congress intended for such activities to be 

regulated by the Federal Government. For these reasons, permit 

exemptions for normal activities of private business need the full 

force of congressional clarification and public law.

A second and final issue that should be given close and careful 

consideration is the question of whether or not expanded oversight 

jurisdiction should be vested in a Federal agency such as the Corps of 

Engineers.

I submit that in most cases, State government can more readily 

adapt and more specifically direct wetlands regulation to meet the 

particular geographic needs of the State.

Furthermore, because water and wetlands use has been traditionally 

reserved to State government, the entire structure of water rights 

and land use administration would be seriously jeopardized, if not 

destroyed, throughout the Nation by expanded Federal oversight.

State control of wetlands located in tidal areas is firmly rooted 

both in common law and statutory bases. Even though the expanded 

404 Corps regulations allow for an advisory role for the States, all 

decisionmaking powers for issuance of a permit are retained by the 

Corps.
36

Clearly, this involves a duplication of State and Federal resources 

where the State has already devised an adequate water and wetlands 

regulation system.

Previous environmental legislation, such as the Coastal Zone 

Management Protection Act and Solid Waste Control Act, have given 

the Statss primary responsibility for carrying out the purposes of the 

protective legislation.

Indeed, such Federal environmental regulation should be in cooperation with, and not in substitution for, State regulation. There is no 

reason why State permit programs which meet uniform Federal standards cannot effectively achieve the purposes of section 404.

Delegation of the authority to grant permits to States which have 

federally sanctioned permit programs would be a big plus in terms of 

practical and expeditious implementation of this program. A similar 

approach under section 402 of the 1972 act provides a workable and 

commendable model.

Of course, not all State s at present have the capability to operate 

their own permit programs. But several States have had such protection programs in operation for years.

Consequently, it would be advisable for the language of section 404 

to contain delegation authority to allow State and local authorities— where capable and willing—to regulate dredging and filling activities 

on their own navigable waters and adjacent wetlands.

Both the WTright amendment which recently passed the House and 

the legislation I introduced in June of 1975—Senate bill S. 1843— contain appropriate language for delegation of this regulatory 

authority.

I would urge this committee to recommend such legislative amendment for a more workable and universally acceptable permit program. 

Certainly there is no overwhelming reason why the Corps, and the 

Corps alone—or, for that matter, the Federal Government—must in 

all instances have direct oversight and veto authority over local 

dredging and filling activities.

Beyond this, I would only add tha t a very fundamental question 

lingers about the proper definition of navigable waters. Of course, this 

is an issue tha t relates to other provisions in the 1972 act as well.

The courts have interpreted the term to encompass most waters in 

the United States, and this has spread the scope of this Federal 

program far beyond traditional boundaries. We all understand the 

importance of regulating genuine polluting activities on tributaries 

tha t feed into larger waters. But whether the Federal Government 

should be involved in tha t regulation, whether routine agricultural 

activities fit the description of polluting sources, and whether nonnavigable water bodies wholly contained upon private property should 

be subject to oversight are all questions tha t must eventually, I think, 

be resolved by Congress.

If we legislate in a thoughtful and practical frame of mind, I have 

no doubt tha t sincere environmental protection efforts can proceed 

without undue encumbrance, while private business can proceed 

without undue regulation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to raise these 

points. I would just say in conclusion tha t there are really three 

principal issues: the question of exemption for normal and routine
37

dredging and filling activities, the question of turning regulatory 

authority over to the State and local governments, and restricted 

definition of navigable waters.

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much, Senator Dole.

Senator Muskie?

Senator Muskie. It was an excellent statement. It exposed the 

issues. It has covered every problem tha t I have heard about in the 

mails. I compliment Senator Dole for presenting the problem so clearly. 

The solution may not be t ha t clear.

Senator Dole. I leave the solution to the committee. I will just 

present the problem.

Senator R andolph. Senator Baker?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. It is jus t the 

old business: Th at is a solution, what is the problem?

Senator D ole. Right.

Senator Baker. I join in Senator Muskie’s valuation of the statement to be very helpful to the committee. I am particularly pleased 

with tha t portion of your state ment on page 5 which tends to focus 

on the entire issue, I believe.

It has to do with the question of:

Wh at specific types of normal and routine activ ities—as practiced by farming, 

forestry, mining, and construction industries—are to be considered dredging or 

filling for the purposes of the permit program? To what extent is Federal regulation of small waters desirable or necessary to achieve the purposes of the 1972 

Wa ter Pollution Control Act?

As soon as we reconcile our views on those two questions, we will 

be in a position to propose a solution to that. I thank you, Senator.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, Senator Baker.

Senator Burdick?

Senator Burdick. I want to thank you for your testimony, too, 

Senator; but I assume Senate bill 1843 is your solution.

Senator Dole. It is a solution. It may not be the only solution. I 

haven’t discussed it with Senator Schweiker.

Senator Randolph. Did you have further political comment?

Senator Domenici?

Senator Domenici. I can’t top tha t one, Mr. Chairman. I was 

thinking, though, since you were here when we drew this elusive law, 

you ought to stick around and help us.

Senator Dole. I think that is one of the days I stepped out of the 

room.

Senator Randolph. Senator Hart?

Senator H art. No questions.

Senator Dole. Than k you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Randolph. Senator Dole, you understand agriculture do 

you not?

Senator Dole. I hope so. I convinced voters of th at a few times.

Senator Randolph. You worked on a farm?

Senator Dole. My grandfather had a farm, and I worked on tha t 

farm and I worked on other farms. Without the help of the Corps of 

Engineers, we were able to make it.

Senator Randolph. I think that we had better quit. Thank you.

We have, on occasion, loosely used the word “distinguished” on 

the Hill. I shall use it now. B ut certainly the members of this panel—
38

Russell Train, Nathaniel Reed, Victor Veysey, and Peter Taf t—are men of stature. They are men who have certain authority and leadership which we all recognize. I am sure tha t their testimony will bring 

forth colloquy which will help to bring out the points of view they 

present.

Would you gentlemen please come forward as a panel?

Thank you, gentlemen.

Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

Senator Randolph. The members of the panel, as I have indicated, 

are men of stature and leadership. Mr. Train, would you proceed to 

give us your thinking as the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency?

STATEMENTS OE RUSSELL TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; NATHANIEL REED, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR FISH AND WIL DLIFE AND

PARKS; VICTOR VEYSEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ARMY FOR

CIVIL WORKS; AND PET ER TAFT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Train. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have what at least seems to me in comparison to some of the 

other statements a relatively short statement. Since I come first, I 

propose to read the full statement, with your permission. Since 

Governor Mandel is not appearing, perhaps I can use part of his time, 

although we may not say the same thing.

I am here today to discuss with you our continuing efforts to achieve 

the goals of the Federal W ater Pollution Control Act in the context of 

one specific program—the regulation of discharges of dredged or fill 

material under section 404.

Needless to say, I am just delighted tha t this committee has called 

this hearing. I think tha t this has been long overdue. The issues are 

complex. They need resolution. I think the fact that the committee is 

willing to gather at this late hour to take up this issue is just extraordinarily commendable. The amount of interest which is evident in 

the size of the audience here I think speaks to the importance of the 

issue in the public mind.

With the passage of the 1972 amendments to the FWPCA, our 

fundamental objective became the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.

Full implementation of the 404 decisionmaking process is imperative 

if we are to achieve tha t goal. Section 404 represents an essential tool 

for moderating the degradation, and sometimes the irrevocable 

destruction, of aquatic areas that naturally control the quality of 

water, including those vital areas of shallow water known as wetlands.

I might add tha t if we did not have those wetlands, the course of 

abating pollution in this country by industry and municipalities 

would be enormously increased because of the additional costs that 

would be required by the technology to take the place of what nature 

has provided us.
39

We welcome the opportunity to participate in dispelling the widespread misinformation tha t continues to impede constructive debate 

on this program.

I will direct my brief remarks to three concerns: First, the origin of 

the program and the much talked about concept of “broad jurisdiction 

over water” ; second, a few of the ecological realities that compel 

Federal jurisdiction over water; and finally, I will highlight the encouraging first year of implementing a program tha t is designed to 

overregulation.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act places the responsibility 

upon EPA to administer a permit program for industrial and municipal 

discharges. The act reserves to the Corps of Engineers a separate 

permit program under section 404 for discharges of dredged or fill 

material into the Na tion ’s waters.

The statuto ry language authorizing the 404 program requires the 

cooperation of the corps and EPA to insure that discharges of dregded 

material and fill material will not have unacceptable adverse effects on 

municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fisheries, wildlife, and recreation.

A fundamental element of the Water Act is broad jurisdiction over 

water for pollution control purposes. Several Federal courts have 

endorsed the wisdom, and constitutionality, of this committee’s 

observation tha t:

Water moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential th at discharge of po llutants 

be controlled at the source. Therefore, reference to the control requirements mu st 

be made to the navigable waters, portions thereof, and their tributaries.

In affirming the constitutionality of the sta tute’s jurisdiction over 

all the Nation’s waters in the Ashland Oil opinion, the Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit observed:

We believe th at the language of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and 

its legislative history show th at the United States Congress was convinced th at 

uncontrolled pollution of the Nation’s waterways is a threa t to the hea lth and 

welfare of the country, as well as a threa t to its inters tate commerce.

Obviously water pollution is a health threat to the water supply of th e Nation. 

It endangers ou r agriculture by rendering water unfit for irrigation. It can end the 

public use and enjo yment of our magnificient rivers and lakes for fishing, for 

boating, and for swimming. These health and welfare concerns are, of course, 

proper subjects for Congressional attention because of their many impa cts upon 

intersta te commerce generally. {United States v. Ashland Oil, 7 ER C 1114, 1120 

(6th Cir., 1974).)

The court recognized that comprehensive jurisdiction is necessary 

not only to protect the natural environment but also to avoid creating 

unfair competition. Unless Federal jurisdiction is uniformly implemented for all waters, dischargers located on nonnavigable tributaries 

upstream from the larger rivers and estuaries would not be required 

to comply with the same procedural and substantive standards imposed upon their downstream competitors.

Thus, artificially limiting the jurisdiction can create a considerable 

competitive disadvantage for certain discharges.

Let me add at this point, Mr. Chairman, tha t the administration 

supports the approach of maintaining broad jurisdiction under this 

program, as set forth under the so-called Cleveland-Harsha amendment offered in the other House, with appropriate amendments.
40

I believe Mr. Veysey will be prepared to go into more detail on this. 

But let me just mention in passing that such amendments should provide for delegation to the States under carefully drawn criteria. They 

should provide for authorization to the Corps of Engineers to exclude 

insignificant activities. They should insure tha t permits will only be 

denied on the basis of adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or other 

water quality concerns. They should exempt inuse agricultural or 

silvicultural activities, as would be carefully defined in detail in legislative language.

Mr. Chairman, continued applicability of the 404 program to our 

Nation’s waters is essential if we are to moderate the two most significant types of harm caused by dredged or fill material.

First, just as water uses are degraded by industrial and municipal 

wastes, adverse effects also occur from dredged and fill materials tha t 

contain a wide range of pollutants, including toxic substances.

An initial screening of sediments from over 700 harbor and waterway locations showed that sediments in over half of the locations 

contained a significant pollutant load. Pollutants identified in the 

sampling included lead, arsenic, cyanide, PCB’s, mercury, and 

cadmium.

Contaminated materials threaten water supplies, fisheries and other 

beneficial water uses unless carefully managed. The corps and EPA 

are currently using the 404 decisionmaking process to assess the risk 

of dredging James River sediments tha t are contaminated with 

Kepone.

It is important to understand that toxic substances threa ten the 

aquatic environment when discharged into small streams or into 

major waterways. Similarly, pollutants are available to degrade water 

and atte nda nt biota when discharged in marshes and swamps, both 

below and above the mean and ordinary high water marks.

Second, unlike most industrial and municipal pollution, dredged and 

fill material can physically destroy essential p arts of the aquatic system, including swamps, marshes, submerged grass flats and shellfish 

beds. These critical aquatic areas are essential to many water uses, 

not the least of which is a viable commercial and sports fishery.

Wetlands serve as spawning and nursery areas while providing 

natu ral control of organic and inorganic nutrient transfers tha t dictate 

quantity and quality of life in the water. The declining availability 

of swamps, marshes, and free-flowing streams to assimilate pollution 

from point and nonpoint sources will greatly increase the dollar and 

energy costs of maintaining desirable water uses.

For example, discharge of fill material into certain swamps in New 

York and New Jersey can affect the quantity and quality of water 

seeping into the aquifers from which many communities draw their 

water supply, thereby naturally causing increased treatmen t costs.

We testified in the July 1975 hearings before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources tha t the Army Corps of Engineers and 

EPA had agreed to cooperate in establishing a joint program.

Shortly thereafter, interim final regulations were promulgated by 

the corps on July 25, 1975. These regulations were followed by the 

publication of interim final guidelines by EPA on September 5, 1975.

Together the regulations and guidelines establish a manageable 

program that focuses the decisionmaking process on significant threats 

to aquatic areas while avoiding unnecessary regulation of minor 

activities.
41

The first year of implementation of the 404 program ended just 

last Sunday. In view of the attention tha t has been given to this 

program in recent months and the misunderstandings tha t have been 

voiced by various interest groups, I want to discuss briefly the key 

features of the program tha t are preventing overregulation.

First, comprehensive jurisdiction is, we believe, essential for the 

protection of the aquatic environment. The once seemingly separable 

types of aquatic systems are, we now know, interrealted and interdependent. We cannot expect to preserve the remaining qualities of 

our water resources without providing appropriate protection for the 

entire resource.

Moreover, this broad geographical jurisdiction should reduce the 

confusion and expense inherent in earlier jurisdictional approaches 

that established artificial and often arbitrary boundaries tha t included 

only part of some bodies of water.

For example, the old jurisdictional mean high water line excluded 

one-half to one-third of most coastal marshes, thus possibly allowing 

destruction of an essential element of the aquatic system, depending 

on the degree of control exercised by the States.

Today this problem has been eliminated. The location of a coastal 

marsh by using the aquatic vegetation line accurately identifies most 

marsh areas. One Florida developer informed us tha t with the new 

approach, the location of coastal marshes is less time consuming and 

less expensive. No longer is it necessary to expend thousands of dollars 

for tide experts and surveyors to establish the exact mean high water 

mark as required by the old Corps program.

Second, let me emphasize tha t while the geographical jurisdiction 

of the program is broad, hundreds of activities have been identified 

which do not require permits. The term “fill material” has been defined 

so as clearly to exclude normal farming, silvictulure and ranching 

activities such as plowing, cultivating, seeding, and harvesting. 

Maintenance of existing fill has also been excluded.

We hope this hearing will help us reassure the public tha t many 

activities simply do not require permits.

Third, the 404 program will use general permits to the maximum 

extent possible to authorize categories of discharge tha t cause only 

minimal harm to water quality.

Thus, the need for dischargers to apply for individual permits is 

eliminated except in those instances involving environmentally significant activities. Several districts have already issued general permits 

to authorize erosion control bulkhead and fill and for fills associated 

with highways and log roads.

Several of our regions have reported a sharp decrease in the number 

of public notices for permits for insignificant activities under both the 

404 program and the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act.

Fourth, phased implementation of the broad jurisdiction over water 

has provided a measure of moderation and flexibility we all see as 

necessary to a reasonable program. A commendable management 

effort by the Corps of Engineers has already resulted in improved 

coordination with EPA, other Federal and State agencies, and the 

public.

I would like to emphasize, I think the Corps has done an outstan ding job in moving this program forward and developing reasonable and 

manageable regulations. You certainly can explore tha t more fully
42

with them. But I want this committee to know that EPA is strongly 

supportive of the Corps’ effort in this regard and believe tha t they 

really have done an outstanding job.

Finally, considerable effort has been made in developing a 404 program tha t would directly involve the States in the decisionmaking 

process. Several States with existing permit programs to regulate the 

same types of activities that are regulated under section 404 are taking 

advantage of the opportunity to participate in the join t processing of 

Federal-State permit applications.

Iowa, Michigan, and Maryland are notable examples. I believe this 

opportunity to establish joint programs will encourage needed improvement in many States tha t have not yet adequately addressed the 

environmental problems caused by discharging dredged or fdl material into the water environment.

To conclude my remarks, let me emphasize tha t the protection of 

water quality must encompass the protection of the interior wetlands 

and smaller streams.

In this regard, I should remind you tha t through the International 

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping 

of Wastes and Other Matter and our own Ocean Dumping Act of 

1972, the United States has established both international and domestic programs to protect the oceans from uncontrolled discharges of 

sludges and dredged material.

The criteria for permitting the ocean dumping of dredged or fill 

material are, by design, consistent and very similar to those issued 

under section 404(b). Without an appropriate and effective program 

under section 404, only ocean dumping of dredged material will be 

closely regulated while many of our more productive and more limited 

inland water resources will be unprotected from both chemical and 

physical degradation.

The Department of the Interior has estimated that almost half of 

the wetlands which originally contributed to aquatic resources of our 

Nation have already been lost through draining, dredging, or filling.

Even with numerous programs aimed at their preservation, in 

excess of 25,000 acres of prime wetlands are lost each year. Our most 

productive aquatic systems have already been drastically reduced 

from their original 127 million acres to less than 80 million acres.

As you know, wetlands are a priceless, multiuse resource. They 

perform the following services:

One: High yield food source for aquatic animals;

Two: Spawning and nursery areas for commercial and sports fish;

Three: Natural treatmen t of waterborne and airborne pollutants;

Four: Recharge of ground water for water supply;

Five: Natural protection from floods and storms; and

Six: Essential nesting and wintering areas for waterfowl.

We should be mindful of the fact that when these areas are polluted 

out of existence, we will have lost the very valuable free service of 

nature; and if toxic-laden dredged or fill material is discharged into 

wetlands, we risk poisoning the very foundation of our aquatic system.

I must caution against expedient short-term considerations relating 

to the section 404 program, however compelling they may seem, in 

view of the long-term consequences associated with any such actions. 

What we do now affects not only the next decade bu t our next generation, and those th at follow.
43

I mentioned at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, tha t there has been 

a lot of misinformation about this program. We believe the program 

has been managed in a way to avoid the kind of problems that you 

rightly are concerned about and tha t many members of the public 

are concerned about.

I am also concerned tha t misinformation and misguided advice 

has been put forward not on behalf of those frequently referred to, 

such as small farmers who we believe are totally excluded from the 

scope of these regulations, but by those who wish to dredge and fill 

and develop wetlands to make a fast buck, if you will, at the expense 

of a long-term public interest.

I make tha t statement with full concern for the complexity of the 

problem. But I think tha t the wetland resource of this Nation is so 

vitally im portant to all of us tha t I would urge and beg this committee 

and the Congress to legislate in this area with the utmost care.

Again I commend the committee for conducting this hearing.

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much, Administrator Train. 

If agreeable to the members of the committee, I would suggest that 

we have our four panelists give their presentation and then we go to 

the questioning.

Senator Muskie. Could I ask one question? I agree with that, Mr. 

Chairman. Could I ask one question simply to fill in on the history 

of the thing so it is clear?

Senator R andolph. Yes.

Senator Muskie. The regulations which you have described, Mr. 

Train, are those issued a year ago this summer. What created the 

initial storm in section 404 was the policies th at the Corps of Engineers 

announced in a press release issued after the court opinion; is that 

not so?

Mr. T rain. I believe tha t is correct. Mr. Veysey should answer that.

Senator Muskie. In other words, what created the initial storm of 

public opinion was a policy announced before you moved in, or somebody moved in, to redefine the policy in a more careful way you have 

described.

If the Corps had not, in other words, moved as it had with what I 

thought was distortion of legislative inte nt and created all of the 

reaction, you would not have had to move in as sort of the wet nurse 

to try to bring the storm under control.

That is the context in which your regulations were issued, as I 

recall. You may not use the rhetoric tha t I just used, but isn’t it a 

fact-----

Mr. T rain. I think I will ask Mr. Veysey to respond to the question.

Senator Muskie. Isn ’t it a fact that the public relations problem 

which has brought all these people into this room at a late hour in the 

night, stirred up an issue by a release issued by the Corps of Engineers 

following the court opinion, before the careful definition of the regulations which you have described?

I wrote you a letter myself in tha t interim.

Mr. Train. I remember practically the day tha t was issued. I was 

before another Senate committee on another matter. I was immediately 

confronted. I n fact, I hadn’t read the release at tha t time. And there 

was no question that the release contributed to a climate of public 

concern over the issue.

76-161 0 - 76 - 4
44

Senator Muskie. It didn’t contribute; it created.

Mr. Train. But I would say tha t the Corps of Engineers was by 

no means the only instrument for increasing public concern over the 

program.

Senator Muskie. I understand the Secretary of Agriculture 

participated.

Mr. Train. Y es.

Senator Muskie. The Secretary of Agriculture, I think, cooperated 

very well with the Corps of Engineers. I just wanted to make tha t 

point because after your description, it sounded as though the problem 

liad started with the regulations, where it actually started before.

If it had started with the regulations, conceivably there might not 

be a problem.

But the impression created by the release of the Army Engineers is 

still creating ripple effects in every State tha t is affected by the 

problem, and I suspect many of the refinements of your regulations 

have not yet caught up with those ripple effects to help abate the 

storm. T hat is my only point.

Mr. Train. I must say I suspect tha t those who feel tha t their 

interests are threatened by 404 would have created a public storm 

over this issue, irrespective of any possible contribution from tha t 

press release.

Senator Muskie. We will make our independent judgments about 

that.

Mr. Train. I wouldn’t want to point a finger to the Congress on 

that. In any event, tha t is water over the dam.

Senator Muskie. Was the dam built with a permit?

Mr. T rain. I think with tha t I shall yield.

STATEMENT OF VICTOR VEYSEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 

ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Mr. Veysey. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to respond in 

part to Senator Muskie’s question, which I think is an appropriate one.

Since there is no p art of th at included in my testimony, I welcome 

the opportunity to insert it a t this point. It is true, it is a sad fact, tha t 

sometime in the early hours on a long weekend when folks in the Corps 

of Engineers had been struggling with this problem, perhaps too long, a 

very misguided and very unfortunate press release was issued which 

said, if read very carefully, that under this law, many things might 

happen. Tha t was before the regulations were written.

In a sense, it was true tha t a lot of things might happen, although 

there was no inten t on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers or 

EPA to let any of those things happen. But the damage was done, as 

you point out so correctly. Th at stirred or perhaps struck a sympathetic note—I don’t know which—but anyway, the release was 

issued from the Public Information Office of the Corps of Engineers. I 

guess we will never be permitted to forget that.

Senator Muskie. Neither will we.

Mr. Veysey. I regret very much tha t it did happen. After tha t 

time we took a rather firm grip on the situation.

I will say tha t with magnificant cooperation from Russ Train and 

all of his people at EPA, and the Interior and the Justice Depart-
45

ments, I think we have brought order out of what appeared to be 

a very chaotic situation at that {joint in time.

Senator Randolph. Press releases, you know, have a way of causing 

trouble not only for bureaucrats but also Senators. I want to let you 

know it is not confined to the so-called administrative part of the 

Government.

I think tha t perhaps although the witness list was arranged in a 

certain order, tha t the Assistant Secretary of Army for Civil Works, 

Mr. Veysey, could well be heard at this time as we move from the Environmental Protection Agency to your organization.

Will you proceed, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Veysey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Victor V. Veysey. I am 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

I am very pleased to be able today to appear at the invitation of the 

committee to testify in behalf of the administration on section 404 of 

Public Law 92-500.

I consider it a particular pleasure to be at this witness table with the 

distinguished colleagues on my right and my left. I want to say again 

to this committee tha t there has been remarkable and very gieat cooperation among the agencies in the administration in trying in a 

very busy year and a half to make a responsible, reasonable program 

out of what had some aspects of being a maverick at one point in time.

The Justice Department has been of great help to us; particularly 

the distinguished Mr. Peter Taft. Russell Train, Administrator of 

EPA, has guided us so much with the guidelines for the program; and 

Assistant Secretary Nathaniel Reed from Interior with their import ant 

input with respect to fish and wildlife matters.

With me this evening to help with the testimony and answering the 

questions I have immediately behind me Brig. Gen. Drake Wilson, 

Deputy Director for Civil Works of the Corps of Engineers; and Mr. 

Brian O’Neill who is Assistant General Counsel for the Dep artm ent 

of the Army.

I can tell th at we are going on some very interesting excursions here 

this evening. Already we have been with Russ Train through the 

polluted waters. I expect Nat Reed is going to lead us by the hand 

through the bogs and the swamps. And Peter Taft will try to take us 

through the treacherous shoals of the law.

But, Mr. Chairman, I know testimony is going to be abundant 

this evening. I would like, if I may, please, to have my testimony 

appear in the record as submitted. I will try to summarize it in the 

interest of brevity. (See p. 53.)

Senator Randolph. Please do.

Mr. Veysey. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the bad news is I 

will have to add another section to it.

Senator Randolph. At a later date.

Mr. Veysey. We now have an administration position, and I would 

like to try to explain tha t to the committee. I will bear in mind, however, the admonition tha t the spouting whale gets harpooned. So I 

will try to avoid tha t particular hazard.

Section 404 has received much attention in the Department of the 

Army, not only in my office but throughout the Army Corps of E ngineers offices across the Nation.
46

This has been especially true since early 1975 when our permit 

functions under this section increased. This has always been a matter 

of concern to other branches of the Federal Government, to the private 

sector, and to many segments of the public.

Therefore, I welcome the review by this committee, and I am very 

happy to be able to present our views on this topic this evening.

In the last decade the American public and the Congress and our 

Government agencies have recognized the potential adverse impacts 

of our growing industrialized economy on our natural resources.

This has resulted in increased emphasis placed upon such matters 

as water quality and the preservation of our productive wetlands, 

which have perhaps been taken for granted in past years.

Now the Department of the Army has been involved actively and 

successfully in the wise and responsible management of the Nation’s 

water and related resources for over 150 years. Today this includes 

major responsibilities for wetlands and other water bodies that have 

importance to water quality and quality of life for our citizens.

Considering our national reliance on abundant water of good 

quality for multiple uses and the seriousness of the deterioration of 

quality in the past, the mandate of the Congress in Public Law 92-500 

“to restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity” of our Nation’s waters is most appropriate.

Section 404 provides one important means to protect the quality 

of our Nation’s waters against unwise dredging or filling disposal 

activities.

Now tha t we have had some experience, it is important for us to 

share what we have learned during this past year with this committee 

in these oversight hearings.

In 1824, the Army Corps of Engineers was given the responsibility 

for the Nation’s canals and roads, and has lent a hand in the important 

development of our resources since th at time.

Since tha t time, our position has constantly evolved in response to 

the needs and desires of the Nation and its people. Now our responsibilities have been expanded to include the reduction of flood damages, 

hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supply, water 

quality management, protection of fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and other important purposes.

Mr. Chairman, as you know so well, the Army Corps of Engineers’ 

technical competence has enhanced the Nation’s water resources. 

Administration of a regulatory program in the waters is not a new 

experience for the Army Corps of Engineers. But we have for decades 

been reviewing permit applications for construction of piers, sea walls, 

bulkheads and fill, dredging and disposal, and other activities.

Since the enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, by regulating activities in the water, has 

protected navigation in waters tha t are now used or could be used for 

navigation.

In 1968 we extended our regulatory activities in consonance with 

court decisions to include the review of water quality and other 

environmental concerns.

In September of 1972, pursuant to court decisions, the Corps further 

expanded this program to include those waters tha t had been used in 

the past but are not now presently used for commercial navigation, 

and all coastal waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide landward 

to their mean high water mark.
47

In October 1972, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act Amendments of 1972 with a mandate to include “all 

waters of the United States.” Section 402 established a permit program, administered by the EPA and the States, for the regulation of 

industrial and municipal discharges. EPA and Justice defined jurisdiction under this section as including all waters of the United States.

Section 404 established a permit program, to he administered by 

the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers, for 

the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters. 

Unlike the EPA, the Army limited its jurisdiction to that of the 

1899 Act, as initial legal review led us to the conclusion that the in ten t 

of Congress was to have jurisdiction only in those waters.

The Army’s position was successfully challenged by environmental 

groups and the State of Florida. On March 27, 1975, the Federal 

District Court in the District of Columbia ordered the Army to republish its regulation so as to recognize the full regulatory mandate of 

the Water Act as greater than tha t of traditional navigability. We did 

not appeal because the Secretary of the Army and the Justice Department believed there was merit to the court’s finding tha t jurisdiction 

extended to all waters of the United States.

The congressional purpose of the Water Act was to preserve and 

enhance water quality, and tha t purpose is best effectuated by exercising broad jurisdiction.

In addition, study of the court’s opinion led us to the conclusion 

tha t Congress intended the act to apply to the full extent of the commerce power; t hat is, all waters of the United States.

The W ater Act defines “navigable waters” as “waters of the United 

State s.” The joint Conference report further explains the definition:

The conferees fully intend tha t the term “navigable waters” be given the broadest 

constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations which 

would have been made or may be made for administrative purposes.

The Army published proposed regulations on May 6, 1975, and 

interim final regulations on July 25, 1975, just a year ago, that 

expanded its program to include the waters regulated under the 1899 

Act and all other waters of the United States up to the point of normal 

stream flow of 5 cubic feet per second.

This included, of course, all contiguous and adjacent wetlands. The 

regulation also identified the types of activities to be regulated, including water disposal of dredged material, the conversion of a water 

or wetland area to dry land, and fill structures such as levees, dams, 

and roads tha t are placed in a water body. The regulation applies to 

both Federal and non-Federal activities.

Mr. Chairman, a considerable division of opinion resulted over the 

Army’s publication of these proposed regulations. I am referring to the 

regulations published on the 6th of May. Over 5,000 letters were sen t 

to the Chief of Engineers, plus thousands more directed to Corps 

field offices across the country. I woulel estimate tha t we received 

over 14,000 pages of public comment.

We incorporated the many thoughts in these comments into the 

interim regulations published July 25, 1975. These comments were 

valuable in the development of w hat we believe to be a reasonable 

and manageable regulatory program.
48

In response to these comments, we provided for general permits 

and excluded many activities in order to create a program responsive 

to water quality and public desires.

In addition, we provided for a phasing of the program which allows 

implementation in stages, to all waters of the United States. I will 

discuss these items in more detail later.

After we published the interim-----

Senator Domenici. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder, in light of the length of the testimony if 

it might be appropriate that we reconsider the original thought of 

having all four panelists give all of their testimony, and perhaps 

proceed with some questions.

I, for myself, don’t think we need the indepth historical analysis. 

Perhaps I am wrong. But I have some very specific questions.

I would like to know what their suggestions are for curing the 

problem. Maybe there isn’t one. But it seems to me tha t tha t is why 

we are all here.

We only have two evenings, as I understand it, and we either do 

something or not.

I might say to our panelists, I am not trying to be a prima donna, 

but we are going to go in session at 8 :00 in the morning.

1 would just really like to get some questions asked. I raise t ha t in 

all honesty and not in derogation of the superb testimony that has 

been prepared. Might I ask a few questions, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Randolph. I only mad*' it as a suggestion because, frankly, 

I did not realize tha t the time consumed might be inordinately long. 

This is no criticism whatsoever. But I think that we can break into 

the questioning.

Senator Domenici, why don’t you start out now?

Senator Domenici. I jus t would like to ask the Secretary, or his 

legal counsel, if I understand what you are saying, you are suggesting 

that the courts took the definition of navigable waters from the entire 

Water Act and applied it to section 404.

I wonder if you have any opinion as to whether or n ot the permit 

system tha t you contemplate is going to be in compliance with tha t 

court order.

I read it and I am not sure. You have created exceptions. I don’t 

read the court opinion—it says you shall have jurisdiction under 404 

for all navigable waters as defined in the Clean Water Act, not in 

section 404.

I think tha t is the issue here. 404 had a purpose. The Clean Water 

Act had a purpose. The concern is how broad is the permit authority 

under 404. That may not be the same issue as how broad is the regulatory powers given to you and others under the Clean Water Act.

I don’t hear anyone addressing that. Mr. Train certainly has given 

us the general proposition that the Clean Water Act has all of these 

purposes tha t he has described.

But what we are concerned about, as I see it, is section 404 and the 

interpretation of the court order and your implementation of the 

court’s ruling and does tha t give us a problem or not.

If it doesn’t, and you think you have a perfect permit system under 

it, I think we ought to know about that.
49

Mr. Veysey. Senator, I think you raise a very good point. Of 

course, section 404 is a p art of the whole act. So, of course, it has an 

interrelationship.

Senator Muskie. Could I ask, would the Senator yield?

I am curious, Mr. Train. I simply ask it in conjunction with Senator 

Domenici’s question, because I think he can answer both his and mine 

at the same time.

I would get the impression from Mr. Train’s testimony and yours 

that both agencies now have incurred the same complementary 

comprehensive jurisdiction over all the purposes of the Clean Water 

Act.

That was certainly not our intent. It isn’t necessarily translated 

into judicial judgment as to what legislative intent was. Section 404 

surely was not intended to create in the Corps of Engineers auth ority 

comparable to EPA ’s broad authority, as so eloquently and I think 

accurately articulated by Mr. Train tonight.

I get the impression from both of your testimonies t hat you share 

this broad, comprehensive authority. I am wondering if I have misread your testimony; whether you believe that, or whether you think 

your authority is narrower and different than tha t of Mr. Tr ain’s; and, 

if so, to what extent it is narrower and different.

Mr. Veysey. Senator Muskie, of course, the authority is different. 

Ours is very specific within 404 as to dredged and fill materials put 

into the waters.

Senator M uskie. Could I, incidentally, on tha t point of my question, read from something I had to say with respect to legislative 

inte nt from Senator Ellender who offered an amendment to put the 

auth ority of section 404 entirely in the Secretary of the Army, in the 

Corps of Engineers, and take out EPA’s contribution?

This is what I had to say :

The Corps of Engineers, a mission-oriented agency, is not equipped to eva luate 

the environmental imp act of these dredging activities. It is equipped to form 

judgments on what is needed for navigation. This bill does not take tha t judgme ntmaking autho rity from it. The ame ndment by Mr. Ellender would shift the environmental evaluation from EPA to the Corps of Engineers and the committee is 

against it. The committee considered this and rejected it. The committee’s position 

is no. I urge the Senate to vote no on this amendment.

Now you are telling me th at notwithstanding that explicit definition 

of the committee intent, tha t you now share with EPA the broad, 

comprehensive environmental judgment-making authority of EPA.

I am wondering whether I have misread you or misheard you.

Mr. Veysey. Let me say, if I can respond to that, Senator Muskie—

Senator Randolph. To whom are you responding; to Senator 

Domenici or Senator Muskie or both?

Mr. Veysey. Senator Muskie’s question, I think, is interrelated.

Senator Randolph. I have a question, so if you want to take us all 

at one time, what is fill? Let’s get down to basics.

Mr. Veysey. The regulation specifies a long list of materials as fill: 

dirt and rock and sand and other types of pollutants put back in the 

waters, to change the bottom elevation of the water body.

Senator Randolph. You were with me on September 27, 1975, 

when we dedicated the Hannibal Locks and Dam; is th at right?
50

Mr. Veysey. Tha t is right.

Senator Randolph. Th at project was to increase the tonnages on 

the Ohio River. Capacity was increased some 22 million tons, perhaps. 

Was tha t an important project?

Mr. Veysey. Yes, indeed it was an important project, and is an 

important project.

Senator Randolph. Did it degrade the Ohio River?

Mr. Veysey. Not in my judgment; no, sir.

Senator Randolph. Thank you.

Mr. Veysey. Let me see if I can pick up where we were.

Senator Randolph. That is all right. We are ju st up and down the 

river, all of us. Do you have anything to say, Senator Burdick?

Senator Burdick. May I get into the act?

Senator Randolph. Yes, indeed.

Senator Muskie. I will wait until tomorrow for my answer.

Mr. Veysey. If I may, let me go to Senator Muskie and get back 

to where we were. Section 404 o f-----

Senator Randolph. I am serious now. D idn’t you have a question?

Senator Burdick. Let it go. We will get it later.

Senator Randolph. All right. Thank you. Everybody is happy.

Mr. Veysey. We are responding now to Senator Muskie’s question. 

Section 404 applies to the navigable waters, and the navigable waters 

is defined only once in the act, in section 502, as the waters of the 

United States. That, among other aspects of the legislative history, 

I think impelled the court to tell us in their decision tha t we must 

extend the jurisdiction to the full extent of the interstate powers of 

the Federal Government.

We have attempted to do tha t in a responsible way. That doesn’t 

mean tha t the Army has set itself up as the environmental agency. We 

relied on guidelines promulgated by EPA for standards in this program and, of course, EPA has a veto over any permit granted by the 

Corps of Engineers.

Senator Muskie. I hesitate to ask any more questions. I yield to 

Senator Domenici.

Mr. Veysey. Senator, back to your question. I have forgotten what 

it was.

Senator Domenici. I asked you if you thought tha t the proposed 

permit system and regulations propounded by the corps did comply 

with the court order.

The court order mandated tha t you have jurisdiction under section 

404 for all navigable waters as they defined it, and they chose language 

from a subsequent section of the Clean W ater Act.

I am not arguing tha t the Clean Water Act was improperly interpreted by the Corps. I am wondering whether or not under 404, when 

you create exceptions and proceed as you have, obviously in response 

to turnover as I see it and almost latent ability to comply, whether or 

not you feel you have complied with respect to the court order.

Mr. Veysey. I think we have very reasonably. But I would like 

to ask Peter Taft to perhaps give you the legal point of view from the 

Justice Department.

Mr. Taft. Senator, the regulations have been in effect now for ju st 

about a full year, pursu ant to the order. That has been accepted by 

the party plaintiff today. I don’t think it would be too well received
51

at this time to come in and try to upset a program tha t has been 

obviously phased to go into effect and has been carried out for a year.

However, the Cleveland-IIarsha amendment, which the administration backs, really treats exactly what you are talking about. It 

takes the exemption for farming and silviculture found in the regulations and codifies those so tha t other parties could come along and 

challenge it at some other time or in some other suit or some other 

court.

So tha t I think in that sense what the administration asks for at 

this time will make sure tha t what the Corps has done cannot be 

overturned.

Senator Domenici. Than k you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Randolph. Thank you.

Will you proceed, Mr. Veysey?

Mr. Veysey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to point out tha t 

following the publication of the interim regulations, the Corps of 

Engineers undertook a rather arduous program of presenting these 

regulations to the people of the United States in 4 major public 

hearings in the Nation and 243 local public meetings to explain the 

regulations and to hear the comments from all groups.

As a result of tha t effort, the corps has received possibly 2,000 letters 

of approximately 6,000 pages of additional comment. I can give you a 

breakdown of about how those comments have run.

They have been running 50 percent for the expanded Federal jurisdiction; about 43 percent opposing tha t expanded jurisdiction; and 

approximately 7 percent providing comments but not on t ha t particular point.

I would like to move forward, if I may, through my testimony 

rath er rapidly and come to some other information which we would 

like to present based on our experience of the past year in implementing these regulations.

Recently the Inte rsta te Conference on Water Problems was called 

on to survey the State positions concerning section 404. We only have 

preliminary information at this time, but 50 States and 2 territories 

have responded.

Thirty-four of these have indicated their intent, under various 

conditions, to seek a delegation of section 404 authority. Six have 

responded that they would not seek delegation. Twelve are undecided.

I think there needs to be further effort to develop the full meaning 

of those statistics. But I present them for your information at this 

point.

During this year, the first year of experience since the implementation of the program, the Corps has received by actual count 1,149 

section 404 permit applications which were not also under the jurisdiction of the 1899 act. I give you that figure to give you a measure 

of the additional workload which has been added on by virtue of phase 

1 of the regulations. That much additional workload is attributable 

directly to phase 1 of the expanded regulation.

We have sought in a number of ways to minimize any possible 

adverse impacts of the regulations. We have developed the practice of 

issuing general permits to cover repetitive operations or transactions 

involving dredging or filling th at have minimal individual or minimal 

cumulative adverse impact on the environment.
52

As of mid-June, 66 general permits were in some stage of development, with 21 actually in effect by early July.

Now, the typical activities covered by general permits include 

dredged or fill material for boat docks, bank and shore protection, and 

fill associated with road construction.

The general permit program has been rather widely accepted, and 

we think it will relieve a good many of the problems.

I would like to turn now, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the recommendations of the administration.

As you know, in the House of Representatives the administration 

supported the Cleveland-Harasha amendment. Because in our experience this past year, we have learned th at some things need further 

legislative attention.

This amendment is now before this body in the form of the Ha rt 

bill. The administration still supports those changes, but there are 

some additional changes tha t we would also recommend to you.

In addition to the legislative clarification of the general permit 

authority, which is incorporated in the Cleveland-Harsha or the Hart 

bill, and the exemption of normal agricultural, silvicultural and 

ranching activities—also incorporated in those bills and, I might say, 

incorporated in our regulations—the administration would also suggest that all agricultural activities be excluded from the program in 

areas currently in agricultural use. I stress the phrase currently in 

use because this is kind of a grandfathering type situation to protect 

agricultural uses of areas as they exist today.

But if the area was to be changed from agricultural to other uses, 

then a permit would be needed. We hope tha t this approach will strike 

a balance between the need for wetlands protection and our mutual 

concern for ongoing agricultural operations.

In addition, the administration believes t ha t the statute should be 

amended to give substantial discretionary authority to the Secretary 

to exclude categories of discharge from the permit requirement.

In our present regulations, as has been pointed out, the Army has 

excluded normal agricultural and silvicultural activities and the 

maintenance and emergency reconstruction of existing structures, 

such as dikes, dams or levees.

With more experience and when the need becomes apparent to us, 

the Secretary will be able then to exclude other activities which have 

minimal impact upon water quality.

The administration also recommends the statute be amended so as 

to make clear tha t permit decisions be based on navigation, water 

quality, and fish and wildlife concerns, and not on factors unrelated 

to the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the N ation’s water, 

such as unemployment or demographics or socioeconomic considerations or land use factors.

Mr. Chairman, I believe, and the administration recognizes tha t 

there is real need to allow delegation to the program of the States, 

subject, of course, to adequate standards th at would allow for national 

water quality management.

Up to this point there has been only very limited opportunity to 

talk to States and no opportunity to delegate the project responsibilities of the act under section 404 as there exists in other sections 

of the act.
53

There is a real Federal interest in protecting the waters of the 

United States from unwise dredged or fill disposal. Outside of the 

Federal navigation servitude, I believe this protection can best be 

furnished by the State s operating permit programs under general 

Federal standards.

Thus, we are of the opinion th at authority to delegate to the States 

under Federal standards should be included; and, if need be, hearings 

should be undertaken by the Congress to structure such a delegation 

program.

This committee has had considerable experience in devising other 

delegation provisions and perhaps can proceed forthwith in this 

direction. We can furnish some information gathered from the States 

tha t may be of assistance to the committee. But it seems to me t ha t 

it is very important tha t the States themselves have an opportunity 

to express their views and to make their recommendations. That, 

it seems, would require congressional hearings.

The Presidential delay of 60 days from July 1 has perhaps already 

stretched the limit of legal toleration under the present statutes . 

Congress clearly needs to make any decision regarding future delay.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make two commitments to you and to the American public. First, tha t the Army will 

continue to proceed in a reasonable and responsible manner in fulfilling our section 404 mandate to protect our Nation’s water resources, 

including the valuable wetlands; and, second, the Army will make 

every effort to streamline the administration of this program to 

insure tha t it does n ot cause any unnecessary inconvenience to any 

portion of the American public.

We have learned a great deal in the first year of implementation of 

this program. We have identified many problems of major interest to 

the American public.

The concrete courses of action which we have advanced, such as 

delegation, can remedy most of the problems and still accomplish the 

goal of promoting the wise and responsible sustained use of our 

Nation’s valuable water resources, including wetlands.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Vesey’s prepared stateme nt follows:]

St a te m e n t o f H o n . Vic to r V. V ey sey, Assi sta n t S ec r eta r y o f t h e A rm y, 

C iv il W orks

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Comm ittee, I am indeed pleased to app ear 

today at the in vita tion of the Committee to testify in behalf of the Adm inistration 

on Section 404 of Public Law 92-500.

Section 404 has received much attention in the Department of the Army, not 

only in my office bu t throughout the Army Corps of Engineers offices across the 

Nation. This has been especially true since early 1975 when our perm it functions 

under this section increased. I would add, Mr. Chairman, th at Section 404 has 

occupied the attention of the other Federal water and land resources agencies, 

local and state governments, the p riva te sector, and m any segments of the public. 

Therefore, I welcome the review by this Comm ittee, and I am very hap py to be 

able to present our views on this important topic.

In the last decade the American public and our government agencies have 

recognized the potential adverse impacts of our growing industrialized economy 

on our na tural resources. This has resulted in increased emphasis placed upon such 

matters as water q uality and the preservation of our prod uctive wetlands, which 

have perhaps been ta ken for granted in pa st years.

The Department of the Army has been involved actively and successfully in the 

wise and responsible managem ent of the Nation’s wate r and related land resources
54

for over 150 years. Today this includes major responsibilities for wetlands and 

oth er water bodies th at have importance to water quality and quality of life for 

our citizens.

Considering our n ational reliance on abundan t water of good q uality for multiple 

uses and the seriousness of d eterioration of quality in the past, the m and ate of th e 

Congress in P.L. 92-500 “to resto re and maintain the physical, chemical and 

biological integr ity” of our Nation’s waters is m ost appropriate. Section 404 provides one imp ortant means to pro tect the quality of our Na tio n’s waters against 

unwise dredging or filling disposal activities. Now th at we have had some experience, it is im portant for the Committee to conduct oversight hearings on the 

progress of the Section 404 program, and possible mid-course corrections to it. I 

am certa inly pleased th at you will be obtaining the views of the various agencies 

and the many inte rest groups representing all sectors of our economy and the 

American public.

R E V IE W O F H IS T O R IC A L AR MY IN V O L V E M E N T

In 1824, the Army Corps of Engineers was given the responsibility for the Na ­

tio n’s canals and roads, a most im portant function for a developing Nation and a 

beginning of our involvement in water resources deve lopment and management. 

Since 1824, our position has con stantly evolved in response to the needs and desires of the Nation and its people. From this early base of concern with waterborne tran spo rtation and commerce, our responsibilities have been expanded to 

include reduction of flood damages, hydroelectric power, municipal and indu strial 

water supply, water quality managem ent, protectio n of fish and wildlife resources, 

recreation and other important purposes.

This Committee knows, Mr. Chairman, the great and diverse benefits th at have 

accrued to the American public as a result of application of the Army Corps of 

Engineers’ technical competence to enhancem ent of the Nation’s water resources. 

Administration of a regu latory program is not a new experience for the Army Corps 

of Engineers. We have, for decades, been reviewing permit applications for construction of piers, sea walls, bulkheads and fill, dredging and disposal, and other 

activ ities.

Since th e e nactment of th e Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Army Corps of 

Engineers has protected navigation by regulating activities in waters th at are now 

used or could be modified for use for navigation. In 1968, we extended our regulator y activ ities in consonance with court decisions to include the review of water 

qua lity and other environmental concerns. In September 1972, pursuant to court 

decisions, the Corps further expanded this program to include those waters th at 

had been used in the past bu t are not now presently used for commercial navigation, and all coastal waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide landw ard to 

their mean high water mark. This revision included some coastal wetlands previously unregulated by any Federal program.

In October 1972, Congress enacted the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 with a m and ate to include “ all waters of the United Sta tes.” 

Section 402 established a permit program, administered by EPA and the State s, 

for th e regulation of industrial and municipal discharges. EPA and Justice defined 

jurisdiction under this Section as including all waters of the United States. Section 

404 established a permit program, to be administered by the Secretary of the Army 

acting thro ugh the Chief of Engineers, for th e discharge of dredged or fill mate rial 

into the navigable waters. Unlike the EPA, the Army limited its jurisdiction to 

th at of the 1899 Act, as initial legal review led us to the conclusion th at the int en t 

of Congress was to have jurisdiction extend only in those waters.

The Army’s position was successfully challenged by environmen tal groups and 

the S tate of Florida. On March 27, 1975, the Federal Dis trict C ourt in the District 

of Columbia ordered the Army to republish its regulation so as to recognize the 

full regulatory manda te of the Water Act as greater tha n tradition al navigability. 

We did not appeal because we believed there was merit to the Co urt’s finding th at 

jurisdiction extended to all waters of the United States. The Congressional purpose of the Water Act was to preserve and enhance water quality, and th at purpose is best effectuated by exercising broad jurisdiction. In addition, study of the 

Co urt ’s opinion led us to the conclusion th at Congress intended the Act to apply 

to the full extent of the Commerce power, i.e., all waters of the United State s. 

The Water Act defines “navigable waters” as “waters of th e United Sta tes.” The 

Joint Conference Rep ort fur the r explains the definition:

“The conferees fully intend th at the term ‘navigable waters’ be given the 

broade st constitutional inte rpretation unemcumbered by agency determination s 

which would have been made or may be made for adm inistrativ e purposes.”
55

The Army published proposed regulations on May 6, 1975 and final ones on 

July 25, 1975 that expanded its program to include the waters regulated under the 

1899 Act and all other waters of the United States up to the point of normal 

stream flow of five second feet. This included, of course, all contiguous and 

adjacent wetlands. The regulation also identified the types of activities to be 

regulated, including water disposal of dredged material, the conversion of a water 

or wetland area to dry land, and fill structures such as levees, dams, and roads 

tha t are placed in a water body. The regulation applies to both Federal and nonFederal activities.

Mr. Chairman, a considerable division of opinion resulted over the Army’s 

publication of these proposed regulations to implement this Court order. Over 

5,000 letters were sent to the Chief of Engineers plus thousands more directed to 

Corps field offices across the country. I would estimate tha t we received over 

14,000 pages of public comment. We incorporated the many thoughts in these 

comments into the final regulations published July 25, 1975. These comments 

were very valuable in the development of what we believe is a reasonable and manageable regulatory program.

In response to these comments, we provided for general permits and excluded 

many activities in order to create a program responsive to water quality and 

public desires. In addition, we provided for a phasing of the program which allows 

implementation in stages, to all waters of the United States. I will discuss these 

items in greater detail later.

After we published the final regulation on July 25, 1975, the Army Corps of 

Engineers took additional significant steps to acquaint fully the public and all 

interest groups with these regulations. Four major public hearings were conducted 

across the Nation. In addition, 243 local public meetings were held. As we were 

informing the public, we were also developing a closer w’orking relationship with 

State governments. Senior officials in every State were briefed by Corps Division 

and District Engineers regarding our implementation of Section 404. The Corps 

has received in the last year another 2,000 letters of approximately 6,000 pages, 

with public expression running about 50 percent for the expanded Federal jurisdiction, about 43 percent opposing the expanded jurisdiction, and approximately 7 

percent providing comment but not expressing any particular opinion on 

jurisdiction.

The division of views on this issue may be summarized rather briefly. On the 

one hand, certain interests are very much concerned about a significant expansion 

of Federal regulation over previously unregulated activities in our Nation’s waters, 

including wetlands, and the economic implications of that expansion. On the other 

hand, we have environmental considerations, in particular, protection of our 

Nation’s valuable and diminishing water resources, including wetlands. In addition 

to environmental considerations, there are certainly substantial economic values 

associated with the continued existence of our wetlands.

Section 404, whether it remains in its present form and retains the current 

jurisdiction or whether it is modified, will certainly have some impact upon not 

only utilization of our water resources for economic development bu t upon quality 

of life and environmental quality considerations in general. In this light, Section 

404 will play an important role in wetland preservation.

I would now like to address the matter of the Department of the Army’s experience in the past year with Section 404.

SE CT ION 404 EXPERIE NCE IN PA ST YE AR

In our July 25, 1975 regulations, we announced a three-phased implementation 

of the expanded jurisdiction. Under Phase I, which went into effect shortly after 

the Federal Court case, individual permits were required for all discharges of 

dredged or fill material into the waters already regulated by the 1899 Act and 

their contiguous or adjacent w’etlands. In Phase II, originally scheduled to be 

effective July 1, 1976, now delayed 60 days by order of the President, Section 

404 will be expanded to primary tributaries of the traditionally navigable waters 

of the United States and lakes with a surface area greater than five acres, as well 

as the wetlands associated with them. On July 1, 1977, permits will be required for 

all other waters of the United States under the 404 program up to the 5-second 

foot flow level.

Our desire has been and is for a moderate and reasonable approach toward 

implementing Section 404 in the broad public interest, toward minimizing paperwork, and toward focusing on actions with significant adverse effect on water 

quality.
56

We have cooperated with EPA in our continuing developm ent of this reasonable 

program; they review public notices, monitor projects, and exercise their own 

responsibility which includes a final veto authority over all permits. While the 

Army’s implementing regulation established the Section 404 program, EPA, 

actin g in conjunction with the Army, has prescribed the technical, nationwide 

guidelines for us to use in evalua ting these activities. Army scientists and managers 

worked closely with EPA in developing these criteria, and interagency working 

groups continue to reevaluate them .

Recently, the Inte rstate Conference on W ater Problems surveyed Sta te positions 

concerning Section 404. While the inform ation available to us at this time is 

preliminary, it is nonetheless very interesting. Fifty -two states and applicable 

territories have responded. Thirty-four of these have indicated their inte nt, und er 

certain conditions, to seek a delegation of Section 404. Six responded that they 

would not seek delegation, and 12 were undecided. The issue becomes more complicated, however, when we examine how many states presently have the necessary 

capa bility to assume responsibilities under Section 404.

To answer this, we posed a series of requirements which we considered to be the 

minim al th at a State would have to meet to qualify for potential delegation of 

portions of th e Section 404 program. Two threshold tests were developed. Tes t I 

deals with such questions as the exte nt and scope of the S tate’s program, and how it 

is implemented. Test II is more string ent; it requires tha t, in addition to meeting 

the requirements of Test I, the States have defined crite ria for the placement of 

dredged or fill material, and have defined wetlands for their regu latory program. 

Of th e 34 States and territories th at would seek delegation, 19 passed Test I and 

only 6 passed Te st II, as of early 1976.

Some of the reasons we have been interested in the matter of delegation of 

certain responsibilities under Section 404 are: (1) Existing capability of some 

States to deal with perm its for dredged or fill m aterial; (2) Advantages of having 

States consider water and wetlands uses along with land uses; (3) Desire to avoid 

duplicative permits— Federal and State; and (4) Conservation of m anpower and 

resources. I would emphasize, Mr. Chairman, th at we recognize the important 

national implications of water quality and would urge th at adequate Federal 

criteria be available to determine when the public intere st will be served through 

a delegation to specific State governments.

It may be useful to the Committee to learn what our experience has been 

rela tive to the number of permits received as a result of Section 404.

During this past year, which is the first year of experience since implementing 

the 404 program un der our expanded jurisdiction, the Corps received 1149 Section 

404 permit applications which were not also under the jurisdiction of th e 1899 Act. 

These would be only those applications for work in wetlands in con trast to those 

for work in navigable waters under Phase I. This is the added workload a ttribu table to Section 404 expanded jurisdiction only, and casts doubts on the estima tes 

of 20,000 to 50,000 new permits which had been projected in a preliminary way 

before we had specific experience.

Now', Mr. Chairman, I should also add th at our combined permit workload 

under Section 10 and Section 404 has increased significantly over the last few7

years. I att rib ute much of th at increase to a grea ter awareness by the public of 

permit requirements, due in pa rt to the attention th at Section 404 has received.

It is still somewhat difficult to determine what the tota l increase in our permit 

load will be as a resu lt of this expanded program. However, if it is the inte nt of the 

Congress and the American public for the Nation’s wetlands to be protected from 

significant pollution and from elimination by unwise deve lopm ent in the inte rest 

of water qua lity and other factors, then review of many dredge and fill permit 

applications is required.

Regarding our Fiscal Year 1977 and fiscal year 1978 situ atio n, one can only 

make estimates in term s of high and low ranges. Many factors will influence the 

final count of Section 404 permit applications to be received in these years, 

including the extent of State delegation, the success of general permits, and other 

adm inistrative mechanisms th at can be utilized to structure an effective and 

responsive water qua lity program.

We believe th at we will be able to minimize the public imp act of the program by 

use of general permits. A general perm it can be used to autho rize a large number of 

activities in a particu lar geographical area. As provided in the interim final regulation, two overall requirements must be satisfied before the general perm it can 

be issued. Firs t, the activ ities covered must be similar in n ature and, second, they 

mu st have a minimal individual and cumulative adverse imp act on the 

environment.
57

A person who desires to build a type of project included under most general 

permits would need only notify the Corps of his intention to do so. This eliminates 

the need for a formal application which must be processed by the Corps before a 

permit is issued. Some of our general permits do require an applicant to submit a 

request to the Corps so that we can insure that the work conforms to the conditions 

of the general permit, but this is done very quickly without lengthy coordination, 

public notices, etc. Not only does the general permit benefit the applicant, but 

such a permit can free a Corps District Office from processing hundreds of applications a year. We intend general permits to be utilized to the maximum extent 

possible.

As of mid-June, 66 general permits were in some stage of development, with 21 

actually in effect by early July. Typical activities covered by general permits 

include boat docks, bank and shore protection, and fill associated with road 

construction.

The general permit concept is being widely accepted. Most Federal and State 

agencies stand to benefit by being relieved of reviewing many individual applications. In many areas, it is the effectiveness of the local or State programs which 

has allowed the implementation of general permits. General permits do not, of 

course, avoid compliance with the Act; they do, however, offer much administrative relief.

A second means we have used to structure a manageable program tha t focuses 

on water quality is exclusion of certain activities from the program. Exclusions 

include normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, 

cultivating, seeding, and harvesting, and maintenance and emergency reconstruction of existing fills.

The above exclusions are similar to those in the Cleveland-Harsha Amendment; 

however, that Amendment would make them statutory. You may be interested 

in the difference between the Cleveland-Harsha exclusions and those in the Wright 

Amendment. In light of the Wright Amendment’s structure and history, it can be 

read to exclude from the program all dredged or fill disposal in any way associated 

with agriculture, including major road building, diking, and creation of check 

dams. It has no limitations, such as excluding only lands presently committed 

to agriculture and it appears to offer a loophole which would permit an agricultural 

operator to become a major land developer for any purpose.

We also have taken other steps to reduce the administrative burden to both 

the Army and the public. Many of the dredge and fill permit applications that we 

have received under Phase I are for work in navigable waters and, therefore, require a Section 10 permit as well as a Section 404 permit. Therefore, we process 

these two permits concurrently on the same piece of paper.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, many States require the public to obtain State 

approval for dredge and fill activities. When these activities require a Corps’ 

permit, we coordinate closely with the State to process the permits concurrently 

when possible. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that it is our policy not to grant a permit if the State disapproves an applicant’s request.

R E C E N T L E G IS LA TIV E PR O PO SA LS

The issues which have surfaced over the past year have served as a stimulus 

for several major proposed amendments to Section 404 of PL 92-500. The first 

of these was the amendment introduced by Congressman Breaux of Louisiana 

and adopted by the House Public Works Committee. The intent of this amendment was to reduce the jurisdiction of the 404 permit program to the traditionally 

navigable streams of the Nation, less historic navigable waters, plus contiguous 

wetlands.

The Cleveland-Harsha Amendment was proposed in lieu of the Breaux amendment, and would basically do three things: First, it would exempt discharges 

resulting from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, harvesting, and cultivating, all of which we believe were never 

intended to be regulated under Section 404 in the first place. Second, it would 

exempt maintenance and emergency reconstruction of currently serviceable 

structures, the construction and maintenance of farm and stock ponds and irrigation ditches, and the maintenance of drainage ditches. Finally, it would authorize 

the Department of the Army to issue general permits for dredged or fill materials 

where such activities are similar in nature and cause only minimal adverse environmental impact. The Administration supported this approach.

On June 3, 1976, the House passed the Wright Amendment to Section 404, 

which restricted jurisdiction to the 1899 jurisdiction plus adjacent wetlands, less
58

historical navigable waters. It exempted most farming, silviculture, and agriculture 

activities with legislative history suggesting that all such activities, even the conversion of wetlands and swamps to fast land for “ agricultural” purposes, are 

intended to be exempt. It also included an option to assume responsibility for 

other waters of the United States upon the invitation of the Governor of a State.

Mr. Chairman, we feel that the Wright Amendment, as presently drafted, 

would present serious problems. We believe it would not provide for effective 

protection of wetlands, could have a detrimental impact on navigation, would 

result in confusion as to the authority of other water quality programs, and may 

open up many “loopholes” that could be used to undermine the purpose of the 

Water Act, the preservation and enhancement of water quality.

Mr. Chairman, as you and the Members of the Committee know, the Administration supported the Cleveland-Harsha Amendment in the House but made this 

position known only a short time before debate took place on the floor of the 

House. A great deal of study preceded the President’s decision to support the 

Cleveland-Harsha Amendment on the part of all of the affected Federal agencies, 

including the Department of the Army. This involved careful analysis of our 

experience in the past year, as well as our assessment of what was required to 

meet the mandate of the Congress and the American people.

ADMINISTRATION POSITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Chairman, the Administration still supports the concept of broad Federal 

jurisdiction over all waters of the United States, as embodied in the ClevelandHarsha Amendment, which is now before this body as the Hart Bill, but believes 

that, in addition, several changes are required at this time in order to define 

clearly the scope of Federal responsibility, to strike an appropriate balance 

between conflicting interests, and to reduce the regulatory burden.

In addition to the legislative clarification of general permit authority and the 

exemption of normal agricultural, silvicultural and ranching activities, the 

Administration would suggest that all agricultural or silvicultural activities 

be excluded from the program in lands currently in agricultural or silvicultural 

use. I stress the phrase “currently in use.” In addition, if the land were to be 

changed from agricultural to other use, a permit would be needed. This approach 

strikes a balance between the need for wetlands protection and our mutual concern for ongoing agricultural operations.

In addition, the Administration believes the statute should be amended so as 

clearly to vest substantial discretionary authority in the Secretary of the Army 

to authorize by regulation categories of discharges which have insignificant impact 

on water quality.

The Administration further recommends that the statute be amended so as 

to make clear that a decision to deny a permit be based upon navigation, water 

quality, and fish and wildlife concerns, and not upon factors unrelated to the 

chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters such as unemployment, demographics, and aesthetics.

Mr. Chairman, I believe there a real need to allow delegation of the program 

to States, subject, of course, to adequate standards that would allow for National 

water quality management. Up to this point, however, there has been only limited 

opportunity for discourse with the States, because the Act does not provide a 

legal basis for delegation in Section 404.

I believe there is a very real Federal interest in protecting the waters of the 

United States from unwise dredge or fill disposal. Outside of the Federal navigattional servitude, I believe this protection can best be furnished by States operating 

permit programs under general Federal standards.

The Department of the Army has had many discussions with States on these 

matters, and we have come to the conclusion that, to be meaningful, delegation 

must be carefully considered by the Congress, and further, that delegation will 

not work in the form that was hastily devised for the Wright Amendment. It 

seems to me it must have the proper amount of incentive to encourage and attract 

the States disposed to accept the responsibility and the right amount of pressure 

on those not so inclined.

This Committee has had considerable experience in devising delegation provisions and experience in their oversight. The Army can furnish some helpful 

information from its work with States and from the survey of States’ desires and 

intentions.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two commitments to you 

and the American public. First, the Army will continue to proceed in a reasonable
59

and responsible manner in fulfilling our Section 404 manda te to pro tec t our 

Nation’s im portant water resources, including its valuable wetlands. Second, the 

Army will make every effort to streamline our adm inistration of this program 

to ensure th at i t does not cause any unnecessary inconvenience to any portion of 

the American public.

I believe that we have learned a grea t deal in this first year of implementing 

Section 404 and have identified the majo r problems of inte rest to the American 

public. The concrete courses of actio n which we have advanced, such as delegation, 

can remedy most of these problems and still accomplish the goal of prom oting 

the wise and responsible sustained use of our Nation’s valuable water resources, 

including wetlands.

SUMMARY

I have reviewed for the Com mittee’s information the evolving responsibility 

of the Army Corps of Engineers from an initial concern with waterborne commerce 

through flood control and then to the cur ren t times. I am convinced t ha t activities 

involving use and modification of our Na tion’s im portant and valuable wetlands 

must be a subject of concern to all of us. The Army Corps of Engineers and other 

agencies have major responsibilities in this area.

Th at concludes my statem ent, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to respond 

to specific questions which you and other members of the Committee may have 

at this time.

Tha nk you for the opportunity to appear and speak in behalf of the Depar tment 

of the Army and the Administration.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I realize that we 

must be more or less flexible in what we are doing in questioning. 

Perhaps, Senator Burdick, would you care to comment?

Senator Burdick. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would like to know 

the extent to which you recommend the exemption from the total 

overall jurisdiction you have over waters in farming operations. 

What do you mean by normal farming operations?

Mr. Veysey. In the regulations, Senator Burdick, we wrote that 

normal farming operations—such as plowing, cultivating soil, seeding, 

fertilizing, harvesting—would all be exempted from the definition 

of dredged or fill material.

It was with the inte nt of saying that all the normal things that a 

farmer does in the course of his operations are exempted. Th at was 

our intent.

However, it was not our intent to construe as a normal farming 

operation the diking off of a large body of water and the draining of 

it and conversion of it into a farming operation. That would not be 

considered as normal farming operation.

Senator Burdick. How would a farmer know whether or not it was 

a large body of water you have referred to? How would he determine 

that?

Mr. Veysey. I think he may have a problem of determining his 

status if he begins operating in a wetland or in a body of water. 

It is not really a very normal farming operation to do that.

But I suppose in tha t instance, not knowing the exact situation 

tha t you have in mind, tha t he might be well advised to determine 

whether tha t is an operation which requires a permit or not.

Senator B urdick. Th at is my precise opinion, th at in all cases then 

he would have to make an application to decide whether or not he had 

too large a body of water. In all cases he would have to ask for a permit.

Mr. Veysey. No; well, in all cases in which he undertook some 

new operation in a body of water, yes. That might be true.

Senator Burdick. From a stock pond on up, or down.

76-161 0 - 7 6 - 5
60

Mr. Veysey. No; we have in the regulation a 5-acre size regarding 

natural bodies of water. Anything below tha t is not considered 

significant.

Senator Burdick. In some cases you might need more.

Mr. Veysey. Yes; you might need more, but then in tha t case you 

might need a permit.

Senator Burdick. In other words, you would have to file a permit 

in order to assure you it wasn’t more than 5 acres.

Mr. Veysey. The question of size is one that I think can be determined without filing a permit. If it is over 5 acres, he might need a 

permit. If under 5 acres, he would not.

Senator Burdick. We are talking about areas th at are out in a small 

tributary where they have a runoff in the spring from snows and they 

trap some of this water for their stock.

Mr. Veysey. Yes.

Senator Burdick. They are quite concerned ou t there, tha t he has 

to go and secure this and go through a long and drawn out application 

to get a permit. From what you say, you will have to review every one 

of them because they are limited in size.

Mr. Veysey. Those in excess of 5 acres mi^ht be subject to a permit.

Senator Burdick. You can’t tell whether it is 5 acres until he makes 

an application.

Mr. Veysey. I suppose the farmer knows whether it is 5 acres.

Senator B urdick. You have to know it, too.

Mr. Veysey. I believe the presumption would be if it is about 5 

acres, nobody is going to worry about it. If it is over 5 acres we might 

be out talking with him.

Senator Burdick. In other words, this permit procedure is now 

established, isn’t it?

Mr. Veysey. Pardon me?

Senator Burdick. It is now established by regulation, isn’t it; or 

not?

Mr. Veysey. It has been for 1 year; yes, sir. The H art bill, which is 

before you and one which the administration favors, would exempt 

automatically all stock ponds, regardless of size. Now, tha t would be a 

change.

Senator B urdick. What if the stock pond embraces 160 acres?

Mr. Veysey. I have not seen the language as to exactly how this 

works. But it was my understanding tha t it would be exempt.

Senator Burdick. Where can I get a copy of the regulations involving agriculture, a complete set?

Mr. Veysey. I can give you one right now. They were published in 

the Federal Register, Senator, on July 25, 1975.

Senator Burdick. Mr. Chairman, with your consent, I will submit 

some questions about this matter.

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much, Senator Burdick.

As I understand, you make reference to the approach tha t Senator 

Gary H art with this committee has fostered on the Senate side. Is tha t 

identical with the Harsha-Cleveland approach in the House?

Mr. Veysey. Yes. We believe tha t tha t bill is identical with the 

Cleveland-Harsha amendment in the House.

Senator R andolph. T hat has the support of the Corps of Engineers; 

is th at correct?

Mr. Veysey. Yes, it does; and the administration’s endorsement.
61

Mr. T rain. Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment with respect to 

Senator Burdick’s question?

Senator Randolph. Yes, Mr. Train.

Mr. T rain. Senator Burdick, it is my understanding t hat the general 

permitting authority being exercised by the Corps is intended to and 

designed to spell out the elimination of practically every kind of normal 

farming activity th at could possibly be involved in this kind of a question insofar as the need for the farmer to come in and get a permit is 

concerned.

There shouldn’t be any question in every normal kind of case. When 

you get into a large natural lake over 5 acres, if it should involve one of 

these activities not excluded by general permit, then yes, it would be 

intended tha t he should ask for a permit. But this would involve 

such a very limited class of activities tha t it is almost inconceivable 

to me that this could be a very real problem.

Senator Burdick. My point was for an administrator to administer 

the law properly, there has to be an application in every case. You 

would have to review it; you would have to check it, wouldn’t you?

Mr. Veysey. No.

Senator Burdick. You couldn’t just take his word for it. You have 

a pond 4% acres. Could I have a permit?

Mr. Train. In my experience as an administrator, I believe you 

try to keep things from coming in as best you can.

Senator Burdick. Can I tell the farmer tha t he can write and say 

he has acres and you will give a permit?

Mr. Train. I suggest he not write the letter in the first place.

Senator Burdick. You just p ut the fill across the river. It is okay. 

I will tell him so. Is tha t right?

Mr. Veysey. Right.

Senator B urdick. No approval?

Senator Muskie. Cite their testimony as their approval.

Senator Randolph. If you will indulge the Chairman for one comment, and then we will go to the other questions or come to Mr. Reed.

Mr. Train, if section 404 was repealed and the regulation of discharge of dredge spoil or fill were included under section 402, tha t is 

the permit program, what types of activities do you believe should 

be regulated by the permits?

That is what in a sense Senator Burdick has been addressing himself to, the matter of permits, although my question, of course, goes 

further.

Mr. Train. I recognize that. If EPA had to directly conduct a 

permit program governing these activities, which I assure you we are 

not seeking, I would presume t hat we would issue regulations defining 

the scope of implementation essentially as the Corps has done.

We have cooperated with the corps in trying to define the various 

exclusions, and we have cooperated with the Corps in working out the 

general permit authority.

I would assume, generally speaking, that this would reflect the 

thinking that would go into our own implementation. I would assume 

again tha t the jurisdiction would be as broad as EP A’s water quality 

jurisdiction is generally; t hat is, all of the waters of the United States.

Senator Randolph. Mr. Train, if we move to 402, where do the 

States come as participants, as responsible parties?
62

Mr. Train. Under the 402 program, there is a specific delegation 

authority under the criteria, as you are aware. We have delegated 

tha t authority to a great number of States.

Senator Randolph. How does tha t work, sir?

Mr. Train. It works quite well. But let me just make this point— 

the 402 authority is directed to an effluent limitation program, built 

around best practical treatment, best available treatm ent, and essentially designed to deal with point source discharge.

We are talking about an animal of a considerably different quality 

when you are dealing with dredged and fill material. I would assume 

that the capability of States to (leal with a dredge and fill permitting 

delegation, a desire of a State to assume such a delegation, and the 

resources of a State to undertake such a delegation, could differ substantially from what they may be doing under section 402.

Senator Muskie. Would the Senator yield?

Senator Randolph. Yes, indeed.

Senator Muskie. Unless my own recollection of the structure of 

the 1972 Act was in error, we undertook to deal with point sources 

except under section 208, which was designed to begin the process of 

controlling what we felt we did not have sufficient knowledge to be 

more specific about nonpoint sources.

As I understand the approach to the section 404, you are using th at 

to regulate not only point source discharges but to prohibit many 

forms of nonpoint discharges. So tha t you have converted section 404 

into something which the Congress did not consider itself in a position 

to do with respect to nonpoint sources generally.

I take it tha t the authority to grant a permit includes the authority 

to deny a permit. Otherwise it is meaningless. So tha t if the effect 

of the permit required regulation is to impose your authority with 

respect to nonpoint sources of pollution or potential pollution, as 

reflected in various kinds of activities by farmers, foresters, and so on, 

tha t you reserve to yourself the right to prohibit tha t kind of activity, 

thus undertaking to control nonpoint discharges through a section of 

the law that quite clearly was designed primarily, if not exclusively, 

to deal with the discharge of a particular kind of point source pollution. Tha t was dredge spoil.

The word fill, at least from this one Senator’s perspective was not 

included for the purpose of expanding the authorities of section 404 

as broadly as you and the courts have defined it.

Senator Randolph. Senator Muskie, I subscribe to what you are 

saying on the fill situation.

Senator Muskie. The only reason we added the word fill was to 

make it clear tha t if the specific disposal site agreed upon by the 

engineers and EPA happened to be on land thus taking the form of 

fill, tha t there be no ambiguity on the question of whether or not it 

also was covered by section 404.

Now you have included, or appear to have included, under the 

definition of fill, for the purposes of section 404, all kinds of activities which might not involve fill tha t included toxic materials as 

such.

But I think it was you, Mr. Train, who said th at fill by its own character, whether or not it contains toxic materials, may have an environmental changing effect that section 404 gives you the right to control.
63

I don’t believe that was included in the inte nt of section 404. But 

in any case, the effect of tha t broad an interpretation is to give you a 

control oyer nonpoint discharges, or many kinds of nonpoint discharges, tha t the Congress did not presume to do with respect to the 

rest of the Clean Water Amendments of 1972.

Is this an erroneous analysis of what you are doing with these 

regulations?

Incidentally, I liked your articulation tonight of the purposes of the 

Clean Water Act ot 1972. I think it was as articulate and clear a 

definition as I have ever heard of the 1972 Act. But that does not 

mean I follow your logic in extending it to section 404 as broadly 

as I have now tried to describe my impression.

Mr. Train. Senator Muskie, far be it for me to debate with you 

the intent of this committee of the Congress in the act.

Senator Muskie. I have been around long enough to know actual 

congressional intent isn’t necessarily what the court finds as congressional intent. I think tha t I have had tha t driven home to me 

too many times.

Mr. Train. I think tha t is exactly the fact. I think we are carrying 

out a judicial interpretation of the language of the statutes, which I 

don’t disagree with myself. I read the definition of point source 

discharge in the act, and it seems to me it certainly can include fill.

Senator Muskie. Let me ask you this specific question related to 

Senator Burdick. Le t’s take one of these farmers. In one spring it 

might be 4% acres, but the next spring it might be a heavier runoff 

and it is 5% acres.

I have tha t kind of situation in my State. I am sure Senator Burdick 

has it in his State. You could deny the farmer permission to create 

tha t farm pond, I take it, if it was 5% acres under vour regulation.

Why else would you have a permit? Does it include the auth ority 

to deny the permit? Why would anybody want authority to get a 

permit?

Mr. Taft. I think you have to dredge and fill first. If you make a 

barrier to collect it-----

Senator Muskie. Suppose you just dredge a hole in your own 

farmland.

Mr. Taft. You have to have the lake before you can dredge and 

fill. So I don’t think you reach the point where you create a barrier 

to collect water.

Senator Muskie. Suppose you dig a hole and the stream fills it 

for you.

Mr. Taft. The question is, are you damming a stream which is of 

sufficient flow?

Senator Muskie. That is exactly my point.

Mr. Taft. Most stock ponds, at least the few I am aware of, they 

collect runoff. They don’t stop a major stream.

Senator Muskie. We are not talking about major streams. You 

haven’t limited yourself to major streams. You have limited yourself 

to a trickle or even a stream tha t exists only in the spring.

Senator Burdick. You maintain jurisdiction over every trickle, 

don’t you?

Mr. Veysey. No, Senator. I mentioned the limitation of 5 acres of a 

natural lake or pond. It is excluded below that size. A stream would 

have to have a normal flow in excess of 5 cubic feet per second.
64

Senator Burdick. Th at is what we are talking about; good, clean 

water that comes down and the farmer traps to feed his animals. It 

is good, clean water. It is not polluted. So if it goes over 5 acres, 

he can’t do it.

Mr. Veysey. No. I t doesn’t mean he can’t do it. But he m ight be 

subject to a permit requirement, if it is over 5 cubic feet per second 

normal flow. It doesn’t mean peak flow, but normal flow throughout 

the year.

Senator B urdick. As the Senator from Maine said, we have different 

types of snowfalls. Some years you might have a pond of 4 acres; 

maybe some years a pond of 7 acres. It varies with the runoff.

It looks to me like the farmer is going to have to be pretty careful 

about his applications.

Senator Muskie. He will have to subscribe to the Farmers’ Almanac.

Senator Domenici. Would Senator Muskie yield on tha t point? I 

would like to just raise another example of the situation.

Senator Muskie. I am always delighted to yield to you, Senator 

Domenici.

Senator Domenici. Let me change to the construction of bridges. I 

assume you have been confronted with that. I have a letter from the 

State Highway Departm ent of the State of New Mexico. They 

plan to build a bridge along the Rio Grande River in New Mexico.

They have been studying it for 6 years. The Corps of Engineers 

told them, "Do n’t worry about it.” They applied some years ago for a 

permit. No response. T hey feel it comes under your present power as 

interpreted by the court.

They are ready to go to bid. They have cleared 17 agencies with this 

bridge, including the regional office of the Environmental Protection 

Agency—but do not have a corps permit. They don’t know when they 

open the bids if they can build a bridge.

It seems to me tha t we are talking about an issue of whether or 

not anyone intended 404 to cover that. You conclude and Mr. Train 

concludes that whether we did or not, you have got a pre tty good 

permit system in place.

If I understand Mr. Train, he doesn’t want to take it over because 

it is a very difficult proposition.

But what are we going to do about bridges in a dry State like New 

Mexico? Are they covered or not? You might say they are exempt. 

Bu t I think the very power that exempts them means you have the 

power to do something about it. I think that is the issue.

We have to change the law. It can’t be by exemptions when you 

have got a court opinion saying you have got control over everything.

I think that is the issue we have got. It covers farms. It covers 

everything we have talked about. Would you answer that question on 

bridges?

Mr. Veysey. Yes. I will attem pt to. I don’t know that specific 

bridge.

Senator Muskie. You do now.

Mr. Veysey. We lack, as you point out, the clear-cut auth ority to 

exempt particular actions, although they might be minimal in effect. 

We are recommending and requesting tha t that shortfall in the 

legislation be corrected, by providing the opportunity to exempt minor
65

actions and by making it clear also th at our general permit auth ority 

will in fact hold up under any sort of a legal contest.

Highway work and bridge work I think will generally fall under the 

general permit category which we are attempting to implement. We 

would like that authority to be clearly written into the law.

Senator Muskie. Could I put another question, and then I am 

going to leave because I have to floor manage at 8:00 in the morning, 

and I will excuse my colleagues if they are a little late.

My farmers were telling me that they already are required under 

State law to do everything tha t your regulations here ask them to do. 

So now they have to do it twice. They have to go through the whole 

process of State agencies, and there are several because there are 

several State laws that are applicable, and then they have to come 

back and go through a whole process with you again.

They don’t believe it was required under Section 404. I have told 

them 1 don’t believe it was. So without any of the legislative p reparation for the kind of policy tha t you are talking about—and the advantage of legislative preparation is that it alerts people to what is 

coming.

If the farmers of this country understood tha t Section 404 was 

going to have the implications for them that you are giving it, you 

wouldn’t be hearing about it. We would have heard about it in hearings 

like this before the legislation was written.

If there were State laws th at covered the same ground, that would 

have emerged in the course of those hearings. We would have taken it 

into account in writing the law.

With respect to the 1899 law, it isn’t so long ago, Russell, that the 

administration wanted to write a whole water pollution control policy 

under the 1899 law. We wrote the 1972 law for the purpose of avoiding 

the administrative horrors tha t th at created for you.

So you backed off the 1899 law, welcomed the 1972 law with open 

arms, and now you have returned to the 1899 law with the help of the 

courts in order to write a whole new kind of regulatory system that 

has created all of these problems; marching into areas already covered 

by State law, leaving farmers and foresters and others in doubt as to 

whether their legitimate activities are regulated.

This is what you have created with this thing. I don’t think anybody 

on this committee challenges the concept of the hydrologic cycle. You 

read our language and are defining our commitment.

Now you have a permit system tha t we never envisaged covered 

activities we never had in mind, creating these problems which are 

creating a mess for everybody concerned, and confronting us with the 

legislative problem that we have only the vaguest outlines of a solution for. That is why we are here.

I don’t question the good intentions. I don’t question the motivations. As a m atte r of fact, I welcome the transformation of the Corps 

of Engineers to an environmentally sensitive agency, if that has 

actually happened.

I don’t quarrel with any of this, except th at I think it has been done 

with the wrong approach and the wrong way and with the predictable 

consequences: A considerable rebellion at the grass roots of the farming 

communities of this country.

With that, I don’t really think I need to ask any more questions. 

I just waste time by doing so.
66

But I don’t question the motivations. I appreciate the light tha t 

this hearing throws upon your actions and the reasons why you took 

them. I think it is important tha t the committee know that. I am 

sorry tha t I am going to miss the other testimony, which I know will 

also be helpful. B ut I have read some of it already.

Senator Randolph. Don’t miss my question, because I want you 

to hear it. Then you can run. I am delighted tha t we have reached 

tha t point at a quarter after nine where instead of calling him Mr. 

Train or Administrator, you just refer to him as Russell.

Senator Muskie. I forgot his last name.

Senator Randolph. Mr. Train, and Secretary Veysey, I have a 

feeling we are approaching a situation of a 404 and a 402 permit being 

required for the same discharge. Do you think th at is an overstatement?

Mr. Train. Yes, sir; I do. I think I will ask my colleague to bail 

me out.

If there is one thing clear in this somewhat confused picture, it is 

that these two programs are mutually exclusive. When the 402 authority was written you did not want EPA permitting the Corps of 

Engineers’ activities. So, therefore, something had to be done to 

exclude the Corps from the scope of EP A’s 402 activities. Therefore, 

404 was written.

And it was a court decision—not an administrative decision—tha t 

led to the Corps’ jurisdiction under 404 being as broad as i t is now 

being exercised.

Senator Randolph. Mr. Train, I doubt that you realize the authority tha t you have under 402. What do you deem tha t authority 

to be? Where does it stop?

Mr. Train. It does not cover the Corps of Engineers activities, as 

I understand it.

Senator Randolph. Don’t you regulate more of the Corps’ activities under 404?

Senator Domenici. He doesn’t; they do.

Senator Randolph. Yes.

Senator Muskie. If it were not for section 404, may I say, if section 404 were not in the law, what authority would you have with 

respect to, say, dredging activities by the Corps? Would you have 

none?

Mr. Train. I believe tha t we would be covering dredge and fill 

activities under 402.

Senator Muskie. Do you have authority under 402?

Mr. Train. Right. I think we are all saying the same thing.

Senator Randolph. Th at is correct.

Mr. Taft. In fact, they don’t interfere with the 404 program. They 

don’t attempt to overlap. That may be administrative in the sense 

tha t if you abolished 404, 402 could reach some of the same activities.

Senator Muskie. They interfere in this sense: If you gave EPA 

sufficient authority in section 402 to do the whole job, why would it 

be assumed in section 404, which is worded as an exemption, that 

section 404 gave the Corps of Engineers like authority? Why would 

we go do a useless act of tha t kind? T hat is how it is being interpreted.

Mr. Taft. I think under 404(c) you are concerned with hab itat of 

fisheries, wildlife, shellfish beds, and so forth.
67

Senator Muskie. T hat is right. We did not want you to dump these 

poison dredge spoils off the bottom of the harbors onto those areas. 

But that doesn’t mean tha t ERD A gave you broad authority, regulatory authority, with those habitats that we intended to give to EPA 

under section 402, section 208, and so on.

But you have interpreted the existence of those words in section 404 

as giving you comprehensive authority over all those areas we were 

trying to protect against you.

Mr. Taft. Section 402 would not let you consider whether you are 

putting fill into a shellfish bed.

Senator Muskie. Section 404 does.

Mr. Taft. Correct.

Senator Muskie. But your interpretation of section 404 converts 

you from the protected against to the protected.

Mr. Taft. We would protect against the filler.

Senator Muskie. But you are a filler. You are a dredger. You are 

an implementor of dredge policies and dredge programs. In section 

404, we were trying to protect against your inclination prior to that 

time and those who worked under your contracts to deposit dredge 

fills in the wrong places from an environmental point of view.

You have interpreted tha t language which was designed to protect 

the environment against your activities as giving you authority to 

protect. You have put the fox in the chicken coop. Tha t is what you 

have done. If in the meantime you have become a chicken maybe that 

has changed the situation.

Mr. Veysey. Let me say, Senator Muskie, I think there is one 

further difference with respect to section 402 and section 404 that 

hasn’t been noted here.

Senator Randolph. Don’t make any “fowl” comment.

I am sorry. Please.

Mr. Veysey. You commented on the fact that some farmer might 

have to go through a parallel experience in certain States in getting 

a permit from the State.

In section 402, the authority was given to EPA to delegate that 

responsibility to the States. It was not provided in section 404. We 

are asking tha t that be provided because we feel tha t there are a 

number of States who would perform that admirably and many more 

would join them if they had the opportunity, and tha t should be 

delegated to the States themselves to gra nt the single permit. We have 

tried to accommodate tha t by working with the States insofar as 

possible. B ut the delegation authority is simply n ot there.

Senator Muskie. Th at may have to be part of the cure now. but 

tha t doesn’t eliminate the disease.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will excuse me.

Senator Randolph. Yes. I am going to excuse all of us in just a 

moment. L et’s think this through together. Is it agreeable to you, Mr. 

Reed, to place your statement in the record?

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir.

Senator Randolph. Questions the committee members would have 

could be addressed to you because of comments made. Would tha t be 

agreeable?
68

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL P. REED, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

THE INTERIOR FOR FISH AND WILDIFE AND PARKS

Mr. Reed. That would be most agreeable, Mr. Chairman. I think if 

you take the books that we prepared for you which give you the seven 

eco-types, which are the major areas of contention. I hope th at they 

will be of value to you. I am sure they will be because they lay out 

the areas and my statement explains exactly what areas are covered 

by what regulations. So tha t you get some relationship between the 

areas and regulations.

I would just like to emphasize in my statement tha t the loss of 

wetlands in this country has been alarming. It is my fervent hope that 

the committee will recognize the importance of wetlands to commercial 

and sport fisheries, which must be the determining point in your final 

consideration.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to put the rest of my 

statement in the record.

[Secretary Reed’s statement and a supplement follow:]

Statement of the Honorable Nathaniel P. Reed, Assistant Secretary

of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Dr. Train, Secretary Veysey, Mr. Ta ft, 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Your invitation to appear before this committee to review the sta tutory basis 

for and implications of regulations implementing Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 is 

most welcome. The matters which you have comm itted to stud y are of immea surable importance to the futu re of this nation’s waters, the living resources which 

the y support, and certain sectors of the United States economy. The Federal 

Wa ter Pollution Control Act is clearly landmark environmental legislation. 

Comprehensive in scope and strategy for managing water quality, it establishes 

important natio nal objectives in seeking the attain me nt of conditions adequate 

to the protection and propaga tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. These are prime 

indicators of ecological health and relate direc tly to the well-being of all of us.

The Corps of Engineers is presently implementing Phase I of its regulatory 

program under Section 404. By July 1, 1977, Phases II and II I will be in effect, 

regu lating the majority of wetlands I shall describe in my testimony with the 

possible exception of many bogs. The Cleveland-Harsha Amendment essentially 

would place the same regulations on wetlands as does the Corps Phase II I 

program. However, it would further clarify certain language to insure th at normal 

farm ing practices and main tenance of existing serviceable structures will not be 

encum bered throu gh over-regulation.

Under the Wright Amendment, only those wetlands which are adjac ent or 

contiguous to navigable waters as defined by their potential for commerical navigatio nal purposes would be regulated by the Corps. All other wetlands would be 

regu lated only at the option of the State Governor.

Pa rt of our purpose in being here today is to examine Section 404 of the Water 

Act to determ ine whether it serves the intent of Congress in enacting the legislation, or whether amendments at this time are necessary or desirable in th at 

context. Section 404 regulates, by permit, the discharge of dredged and fill m ate ­

rials. These discharges direc tly affect water qu ality w hether they occur in a mainstem or in waters more remote. The discharged materials at issue include a v arie ty 

of contaminants from indu strial and municipal pollutan ts, pumpage and spillage 

from vessels, and contaminated runoff from agriculture and industrialized or 

urbanized areas. The environm entally sound disposal of these materials is necessary if our economic needs a re to be m et and at th e same time we are to maintain 

the inte grity of our aquatic resources.

The areas at issue do not rela te singularly to navigable waters as tradition ally 

defined, bu t to (1) the protection of fish and wildlife resources and (2) the ma intenance of water quality. A classification scheme which separates waters into categories based on their usage vs. nonusage, by ship traffic can not protect much of 

our nation’s wetlands that form interrelated and independ ent natural ecosystems.
69

This is precisely why the 404 program is so important. T hrough the 404 program 

we are able to regu late filling and disposal in waters n ot covered by the historical 

regulatory program which concerned itself primarily with navigatio nal servitude.

In recent years the public has begun to recognize and apprecia te th at wetland 

ecosystems are of vital importance in satisfying hum an needs as well as essential 

environmental roles. Far beyond their necessity for the survival and well-being 

of countless plants and animals nativ e to the Con tine ntal United S tates, wetla nds 

play essential roles in many natural functions vital to man. For example, the y 

retard the flow of w ater from the land, moderate flood flows, augmen t low flows, 

and help purify water by absorbing silt, polluta nts, and nutrients th at would 

otherwise degrade domestic water supplies, irrig ation reservoirs, estuaries and 

oth er waters. Wetlands play a significant role in m aintaining and recharging under ­

ground aquifers and buffer shorelines aga inst storm tides and erosion. Hardwood 

timber production depends on wetland ecosystems in some areas, as do a wide 

variety of other flora and fauna. Wetlands also provide valuable learning laboratories for many educ ational institutions.

A great preponderance of all wetlands also provide recreational and esth etic 

values beyond calculation. Their importance to the perpetu ation of both spo rt 

and commercial marine fisheries is undispu ted—up to 90 percent of all marine 

finfish and shell fish depend upon coastal marshes and estuaries d uring some portion 

of their life cycles. Likewise, freshwater marshes are equally critical to many 

fish species inhabiting inland waters. Wetlands also provide vita l habitat for a 

variety of other wildlife, including furbearers, a mu ltitude of wading and shorebirds, and many of the song bird species. The importance of w etlands to wildlife 

and man can be bette r understood when we realize th at m any wetlands are three 

to four times more productive tha n other non-wetland ha bitat types.

These values have become well enough known throug h documentation, to convince a growing segment of the general public th at wetlands must be protected from 

destruction.

I think it highly im portant th at this committee and the public be given some 

appreciation of the types of “w etlan ds” not subject to regulation except und er 

the 404 program and of the importance of these wetlands in term s of the n ation’s 

fish and wildlife resources. I will briefly describe seven major categories of wetland 

resources. We have prep ared a short briefing booklet containing photographs of 

each of these wetland types with an accom panying description of the biological 

importance of these resources, and you may wish to refer to this material as I 

quickly touch upon each of the categories.

1. IN TERIO R FR ES HW ATER M ARSH ES

These m arshes are found predominan tly in the uppe r midwest a nd the sou the ast 

in shallow lake basins, potholes, sloughs, and bordering open water.

In the west and upp er midwest, flocks of greater sandhill cranes, tru mp ete r 

swans, mallards, teal, gadwalls, and snow and Can ada geese use these marshes 

extensively for feeding and nesting.

In the south, large rookeries of herons, egrets, and ibis are found inhabiting 

these marshes. The southern marshes also are important wintering grounds for 

many species of m igratory birds. Raccoons, muskra ts, or red fox are examples of 

the inh abitants of n orther n marshes; while otter, bobcat, grey fox, opossum and 

marsh rabbits are common in the southern marshes. Interior freshwater marshes 

constitute im portant spaw ning and rearing grounds for freshwater fish and invertebrate s which furnish food for numerous other species, including man.

The contribution of these marshes to the protection and prop agation of fish 

and wildlife is mon umenta lly important. They function as nat ura l flood retaining 

reservoirs of tremendo us value to downstream interests. And yet the y are und ergoing relentless alte ration and encroachment as man reshapes the American 

landscape with his draglines and bulldozers.

The Corps of Engineers will fully regulate this encroachment when its P hase I II 

program is implemented. The Cleveland-Harsha Amendment would also prote ct 

these marshes. The Wright Amendment would exclude them from any regulation 

other tha n th at imposed by the involved State, unless the wetland is adj acent 

to navigable waters.

2. IN TERIO R SALIN E M ARSH ES

Interior saline marshes are found across the cou ntry bu t are prim arily concentra ted in our western States. These marshes may cover extensive areas and represen t the most im portant waterfowl feeding and nesting grounds in the Pacific 

Flyway and are heavily used along the Centra l Flyway.
70

Snowy egrets, white ibis, black-crowned wiglet herons, w'histling swans, and 

oth er species stop here to feed during migration and many rema in to nest. Large 

numbers of waterfowl winter here. Numerous other species of fish and wildlife 

depen d upon these marshes for their continued existence and survival. These 

marshes serve many other purposes, such as the regulation of freshwater inflows 

to estuaries and the main tena nce of saline balances. But the y too are undergoing 

increasing alteration. Intensive drilling of wells for grou ndwater is lowering water 

table s and leaving many of these saline marshes dry and no longer productive. 

Man still has a pen cha nt for filling these marshes for industrial and residentia l 

sites.

These saline marshes are covered under the Corps of Engineers Phase II and 

Phase I II programs for Section 404. They would also be p rotected if the ClevelandHarsha Amendment is passed. However, there is no mention of interior saline 

marshes in the Wright Amendment and they therefore would be protecte d only 

under certain State regulations.

3. SWAMPS

Swamps constitu te another vital wetland type in this country. Swamps are 

found along sluggish streams, on flood plains and in shallow lake basins. They 

occur in greatest abundance in the southeastern States and the Great Lakes 

States.

These wetlands supp ort a wide variety of life forms, including a num ber of 

endangered species. T he waters support populations of bass, bluegill and Catfish. 

Striped bass, an imp ortant commercial and sport fish, spawn in the shallows of 

many southern swamps.

Raccoons, beaver, river otters, bobcats, and white-tailed deer inhabit the 

wooded and shrub areas. Panthers, puma, and black bear can be found in southern 

swamps. Numerous waterfowl species including ring-necked ducks, wood ducks, 

pintails as well, and wading birds such as herons, egrets, and ibis rely on these 

swamps for food and shelter. Wooded swamps become particu larly important in 

years when lack of sufficient fall and early w inter rains leave overflow areas dry. 

At such times, these swamps represe nt the only shallow w ater available over wide 

areas.

Our nation’s swamps are mon umentally important in m aintaining groundwater 

levels. They contribute importantly to water qu ality by taking up many pollutan ts 

through marsh plants. They are threate ned by many deleterious practices such as 

drainage, filling and their use for improper solid waste disposal.

Some swamps are presently covered under the Corps of Engineers Phase I 

program and the remaining swamps will be covered with the impleme ntation of 

Phases II and II I of the 404 program. The Cleveland-Harsha Amendment would 

also protect these wetlands. Under the Wright Amendment only those swamps 

adjace nt to navigable waters would be protected. The remaining swamps would 

have to come under State regulation—mostly non-existent in the majority of 

states.

4. SHALLOW PONDS AND POTHOLES

Shallow ponds and potholes are found in all sections of the country bu t are 

localized in the upper midwest and the southeast. During mid- and late summer 

as perman ent marshes begin to dry out, these shallow ponds and potholes are 

heavily used by wildlife. Waterfowl use these areas extensively for nesting and 

feeding during the migration.

Racoons, otters, bobcats, white-tailed deer and numerous other species feed 

and find cover along th e shorelines. The American alligator is a common in habitant 

of many southern ponds. These ponds and potholes sup por t many species of fish 

and invertebrates t ha t are critical in the food chain.

By the completion of Phase III of th e Corps of Engineers implementation program for Section 404, all of these shallow ponds and potholes will be under protective regulation. They will also be protected by the proposed Cleveland-Harsha 

Amendment except where the y relate to normal farming practices. The Wright 

Amendment proposed to give the States regulatory authorities for the majority 

of these ponds and potholes.

6. BOOS

Bogs are found primarily on the east coast and in scatter ed concentration s in 

the Great Lakes State s. These wetlands provide key ha bitat for mammals and 

amphibians and in New England are very imp ortant for waterfowl production. 

Maine classifies over 25,000 acres of bogs as being of primary importance to th at 

State’s waterfowl.
71

In recent ye ars we have seen a great decline in black duck populations. No rthern 

bogs provide important nesting and feeding habit at for the species. Ring-necked 

ducks regularly inh abit these bogs while golden eye and the hooded merganser 

have been found with broods in New England bogs.

During dry periods when water levels in oth er wetland areas are falling, wildlife flock to these bogs for th e green vege tation and the nutrients which are stored 

in the sediments. Due to their pristine environm ents, many of these bogs are 

becoming increasingly thre atened from developments for housing and resorts.

The Corps of Engineers Phase III program may regulate some of the bogs. It 

would appear th at neither the Cleveland-Ilarsha Amendment nor the Wright 

Amendment will place bogs under the jurisdiction of the 404 program.

6. N O N -N A V IG A B L E STR EA M S AND T R IB U T A R IE S

Perhaps the most valuable wetland type of all is non-navigable stream s and 

tributaries. Inland strea ms and trib utaries carry most of th e surface water found 

in this country. They arise from surface runoff, springs, and seepage areas, or as 

outlets from ponds and lakes. The majority of these streams are non-navigable 

due to their capa city, water velocity, inter mittent falls, and myriad obstructions. 

Nonetheless, these wate rs are of tremendous value for fish, mammals, birds, and 

amphibians. Many of the woodlands nourished by these waters are im porta nt 

remaining natur al wood stands. These waters are a vital source of oxygen and 

nutrients for larger bodies of water. Conversely, the ir contamination can offset 

the closest regulation of receiving waters. The complex currents and the natur ally 

occurring pool-riffle-slackwater sequence allows for a diversity of flora and fauna, 

which would disappear if this environmen t were altered. Anadromous salmonids 

migrate thou sands of miles to the smallest streams and tributaries to spawn. 

Some of these streams are so shallow th at at times spawning fishes are not even 

completely covered by water. The characteristics of the fast flowing stre am are 

vital for the survival of these species which con stitute an enormous spo rt and 

commercial fishery of g reat economic and cultural value.

Birds, both game and non-game, use the shoreline vegetation for resting, nesting, and feeding grounds. Many mammals find the ir niches along th e s tream bank. 

White-tailed deer browse on the lush vegetation and find protective cover from 

predators. Brown bears find their greates t source of nourishment in these stream s.

The extensive 1971 Hearings of Congressman Reuss and his subcomm ittee of 

the House Committe e on Governm ent Operations docum ented the^ ongoing 

devasta tion of this natio n’s non-navigable streams and tributaries. Under the 

existing 404 program we at last have the tools with which to salvage what rema ins 

of this once vast resource.

The Corps of Engineers will regulate these streams thro ugh its Phase II and 

III program of Section 404. The Cleveland-11 arsh a Amendment would also place 

these stream s under Corps regulation. The Wright Amendment, if enacted would 

make regulation of these streams a Sta te option, and thu s not assure the needed 

protection.

7. COAST AL F R E S H W A T E R M A R SH ES

Another class of wetlands of great ecological importance is the coastal fresh 

marshes and coastal open fresh waters which lie land ward of many of the saline 

and brackish coastal marshes of the gulf and Atla ntic coasts. Only a tiny fraction 

of these wetlands is classified as trad itio nally navigable waters.

These marshes provide essential ha bitat for migratory waterfowl and wading 

birds. During th e early spring months in th e north, black ducks, blue-winged teal, 

mallards and gadwalls nest on the m arsh, while herons, egrets, ibises and avocets 

feed in the pools. Many species winter in these areas, including large flocks of 

ducks, snow geese, Can ada geese and whistling swans.

Along the gulf coast, dabbling ducks, blue and snow geese, herons, egrets, and 

ibises can be found feeding and nesting in the marsh. They accommodate for 

furbearin g animals such as raccoons, muskrats, cottontails, otters and mink.

Coastal fresh waters are highly productiv e of fishes and shellfishes, including 

many th at are ultimately taken in estuarine and ocean waters. The majority of 

the commercial U.S. fish catch (1.66 billion pounds in 1975) is comprised of species 

dependent upon estuaries and associated coastal marshes. For the period 1960- 

1968, estuarine-de pend ent species comprised abo ut 98 percent (by poundage) 

of the catch. I cite you to the intent of Congress in enacting the 200 mile limit 

in relation to these facts . The species contributin g to this har ves t include the 

brown, white, and pink shrimps, menhaden, spot, Atla ntic croaker, striped mullet, 

black drum, and red drum . Other important commercial species include the 

American oyster, blue crab, a nd th e spo tted sea trou t.
72

The waters are important nursery grounds for saltwater fish and the interface 

between the salt and fresh water marsh is vital for shellfish production.

Together with downstream brackish and saline wetlands, these waters form 

a complex coastal wetlands ecosystem, all parts of which are linked together and 

energized by flows of water and of nutrients. The degradation and destruction 

of the freshwater wetlands of this system reduce the vita lity and productivity 

of the saline and brackish components. If we are to reach the national goals of the 

Water Act, it i3 essential that the conservation and development of these wetlands 

be accomplished through a comprehensive and consistent regulatory strategy that 

includes all elements of the coastal wetlands.

These areas are presently being seriously threatened by industrialization and 

urbanization. Roads, for example, are being constructed through the marshes, 

restricting vital flows of water and nutrients. In a number of States the “ high 

marsh areas” that lie above the Corps of Engineers historic jurisdiction are being 

lost to development at a truly frightening pace.

These coastal marshes will come under the regulations of the Corps of Engineers 

through its implementation of Section 404, and would be regulated by the Cleveland-Harsha Amendment. The Wright Amendment would leave the regulation of 

the majority of these waters up to the States and again does not insure the protection of these critical areas.

I think you can see from this abbreviated discussion that many waters have 

little relationships to commercial navigation, but are essential to the protection 

and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and contribute very significantly to 

water quality. Most certainly, the objective of the Water Act and its stated goal 

for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife cannot be achieved by 

a Section 404 program which fails to regulate disposal of dredged and fill materials 

in the seven categories of wetlands discussed above.

Critics of the Section 404 program have cited its potential for over-regulation. 

Certain ly that potential is present. Without a practicable means to identify and 

regulate classes of routine and nondestructive activities, there is a real danger that 

the program could be overwhelmed by red tape, bogged down by unconscionably 

long delays, and distracted from its real mission of effectively regulating activities 

that seriously degrade water quality and unreasonably impair fish and wildlife 

protection and propagation.

The Section 404(b) guidelines provide a useful and effective means for screening 

permit applications to eliminate unnecessary chemical and biological analyses of 

dredged or fill materials.

They provide for the exemption of certain normal agricultural, silvicultural, 

ranching, navigation, and transportation activities from the individual review of a 

host of routine, noncontroversial, and environmentally innocuous actions. The 

Cleveland-Harsha Amendment would legislate exemptions of this type. A provision 

of this nature would appropriately express Congressional sanction for a logical 

approach to avoidance of over-regulation.

Because of the geographical scope of the Section 404 program, it is inevitable 

that other classes of minimal impact activities will be identified. The current 

general permit program provides a reasonable alternative means whereby these 

activities can be regulated without requirement for separate permit reviews.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service informs me that general permits issued to 

date by some Districts have measurably reduced the routine paperwork associated 

with review of minor permit applications, and have thus provided much needed 

additional time for review of applications which require closer study.

Reasonable guidelines, specific activ ity exemptions, and general permits provide 

logical and workable means to avoid over-regulation without frustrating the 

fundamental objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We do not 

believe that the Ac t’s objective can be attained by carving aw ay major portions of 

geographical jurisdiction or by providing optional permit programs that might 

well result in fragmented, inconsistent, or intermittent regulation of disposal 

activities in major aquatic systems.

As you know, during consideration of amendments to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act in the House of Representatives, we strongly supported the 

Cleveland-Harsha amendment. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. 

Presently the Administration has this issue under review but no new specific 

position has yet been promulgated. Any new position should, however, offer 

proper protection to the vita l resources which I have discussed while avoiding 

over-regulation and burdensome permit requirements.
73

Department of the Interior 

Briefi ng Supp lement on Wetl ands

Relativ e to Prop osed Mod ifi cat ion s 

of Sect ion 404 of the

Federal Wat er Pol lution Control Act
74

Importance of Wetlands

In recent years the public has begun to recognize and 

appreciate that wetland ecosystems are of vital importance 

in satisfying human needs as well as essential environmental 

roles. Far beyond their necessity for the survival and 

well-being of countless plants and animals native to the 

Continental United States, wetlands play essential roles in 

many natural functions vital to man. For example, they 

retard the flow of water from the land, moderate flood 

flows, augment low flows, and help purify water by absorbing 

silt, pollutants, and nutrients that would otherwise degrade 

domestic water supplies, irrigation reservoirs, estuaries 

and other waters. Wetlands play a significant role in 

maintaining and recharging underground aquifers and buffer 

shorelines against storm tides and erosion. Hardwood timber 

production depends on wetland ecosystems in some a reas, as 

do a wide variety of other flora and fauna. Wetlands also 

provide valuable learning laboratories for many educational 

institutions.

A great preponderance of all wetlands also provide recreational and esthetic values beyond calculation. Their importance 

to the perpetuation of both sport and commercial marine

fisheries is undisputed— up to 90 percent of all marine

finfish and shellfish depend upon coastal marshes and estuaries 

during some portion of their life cycles. Likewise, freshwater 

marshes are equally critical to many fish species inhabiting 

inland waters. Wetlands also provide vital habitat for a 

variety of other wildlife, including furbearers, a multitude 

of wading and shorebirds, and many of the song bird species.

The importance of wetlands to wildlife and man can be

better understood when we realize that many w etlands are 

three to four times more productive than other non-wetland 

habitat types.

These values have become well enough known through d ocumentation, to convince a growing segment of the general 

public that wetlands must be protected from destruction.

The Corps of Engineers is presently implementing Phase I of 

its regulatory program under Section 404. By July 1, 1977,

Phase II and III will be in effect, regulating the majority 

of wetlands with the possible exception of many bogs. The 

Hart Amendment essentially would place the same regulations 

on wetlands as does the Corps Phase III program. However, 

it would further clarify certain language to insure that 

normal farming practices and maintenance of existing serviceable structures will not be encumbered through overregulation.
75

Under the Wright Amendment, only those wetlands which are 

adjacent or contiguous to navigable waters as defined by 

their potential for commercial navigational purposes would 

be regulated by the Corps. All other wetlands would be 

regulated only at the option of the State Gov ern or.

Public Law 93-205 stipulates that no Federal agency may 

authorize any undertaking which would further degrade an 

endangered or threatened species population or its critical 

habitat. If the Wright Amendment is accepted, thus giving a 

great deal of permitting authority to the State Governor, 

these populations may risk further depletion.

76-161 0 - 76 -6
76

California Freshwater Marsh

Canada Geese on Maryland 

Freshwater Marsh
77

WETLA ND CATEGORIES

Marsh

Marshes are found predominantly in the Upper Midwest and the 

Southeast. These wetlands are used extensively by waterfowl 

for nesting and feeding habitat. The deeper marshes are 

considered to produce the best breeding habitat in the 

country.

Marsh soil may be water logged or covered with as much as

three feet of water. Marshes are found in shallow lake

basins, potholes, sloughs, and bordering open water.

Vegetation is restricted to plants that can tolerate submerged 

conditions and organic soils, and include cattails, bulrushes, 

spikerushes, and wild rice in shallow areas and, pon dwe eds , 

naiads, w atermilfo ils , waterweeds, waterlilies, and spatterdocks 

in open areas. Water-hyacinth and water primrose form surface 

mats in some localities in the southeast.

The primary production of organic material in marshlands may 

frequently be three to four times that of forest ecosystems. 

Corresponding levels of production would be difficult if not 

impossible to attain in other habitat types even under 

intensive management. This production is utilize d by a 

variety of animals including migratory species.

In the West and Upper Midwest, flocks of Greater Sandhill 

Cranes, Trumpeter swans, mallards, American widgeon, seals, 

gadwalls, snow and Canada geese may be seen nesting in the 

marshes. Large rookeries of herons, egrets, and ibises are 

found in the South. The southern marshes are also important 

wintering grounds for many species of waterfowl including 

snipe, Greater Sandhill Crane, and several endangered species 

including the southern bald eagle.

The marsh habitat supports a large muskrat population which 

feed upon leaves and roots. The mink is the chief predator 

found in the marsh.

Raccoons and red fox inhabit the marshes of the North while 

otter, bobcat, grey fox, opossum and marsh rabbit are common 

in- the South. The threatened American alligator is also a 

common resident of the southern m arshe s. Urban encroachment 

on these marshes is increasing across the country.
78

Interior Salt Marsh in Utah

Interior Open Salt Marsh 

in Colorado
79

Interior Saline Waters

Interior saline waters are found across the country, but are 

primarily concentrated in our western States. They may 

cover extensive areas locally, and represent the most important 

feeding and nesting grounds for migrating birds in the 

Pacific flyway, but are also heavily used along the Central 

flyway.

Water levels range from waterlogged soils to open waters 

several feet in depth. The vegetation consists mainly of 

salt tolerant plants such as seablite, saltgrass and s altbrush in the shallow waters and hardstem bulrushes, wigeongrass and sago pondweeds in the deeper waters.

The inhabitants of these areas vary from season to season.

Snowy egrets, white ibis, black-crowned night herons, whistl ing 

swans, gadwalls, redheads, and mallards stop here to feed on 

their spring migrat ion North and many remain to nest. Large 

numbers of canvasback, baldplate, mallard and goldeneye 

winter here. The bald eagle feeds here in the winter months 

along with the peregrine falcon, both endangered species.

Intensive drilling of wells for ground water has increased 

the number of saline waters which have become dry. Any 

action to fill these areas will add significantly to the 

loss of this valuab le habitat.
80

Michigan Swamp
81

Swamps

The southeastern states and the Great Lake states have the 

densest swamp concentrations in the country. These swamps 

are used by waterfow l for nesting and feeding grounds in the 

North and for roosting and feeding grounds in the Southeast. 

In the Southeast, wooded swamps become particularly important 

in years when lack of sufficient fall and early winter rains 

leave overflow areas dry. At such times, these swamps 

represent the only shallow water available over wide areas.

Swamps are found along sluggish streams, on flood plains, 

and in shallow lake basins. The water level ranges from 

waterlogged soils to standing water depths of up to one 

foot. The vegetation varies from shrub swamp to wooded 

swamp. Shrub swamps include alders, willows, dogwoods, and 

swamp privet with numerous types of berry producing bushes.

Wooded swamps in the North are composed of tamarack, black 

spruce, cedar, balsam, red maple, willow, and black ash.

In the South, the main species are water oak, gum trees, 

with cypress being dominant. Wooded swamps are usually 

accompanied by a ground cover of mosses, duckweeds or 

smar tweeds.

Swamps support a wide variety of life including endangered 

and relatively uncommon species. The waters support populations of bass, bluegill, and catfish. Striped-bass, an 

important commercial and sport fish spawn in the shallows of 

many southern swamps. Raccoon, beaver, river otter, bobcat, 

and white-tailed deer inhabit the wooded and shrub areas. 

Cougar, and black bear can be found in the South along with 

the threatened American alligator and the endangered Florida 

everglade kite. Numerous waterfowl species including ringnecked duck, wood duck, pintail, teals, egrets, herons, 

ibises, and osprey feed in these swamps and many winter in 

the southern states.

Swamps are threatened by many practices such as improper 

solid waste disposal and con struc tion of sites for cottages.
82

Rush Lake, North Dakota

Florida Water Lettuce Pond
83

Inland Open Fr esh Water

These shallow ponds and potholes are found in all sections 

of the country but are most abundant in the Upper Midwest 

and Southeast. Wildlife productiv ity in these waters far 

exceeds that found in lakes due to the variety of micro ­

habitats, types and amount of food, and myriad vegetation. 

Across the country, these areas serve as feeding areas 

during waterfowl migrat ion and nesting habitat for several 

species. During mid and late summer in the Upper Midwest, 

less permanent marshes begin to dry out and pool areas are 

then heavily utilized.

The water level is usually less than ten feet deep and is 

fringed by a border of emergent vegetation. In the Upper 

Midwest, this vegetation includes hardstem bulrushes, cattail, golden duck and arrowhead. Duckweed, water lettuce, 

and sawgrass are the pr edominant species in the South.

These shallow pools are used as resting and feeding grounds 

by mallard, pintail, teal, gadwall, and shovelers, especially 

during the migration period. Large populations of canvasback 

and redheaded ducks find needed nesting grounds in Upper Mi dwestern ponds. Raccoon, otter, bobcat and white-tailed deer 

feed and find cover along the shorelines. The threatened 

American alligator inhabits ponds in the South. Numerous 

fish species can be found in these waters including catfish, 

bluegill and bass. For many of these fish species, the 

shoreline vegetation is an important factor in survival 

since this is where they spawn.
84

Indiana Tamarack Bog

Shallow Bog in Michigan
85

Bogs

Bogs are found primar ily on the east coast and in scattered 

concentrations in the Great Lake States. Bogs provide 

habitat for mammals and amphibians, and in New England 

are very important for waterfowl production. In Maine 

alone 25,000 acres are classified as being of primary 

importance for waterfowl.

Bog soils are usually waterlo gged and support a spongy 

covering of mosses, however, standing wat er a few feet 

in depth may be found in some areas. Numerous shrub types 

have become particula rly adapted to the bog habitat. Their 

leaves are thick and retard w ater loss. This is vital 

since these shrubs are exposed to very high temperatures 

as a result of intense solar radiation. Leatherleaf, bog 

laurel, and tetter bush are representati ve of these adapted 

species. Other vegetatio n includes labrador-tea, cranberries, 

corex, and cottongrass in the No rth and cyrilla, persea, pondpine and pitcher-pl ants in the South. Scattered, often stunted 

populations of black spruce, birch, ash, and tamarack may be 

found on the borders of bogs.

In recent years, we have seen a great decline in black duck 

populations. Northern bogs provide important nesting and 

feeding habitat for this species. Ring- necked ducks also 

regularly inhabit bogs, feeding on submergent plant food 

and nesting in leather-leaf. Goldeneye and the hooded 

merganser have been found with broods in New England bogs.

Shrub bogs are used in the fall as wate rfowl staging grounds. 

Warblers are the mos t abundant nongame bird species inhabiting 

these ares. White-tai led deer and grouse feed and nest along 

the borders of bogs. Moose also feed in these areas in 

the North. Bluegill, northern pike, bullhead, yello wperch 

and mud minnows are able to live in this low oxygen environment.

During arid periods when other wetlands are becoming dry, 

wildlife will flock to these bogs for green vegetation and 

the nutrients w hich are stored in the sediments.

Due to the pristine environment in which these bogs are 

located, they are increasingly becoming subject to dev elopment for housing and resorts.
86

Stream in Shenandoah Valley

Red Salmon in Alaskan Stream
87

Non-Navigable Streams and Tributaries

Inland streams and tributaries carry the majority of surface 

water found in this country. They arise from surface runoff, 

springs and seepage areas, or as outlets from ponds and lakes. 

The maj ority of these streams are non-navigable due to their 

water velocity, intermittent falls, and myriad obstructions. 

Nonetheless, these waters are of tremendous value for fish, 

mammals, birds, insects, and amphibians. Many of the wo odlands nourished by these waters represent the last remaining 

natural wood stands. These waters are a source of oxygen 

and nutrients for larger bodies of water.

The complex currents and the naturally occurring pool-riff leslackwater sequence allows for a diversity of flora and fauna, 

which would d isappear through species competition if the 

environment was altered. This is especially true for trout 

which feed in the riffles and find shelter in the pools. 

Anadromous salmonids migrate thousands of miles to the 

smallest streams and tributaries to spawn. The charact eristics of the fast flowing stream are vital for the survival 

of these species which support an enormous sport and commercial 

fishery. Various minnows and darters depend on stream 

velocities which maintai n high oxygen levels and carry their 

food supply.

Although the organic productivity of non-na vigable streams 

can vary from high (eutrophy) to low (oligo troph y), freshwater 

ecosystems support a relatively complex food web for top 

carnivores such as salmon and trout. This increased complexit y 

of links in the food web results in increased stability of 

stream communities. Simplificat ion of this type of aquatic 

system usually results in decre ased stability and periodic 

declines in productio n of carnivores.

Birds, both game and non game species, use the shoreline 

vegetation for resting, nesting and feeding grounds. Many 

animals find their niches along the stream bank. White ­

tailed deer browse on the lush vegetat ion and find protective 

cover from predators. Brown bear find their greatest source 

of nourishment in these streams.

The loss of these streams will mean the loss of many species 

which are adapted to particular microh abita ts found in the 

stream environment.
88

Snow Geese on Virginia 

Coastal Fresh Marsh

Road Constructed Through Florida 

Coastal Fresh Marsh

— if,.
89

Coastal Fresh Water Marshes

Coastal fresh water marshes are h eavily concentrated along 

tidal rivers, sounds and deltas on the mid-Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts, but are also found on the coasts of Alaska and 

California. Appro ximat ely four fifths of these wetlands 

occur in Louisiana. These marshes are used moderately for 

nesting in the North Atlantic and Pacific Coastal States. 

Along the Gulf coast these wetlands are most heavily used 

during the winter season by migrator y species. The deeper 

marshes are extremely important for waterfowl utilization.

The water levels range from wate rlogg ed soils to open water 

marshes several feet deep. In the s hallow waters; reeds, 

cordgrass, spikerushes, sawgrass and cattails abound. In 

deeper waters the vegetation is mainly cattails, wildrice, 

pickerelweed, cutgrass and pond wee ds. In the Gulf region, 

water-hyacinth, all iga torweed, and waterlet tuce may produce 

surface mats.

During the early spring months in the North, black ducks, 

blue-winged teal, mallards and gadwalls nest on the marsh, 

while herons, egrets, ibises and avocets feed in the pools. 

Many species winter in these areas, including large flocks 

of ducks, snow geese, Canada geese and whi stlin g swans.

Along the Gulf coast, dabbling ducks, blue and snow geese, 

herons, egrets, and ibises can be found feeding and/or 

nesting in the marsh.

The marshes support various species of mammals such as 

raccoon, muskrat, cottontail, otter, and mink. In the 

South, the American alligator is also found in these waters.

The waters are important nursery grounds for saltwater fish 

and the interface between the salt and fresh water marsh is 

vital for shellfish production.

These areas are presentl y being seriously threatened by 

industrialization and urbanization. Roads are being constructed through the marshes, restricting the vital flow of 

water and nutrients and opening new areas to incursions.
90

Senator Muskie. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent 

presentation. I glanced through it as I listened to the testimony. It is 

a valuable part of the testimony.

Mr. Reed. Thank you.

Senator Randolph. Than k you very much, Mr. Reed. No element 

of this subject matter is going to be pushed aside from our considerations.

Mr. Reed. I know that, sir.

Senator Randolph. Mr. Taft?

STATEMENT OF PE TER R. TAFT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION

Mr. Taft. Mr. Chairman, I would abide also by the same ground 

rules.

[Mr. Taft’s statement follows:]
91

department of justice

STATEMENT

OF

PETER R. TAFT

AS SIST AN T ATTORNEY GENERAL 

LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES D IV IS IO N

BEFORE

THE

COMMITTEE ON PU BL IC WORKS 

UNITED STA TES SENATE

CONCERNING

WATER POLLUTION ACT 

(P L 9 2 -5 0 0 )

ON

JUL Y 2 7 , 1976

76-161 0 - 76 - 7
92

Mr. Chairman, I am Peter Taft, Assistant Attorney 

General of the Land and Natural Resources Division of the 

Department of Justice. I appreciate the opportunity to 

meet with your Committee and to testify concerning the 

implementation of Section 404 of P.L. 92-500, the 1972 

Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The Department of Justice is now, and has been 

for many years, vitally concerned with the protection and 

preservation of our water resources. A major objective 

of the Department of Justice has been the protection of 

our waters from pollution and from destruction by unauthorized dredging, and filling operations. To accomplish 

this end, we created in October 1970 the Pollution Control

Section within the Land and Natural Resources Division 

whose sole function is to coordinate and supervise the 

Department's efforts in protecting our water and air

resources.
93

We have been espec ially concerne d wi th the 

preservation of vital wetlands resources, and have given 

a pro gram to protect these wetlands top p riority with in 

the entire Departm ent of Justice. Until recently, our 

efforts have centered upon enfo rcing Sections 10 and 13 

of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The passage of 

P.L. 92-500, and part icul arly Section 404 thereof, with 

its broad jurisdiction al covera ge of all waters of the 

United States has added appr eciably to our ability to 

protect these inva luabl e natural resources. It has been 

especially impo rtant in allowin g us to pr event the unauthorized destructio n of inter-tida l w etlands and other 

areas of ecological importance which, while located 

physical ly above the line of mean high water, are neve rtheless, by any realisti c standard, an integral and 

necessary part of a pro perly functionin g w ater ecosystem.

I understa nd that this is an oversigh t hearing 

on our activities in carrying o ut Section 404 of the 

Federal Water P ollutio n Control Act (FWPCA), but with 

particul ar emphasis on the impact of prop osed House amendments to Section 404 whic h would radi cally affect the 

Section 404 program. Allegati ons have been made that the 

Corps of E ng in ee rs ' regulation s under Section 404 will
* 94

cause unwarranted interf erenc e with traditional fanning, 

silvaculture, and other local ized activities, and, as 

such, constitute federal land use planning. It has been 

further alleged that the Corps' objectives of wa ter 

quality and environmental review during the permi t stage 

are a creation of the courts rather than Congre ss and 

tran scend the constituti onal basis for r egula tion of 

navig able waters. Both these allegations are in error, 

but their treatment requires a full backgroun d o n the 

constitutional, statutory, and judicial developm ent of 

laws affecting the waters of the United States.

The antecedents o f our national interest in 

water resources extend back to the Magna Charta in 

England in 1215 when public rights of passage and fishing 

were recognized in public waters. The Common L aw of 

England, as adopted in this Nation, clearly recognize d 

that navi gable (i.e., public) waters were not susceptible 

to private ownership, but we re held by the Cr own as trustee 

for the benefit of the whole nation. See Martin v.

Wadd el l, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367 (1842). With the indepen ­

dence of the United States, these same public rights were 

passed as an attribute of sovereignty, to the extent of 

its delegated powers. Over 150 years of Supreme Court
95

decisions have served to define and explain the federal 

interest in the public waters. It was early recognized, 

however, that the Commerc e Clause of the United States 

gave to Congress the overriding power to regulate and 

protect the publi c waters of the Nation. In Gilman v. 

Phi lad elp hia , 70 U.S. 713 (1865), the Supreme Court held, 

in language often since repeated:

Commerce includes navigation. The power 

to regulate commerce comprehen ds the 

control for that purpose, and to the 

extent necess ary of all the navigable 

waters of the United States . . . .

For this purpose they are the public

property of the N atio n; and subject to 

all the requis ite legislatio n by Congress. 

This necessari ly includes the po wer to 

keep them open and free from any obs truction to their navigation, interposed by 

the states or otherw ise . . . . For 

these purposes, Congre ss possesses all the 

powers which existed in the states 

before the adopti on of the national 

Constitution, and w hich always existed 

in the Parl iamen t in England.

In 1871, in The Daniel Ba ll , 77 U.S. 10 Wall.

557, the Court laid down the general rule that, as modified, 

continues to this time, to determ ine whether waters are

navigab le:
96

Those rivers must be regarded as public 

naviga ble rivers that are navig able in 

fact and they are navigable in fact when 

they are used, or are susceptibl e of 

being used, in their ordinary condition 

as highways for commerce.

In 1921, this was inter preted to include all

waters w hich had ever served as waters of commerce in the

past, the so-called test of historic navigability. In 

Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States, 256 U.S. 113 

(1921), the record refl ected that the Despla ines River in 

Illinois had been used until 1825 to t ransport furs and 

supplies by canoe, but had not been used since. Nonetheless, the Court found it navigable, stating:

A river having actual navigable capacity 

in its natural state and capable of carrying commerce among the states, is within 

the power of Congr ess to pr eserve for 

purpos es of future transportation, even 

though it be not at present used for such 

commerce. . . . If they are to be abandoned, it is for Congress, not the Courts, 

so to declare.

Congres sion al author ity is not limited to controlling the navig able waters themselves. In the exercise 

of its regulatory power, Congress can reach activities in 

both non-naviga ble streams and on dry land which adversely 

affect navigable waters. In United States v. Rio Grande
97

Irrigation Co ., 174 U.S. 690 (1899), the defendant pro ­

posed to dam the n on-n avig able upper reaches of the Rio 

Grande and divert its waters to irrigation. The Court 

held that the d istrict court should e njoin the dam under 

a predecesso r of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899 if it were shown that loss of these waters 

would endanger the "navigable capacity" of the lower Rio 

Grande. See also, Oklahoma v. Atki ns on , 313 U.S. 508 

(1941); United States v. 531.13 Acres of La nd , 366 F.2d 

915 (4th Cir. 1966). With respect to dry land, Section 

13 of the Rivers and Harbors A ct of 1899 prohi bits the 

placing of refuse on the banks of navi gable waters whic h 

is likely to be washed into them in the ordinar y course. 

See also United States v. Coom bs , 37 U.S. 634 (12 Pet. 72) 

(1838) involving a cr imina l prosecut ion wher ein the 

Court stated:

The power to regulat e commerce, includes 

the power to regula te navigation, . . . 

It does not stop at the mere boundary 

line of a state, nor is it confin ed to 

acts done on the waters or in the n ece ­

ssary course of the navigatio n thereof. 

It extends to such acts done on land, 

which interf ere with, obstruct, or pre ­

vent the due exercise of power to regu ­

late commerce and navigati on with 

foreign nations and among the states.
Moreover, the federal interest in its waters 

dominates all conf licting interests, state, local, or 

private, whether base d on riparian propert y interests, 

river or sea bed interests, or otherwise. As the S upreme 

Court stated in the leading case of United States v. 

Appa lachian Powe r, 311 U.S. 377 (1940):

The Federal Governmen t has domin atio n 

over the wa ter power inherent in the 

flowing stream. It is liable to no 

one for its use or non-use. The flow 

of a nav igabl e stream is in no sense 

private property; 'that the running 

water in a great navigable stream is 

capable of private ownership is incon ­

ceivable. ' Exclu sion of riparian 

owners from its benefits w ithout 

compensa tion is entirel y wi thin the 

Government’s dis cre tio n.

See also United States v. Chan dler -Dun bar Co ., 229 U.S. 53 

(1913); United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967) ("The 

proper exercise of this power is not an invasion of any 

private property rights in the stream or the lands underlying it.")

This domi nati on is often describe d as a property 

interest. Gilman v. Phi lad elp hia , 3 Wall. 713 (1865) ("For 

this purpose they are the public property of the nation"). 

As such, it is ofte n referred to as a "dominant servitude",
99

FPC v. Nigara Mohawk Power C o. , 347 U.S. 239 (1954) or a 

navigational servitude. However, it is more simply described as the overridin g right of regulati on and control 

under the Commerce Power wh ich surpasses the normal limi tations of a proper ty right.

Althoug h many of the e arly cases and the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899 dealt primar ily wit h navi gatio n 

per se, the doctrine has never been so limited. This 

issue was squarely pres ented in United States v. Appalac hian 

Power Co ., supra, wher e the compan y objected to an FPC 

license for a private dam on a navigabl e river which included 

conditions not related to navigation. The Court rejected 

the argument, stating:

By navigati on respo nden t means no more 

than oper ation s of boats and improvement of the w aterway itself. In truth 

the auth ority of the United States is the 

regu latio n of commerce on its waters. 

Navigabili ty in the sense just stated is 

but a part of this whole. Flood protection, watershed development, recovery of 

the cost of improvements through utilization of power are likewise parts of 

commerce control. . . . The autho rity 

is as broa d as the needs of commerce.

The Flood Control Act of 1917 spoke in terms of 

the development of water power and o ther "properly and 

related" uses as well as navigation. One of the related
100

uses of the waters of the United States has been for the 

development and ma intenanc e of its fisheries. The U.S. 

Fish Commissioner, the forerunner of the Bureau of 

Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service, was created by 

Joint Resolution No. 22, adopted on February 9, 1871, 

based upon the congr essio nal finding that "the most 

valuable food fishes of the co ast and lakes of the United 

States are rapidly diminishin g in number, to the public 

injury, and so as material ly to affect the interests of 

trade and commerce". He, and the succeedin g agencies, 

have been required to report annual ly to Congress on 

the status of fisheries. 16 U.S.C. § 744. Since 1934 

any impoundment of water by a federal agency or under 

its permit has required consult ation with the Bureau of 

Fisheries (now the Fish and Wild life Service) to assure 

that provisions are made for wildlife resou rces and 

especially migra tory fish. 16 U.S.C. § 661 et seg.

The Secretary of Commerce has been auth orize d since 

1938 to conduct experiments, construct necessar y devices, 

and engage in any ot her necessary activities to maintai n 

the salmon fisher ies in the Columbia River and its 

tributaries. 16 U.S.C. § 756. Many fish hatcheries have 

been authorized. 16 U.S.C. § 760 et se g. For the many
101

other fisheries statutes relating to the waters of the 

United States, see generally, Chapters 9-10D, 13-21C of 

Title 16 of the U.S. Code.

Polluti on of navig able waters also receive d 

early congres sion al attention. One of the earliest refuse 

statutes was the Act of June 29, 1888, 33 U.S.C. § 441, 

outlawing the disch arge in New York Harbor of "refuse, 

dirt, ashes, cinders, mud, sand, dredgings, sludge, acid, 

or any other m atte r of any kind . . ." This was held 

applicable to oil spills irres pective of effect on nav igation in the early cases of The A lb an i, 30 F.2d 727 

(S.D.N.Y. 1928) and The Co lombo, 42 F.2d 211 (2d Cir. 1930).

More famous, however, is Secti on 13 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, commonly referred to as 

the Refuse Act, which has always been directed in part to 

poll ution control. The Refuse Act provides that it is 

unlawful to discha rge from ship or from shore

[a]ny refuse matter of any kind or d escription whatev er . . . into any nav iga ­

ble wate r of the Unite d States, or into 

any tributary of any navig able water 

from which the same shall float or be 

washed into such navig able water.

In United States v. Alaska Southern Packing Co ., 84 F.2d 

444 (9th Cir. 1936), the court held that the Act proh ibit ed
102

discharges of oil in navigable waters even though it in 

no way impeded or obstr ucte d navigation, relying in part 

on the earlier interpreta tions of the 1888 Act. Ac co rd ; 

Dollar S.S. Co. v. Unit ed States, 101 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 

1939) (involving "cabbage, orange peel, celery and tea 

leaves" — i.e., garbage); United States v. Ballard Oil 

Co ., 195 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1952) (oil spill). These 

interpretations we re ultimately affirm ed by the Supreme 

Court in United States v. Standa rd Oil Co ., 384 U.S. 224 

(1966), also involving an oil spill, on the ground that 

poll ution control and w ater quality have been the clear 

intent of many congressi onal statutes starting as early 

as 1886.

Any doubt that Congress intended to deal with 

pollution as it affects interests other than navigation 

is dispelled by the Oil Pollut ion Act of 1924 which 

empowered the Secre tary of War to issue regulatio ns pro ­

hibiting discharges of oil from vessels except in such 

quantities and places

[a]s in his opinion will not be 

dele terious to health or seafood, 

or a mena ce to navigation, or dangerous to pe rsons or property 

engaged in commerce on such waters
103

The Act also directed the Secretary to investigate and 

report on

[plolluting substances . . . being 

deposited into the navigable waters 

of the United States or into nonnavigable waters connected with 

navigable waters, to such an extent 

as to endanger or interfere with navigation or commerce upon such navigable 

waters or the fisheries therein.

Perhaps the clearest single statement of 

Congress on the predominance and scope of the navigational 

servitude is found in the Submerged Lands Act passed in 

1953 conveying title to river and lake beds and sea beds 

up to three miles to the States. The conveyance was made 

subject to the federal interest in navigable waters. As 

43 U.S.C. § 1314 states:

The United States retains all its 

navigational servitude and rights 

in and powers of regulation and control of said [submerged] lands and 

navigable waters for the constitutional purposes o~c om me rc e, navigation, national defense, and international affairs, all of which

shall be paramount to . . . proprietary rights of ownership, 

or the rights of management, 

administration, leasing, use, and 

development of the lands and natural 

resources which are specifically 

recognized, confirmed, established 

and vested in and assigned to the 

respective States and others by 

section 1311 of this title.
104

The scope of the servitude is as broad as 

necessary to carry out these constituti onal purposes. In 

protecting traditional navigable waters for purposes of 

pollutio n and fisheries, the authority clearly exists to 

follow the "waters of the United States" to the spawning 

beds for salmon and to any pollut ing disch arge which finds 

its way by tributary or other means into ou r ma jor water 

arteries. Althoug h regu latio n may affect land use, it 

is only incidental to protec ting the water interests of 

the United States.

The first genera l water pollution control statute 

was the Water Pollutio n Control Act of 1948 directed towards 

reducing the pollu tion of "interstate waters and tributaries 

thereof". The purpose was to "conserve such waters for 

public water supplies, propagatio n of fish and aquatic 

life, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, 

and other legitimate uses." Generally, it was a technical 

assistance program for the States and actual enforcemen t 

of pollution abat ement was delegated to the States. For 

the most part, the Ac t proved ineffective as did supplemental amendments and related acts passed in 1956, 1961, 

1965, 1966 and 1970. This history brought about a total 

overhaul in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 w hich include Section 404 here at

issue.
105

As part of this development, the Clean Water 

Restoration Act of 1966 authorized a three-year study of 

the Nation’s estuaries and estuarine zones which included 

wetlands, intertidal areas, and estuaries of navigable 

streams. The report was to recommend a comprehensive 

program "for the preservation, study, use and development 

of estuaries." The report was completed in March 1970, 

and submitted to Congress as Senate Doc. No. 91-58, 91st 

Cong., 2d Sess. It is this study, for example, which 

concluded that practically all sports fish species and 

approximately 65% of all commercial fish species are 

estuarine-dependent for one or more phases of their 

life development. The report also documents the incredibly 

complex relationship of these phases of development to 

temperature changes, salinity changes, and nutrient 

sources within the estuarine zones, i.e., the complete 

eco-system surrounding estuaries and wetlands.

This study also reviewed State activities in 

preserving and controlling the development of estuarine 

zones under state laws. It had little good to conclude, 

arriving at such conclusions as the following:

State governments are both owners and 

regulators of the estuarine zones.

They generally have sufficient legal 

and constitutional authorities to act.
106

Yet in practice, most state laws are 

ineffective; they are sorely out of 

date and need updating, revision and 

basic orientat ion towards compre hensi ve 

managemen t and regulation of estuarine 

resou rce s.

At their worst, state laws affe cting 

estuaries are rudimentary, antiq uated 

and fragmented. There may be laws 

dealing with wate r quality or land 

zoning but they are uncoordina ted and 

sometimes inconsist ent with each other.

An evaluatio n of the overall coastal 

state picture of estua rine manag emen t 

reveals a pat tern or trend that is 

quite bleak.

Indeed, it was the general failure of States to act in the 

whole water p ollution area that led to the 1972 amendments 

As the House Report on those amendments found, in over 

twenty years under the a batement procedu res of the 1948 

Wate r Pollution C ontrol Act, only two cases had been filed 

by the States in court to enforce wa ter pollutio n abatement. It was this dismal picture of State inaction that 

led to the federal takeover of water polluti on abatement 

under the auspices of the Envir onmen tal Protecti on Agency, 

with delegation to the States only on the basis of strict 

standards of state enfor ceme nt and further provisions that 

EPA can resume federal control upon a showing of State 

inaction.
107

It was against this background of intense 

congressional concern and general State default that the 

Department of Justice, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers 

used existing statutes to achieve many of the same congressional objectives. Between 1963 and 1969, the Department of Justice averaged 40 cases a year under the Refuse 

Act. These were increased to 131 in 1970, 249 in 1971,

266 in 1972, and dropped to 142 in 1973 with passage of 

the 1972 FWPCA Amendments. Most of these cases involved 

pollution abatement pursuant to special guidelines issued 

in June 1970. The subject matter of the cases covered 

the full range of modern pollution abatement. A great 

number dealt with mercury discharges. Armco Steel was 

stopped from dumping over 1,000 pounds a day of cyanide 

and other toxics into the Houston Ship Channel. Florida 

Power and Light was enjoined from discharges of heated 

water, i.e., thermal pollution, from its power plants 

causing adverse impacts on aquatic life. Reserve Mining 

has finally been given a shutdown order for its discharge 

of 64,000 tons a day of taconite tailings containing 

carcinogenic asbestos fibers into Lake Superior. The 

United States Attorney in New York had spectacular success 

under the Act in halting discharges in New York Harbor.

76-161 0 - 76 - 8
The Corps of Engineers also modified its approach 

during the 1960's from its regulatory pract ices under the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The Corps acts prima rily 

through Section 10 whi ch bars any ob structio n to the 

navigable capaci ty of "any of the waters of the United 

States." It also makes it unlawful to excavat e or fill 

"or in any manner to alter or modify" any navigable water 

without prior Co rps approval. It has b een crystal clear 

since the Rio Grande Irrigation Co. case in 1899 that this 

section reaches obstructi on on non-n aviga ble waters which 

adversely impact navig able waters, and that Section 13 

of the same Act by express statutory language reaches 

pollution in non-navi gable tributaries of navigable waters.

Generally, until 1968, the Corps limited its 

review of Section 10 permits to considerat ion of impacts 

on navigation. However, no such limitation is found in 

the Act. Moreover, the directives of the Fish and Wi ldlife Act of 1956, the Mi grato ry Marine Game-Fish Act of 

1959, and the Fish and Wil dlife Coord ination Act made 

it perfectly clear that Congress had no such narrow vi ew 

of Corps authority. Consequently, in 1968 the Corps of 

Engineers promulg ated a public interest standard as a 

basis for issuing permits for work in or affecting 

navigable waters, which included considera tion of the
factors of

[c]onservation, historic values, fish 

and wi ldli fe values, flood-damag e pre ­

vention, land-use classifications, 

navigation, recreation, water supply, 

water quality, and the needs and welfare 

of the people.

With the adoption of the public interest standa rd 

the focus of the Co rp s’ program became all activities in 

or affecting public water in whi ch the public has an inte rest, and of necessity, those waters do not stop at the 

head of navi gatio n or at the edge of a navigat ion channel. 

What the Corps began to do in a limited fashion in 1968 

was to recogn ize the full nation al interest in public 

waters rather than the more limited intere st of navigati on 

only. This broader inter preta tion led, for example, 

to suits to enjoin the digging of canals above the mea n 

high water mark (which the Corps had tradi tiona lly used 

as a self-imposed jurisd ictio nal limit under Section 10) 

which were then conne cted with n aviga ble waters w ith 

severe adverse impact on them. In Uni ted States v. Sexton 

Cove Estates, In c. , 526 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1976), the 

court upheld the Corps authority to so regulate under 

Section 10, relying on the many authorities starting with 

the Rio Grande Irrigation Co. case, and the compa nion
110

authorities under Section 13, the Refuse Act.

This expans ion of the concerns addresse d by the

Corps' permit program received additional impetus from a 

series of reports from 1969 to 1974 by the Ho use Committee 

on Government Operations investigating federal agencies' 

programs, or lack thereof, for protecti on of public waters 

and wetlands. Congress then r eaffi rmed its desire to have 

our Nation's waters and we tlands protec ted from destruction 

by unauthorized filling when in 1972, in passing P.L. 92-500, 

it expressly preser ved the au thority of the Corps of Engineers 

under the River and Harbor Act of 1899, and gave the Corps new 

responsibilities under Section 404 of that same Act to regulate 

the disposal of dredged or fill material in all the waters of 

the United States. The legislative history of P.L. 92-500 

clearly indicates the Con gress ional desire that the term 

navigabl e waters, as used in that act to define the waters 

subject to regulatio n thereunder, "be given the broadest 

possible constituti onal interpretation unencumb ered by 

agency determinations which have been made or may be made 

for administrative purposes." (Conference Report No. 92- 

1236, p. 144).

As can be readily seen from the revie w of the 

judicial decisions const ruing the Congress' constitutional
I ll

authority over activities affect ing navi gable waters, 

this expressed inten tion of the C ongress was of great 

significance. And it was in keeping with this Con gre ssional h istory that the U nited States Distr ict Court for 

the District of Columbia in 1975 instructed the Corps 

to eunend its 1974 regul ations to fully reflect the "jurisdiction" intended to be exercise d by P.L. 92-500.

It should not be forgotten that the "jurisdi ction" in questi on as it relates to a particul ar waterbod y 

is not that of the Corps of Engineers, EPA, or any other 

agency. It is essentia lly the jurisdict ion of the Congres 

under the Commerce Clause. The Corps and EPA can only 

issue permits whi ch remove prohi bitions on activities 

which wo uld otherwise violate the Co ngres sion al enactments 

Much has been made of the so-ca lled vast exp ansion of Corps' "jurisdiction" under Section 404 of P.L. 

92-500 and that it is a broad new federal incursion into

an area reserved to the States. As can be seen from the

foregoing discussion, nothing could be further from the 

truth. P.L. 92-500 was, in fact, nothing more than a 

recognition of the overriding national interest in protecting our Nation's wat er resources from pollution and 

dest ruction by unaut horized disposal and discharge s into 

such waters and has cons isten t statut ory and Supreme
112

Court precedent for each of its elements going back to 

the last century.

Obviously, not all waters require the same degree 

of federal protection, and recognizing the limiting factors 

of manpower and funds available, both the Corps and Ju stice 

have concentrate d their efforts on protecting key resources. 

After the Congressio nall y mandated study of estuarine zones, 

at the top of any list of priority prote ctio n should be our 

wetland resources. These wetlands areas are now almost 

universally reco gnize d to be, in the w ords of the Corps' 

regulations, "productive and valuable natural resources, the 

unnecessary alteratio n or destructio n of which should be 

discouraged as contrar y to the public interest." The 

Department of Justice, through the Land and Natural Resources 

Division has, as previp usly noted, made prote ctio n of these 

wetland areas an impor tant part of its program to enhance 

environmental quality. And because many of these wetland 

areas are either above the mean high w ater or tide line 

or severed by them, we we re particula rly pleased that the 

Congress provided, through Section 404 of P.L. 92-500, an 

additional means to protect mor e of those vital areas.

The threat to these areas is an acknowledge d

fact. In the San Franc isco Bay area, there were in 1860
113

some 313 square miles of ma rsh land marginal to the bay.

In 1968 only some 125 square miles remained — a reducti on 

of 188 square miles or 60%. The alte ratio n of these 

resources still conti nues and many of the existi ng m arsh 

land areas are behin d dikes origina lly placed to eliminat e 

tidal flows over areas behind the dikes. Accordi ng to the 

Deputy Secretar y of Resources for the State of California, 

that State as a whole has only 445,000 acres of wetland s 

left out of an origin al 3-1/2 milli on acres. Conversi on 

of wetlands on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts is accel erating 

rapidly as more and more of the coast line is accelerating.

Undoubtedl y there are many reput able companies 

and individuals who follow the permit procedure s of the 

Corps under Sections 10 and 404, and abide by the Corps' 

determination. However, a number of the cases referred 

to the Justice Departme nt for litigation have involved 

entities and individual s exhibiti ng as man y character istic s 

of greed, fraud and outright crimina lity as I have ever

seen in the business world. The wors t have involved

land developers drawn by the smell of cheap land

that can be dredged and filled, often wi th canals,

then subdivided and sold with heavy sales pitches for 

large front-end profits. Many of them are thinly 

financed. Most attempt to complet e the dredging and maka
114

sales before the Corps finds out about the project; they 

then attempt to av oid restoration of the w etlands on the 

ground they will go bankrupt and that innocent purchasers 

would be stuck with submerged lands they can't use.

In Eastern Virginia at a developm ent known as 

Captain's Cove, a develop er began a pro ject whi ch utilized 

a "Venetian" style of developmen t — interior canals 

are constructed by dredging to provide waterfr ont access 

for numerous resid ential build ing sites. Typically, and 

in this case, the dredgi ng is done in wetland areas and

the material excavate d from the canals is used to create 

fast land by filling in and raising the level of adjacent 

areas, which are then used as r eside ntial sites. In this 

particular case, an area of over 1,000 acres, most of it 

wetland, was platted into about 2,500 building sites 

requiring numerous canals to be dredged. The development 

originally intend ed to use septic tanks for disposal of 

sewage and waste, althou gh the pe rmeab le nature of the 

soil in many wetlands would turn the whole area into an 

open sewer. The deve lopm ent was started wi thout notice 

to the Corps or a Corps permit. The illegal activities 

took place over approxima tely 119 days, causing severe 

damage to the ecology of the Chincoteague Bay and des-
115

troying a pr oductive clam fishery on wh ich several local 

fishermen relied. The w ork was stopped when discovere d 

by federal authorities, and the d evelo pers convicted, 

although not before four thousa nd lots were sold to 

innocent purchasers. An environme ntal study is being 

completed to de termine further usage of the property, and, 

needless to say, the new lot owners are screaming for 

completion of their lots.

Similar cases can be cited thro ughou t the entire 

country. It has been a routine pract ice for many years 

to convert economi call y cheap marsh areas into residential, 

industrial, and comme rcia l sites without regard for the 

ecological values being lost by the destruction of these 

resources, and witho ut considera tion of the use of upland 

areas which could serve just as well for many of those

purpose s.

In Florida, the coastline is literally obl ite rated in many areas by canal-or ient ed housing devel opments 

built in large part during the 1950's and 60 's during the 

Florida land boom. In United States v. Mo re tt i, 526 

F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. 1976), after the Corps inform ed 

Moretti of the need for a permit, he we nt ahead anyway

with dredging of several canals and sold 100 lots before
116

we were able to enjoi n the project. He had also used the 

dredge materials to fill an adjoining mangr ove wetlands 

for a trailer park, ignoring Corps' cease and desist 

orders in the process. In the Sexton Cove Estates case, 

supra, excavation was conducted and lots sold before we 

halted the project. Their trick was to leave a small plug 

of earth at the end of the canal and claim it was not 

connected to navigab le waters, knowing full well that the 

tide would e ither wa sh it out or the lot owners would 

knock it out one dark night. Ac co rd , Weis zman v. Distri ct 

En gineer, 526 F.2d 1302 (5th Cir. 1976).

The smell of cheap land at the e xpense of the 

water interest of the U nited States has enge ndere d other 

practices such as di king wetlan ds areas to presen t the 

Corps with a fait acc ompli. In United States v. Bayou 

Des Families Corp. (E.D. Louisiana), a develop er was 

caught diking 1,500 acres of wetlands w ithout a Corps 

permit. He had intended to pump the water out and subdivide the land. We obtaine d a $25,000 civil penalty 

under Section 404. In Northern Louisiana we stopped a 

large agricultura l company, H.D.O. Inc., from build ing an 

18-mile levy around 19,000 acres of marsh, 6,400 acres 

of which was below the mean high water ma rk on the Ou achit a
117

River, intending to pump out the area for growing soybeans. 

The dike would have destr oyed a product ive marine area and 

increased the danger of flooding in Monroe, Louisiana. 

Actually, land b elo w the mean high wat er mark belongs to 

the State under the Subme rged Lands Act of 1953. However, 

this and other cases tend to indicate that some States 

are unwilling to resist wh at amounts to outright thievery 

of their land or they collude in circumv enti ng Corps' 

jurisdiction.

Even the reput able are not above seeking a free 

disposal site. Several cities have diked off wetland s to 

use for garbage dumps -- litigatio n is now pending 

involving the City of Richmond. California, for such a 

practice. In the past, many thousands of acres have been 

diked off for present use as salt evaporat ion ponds, and 

eventually for use as industrial or building sites.

Although the Sexton Cove Estates case held that 

Section 10 is not limited by the mean high wate r mark, 

the precedent is by no means universal, and in the past 

has proved a substa ntial prob lem in wetlands cases. In 

one case in South Carol ina a survey bench mark was 

mysterious ly move d and an erroneous survey submi tted to 

the Co rp s. Such water lines are virt ually m eanin gles s in 

a unitary wetland or ma rsh where dest ruction of the portion
118

above the mean high water mark or tidal line will vir ­

tually destroy the r emainder below the line. Section 404 

has obviated such ritu alistic exercises by clearly 

stating Congressi onal intent to include adjacent and 

contiguous wetla nds within the waters of the United Stat es .

Several sections of the Wright amend ment to 

Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 are of part icula r concern to 

the Justice Department.

Subsection (d) (1) would adopt a differ ent defini ­

tion of "navigable waters" for purposes of Section 404 than 

the definition of navigable waters — i.e. waters of the 

United States — used for purposes of the remainde r of 

the Act. The new definiti on for Section 404 excludes 

historical waters from the defini tion of navigabl e waters. 

The Department of Justic e opposes any d efin ition of 

navigable waters which excludes such historic waters. As 

the Supreme Court recogniz ed in the Economy Light case, 

the fact that a waterbody has once been utilized as a 

highway for interstate commerce, is significa nt evidence 

that with reasonable improvements, it may again serve that 

purpose, and if it is to be excluded, it is for Congress 

to say so. Congress has not been bashful in this respect 

as 33 U.S.C. §§ 21 through 59(a) indicate. This princ iple
119

has been extremely import ant in our litigation to pr otect 

existi ng wetlands. We relied upon that princ iple to 

esta blish that the largest and one of only a few remainin g 

mangrove areas in Puerto Rico was a navigable water. See 

PFZ, Inc, v. Tr ai n, 393 F. Supp. 1370 (1975).

Any new defi nitio n of navig able waters excludin g 

historically navigable waters would p robably result in 

litigation reopening questi ons of navigabil ity as to 

waters which have been consider ed navig able for many years. 

The slig htest inter ruption in commer cial traffic may 

cause liti gation or even evasion of outstandi ng permits.

It should be kept in mind that Corps of Engineer' 

determinations of navig ability are judi ciall y reviewabl e 

by any aggr ieved person and such "navigability" is a que stion of fact to be decided by the court. The few instances 

cited in the House Report to justify deletion of this 

historic test do not in our opinion warrant such a far 

reaching amendment. In any event, it has not b een shown 

that any real inequities will occur from conti nuation of 

the present definition. It can reaso nabl y be expected 

that the Corps and EPA will administ er the 404 progra m 

in a fair and unoppres sive manner, as had been stated to
120

the Congress by Mr. Vey zey (Assistant Secretary of Army) 

on several occasions.

Another aspect of the redefining of "navigable 

waters" for Section 404 purposes also troubles my Department. Section 404(a) would be amended to apply the section 

to discharges of dredged or fill material into "adjacent 

wetlands." However, the treatment given the term adja ­

cent wetlands as be ing a separate catego ry from "navigable 

waters" raises the po ssib ilit y that wetlands may be thereby excluded completed from the pr otection of P.L. 92-500. 

Section 404 does not prohibit the disch arge of dredged 

or fill material into navigable waters, however defined. 

That function is served by Section 301 of the A ct which 

contains a general prohibit ion against discharge s of 

pollutants into navig able waters w itho ut a Section 402 

or 404 permit. Section 404 only establish es a permit 

program for dischar ges of pollutants which may be classified as dredge d or fill material. Section 404, however, 

is dependent upon the prohibiti on in Section 301 to make 

this permit progr am effective. If the proposed amendment 

to Section 404(a) is interprete d as placing adjacent 

wetlands o utside the defin itio n of "navigable waters",
121

which in my opinion is a likely interpretation, then there 

is no prohibition within P.L. 92-500 at all which prohibits 

discharges of dredged or fill material, or indeed any 

other pollutant, into such adjacent wetlands. The risk 

of loss of these wetlands is too high a price to pay in 

order to resolve unfounded fears over the scope of the 

Section 404 program.

Perhaps the worst proposed amendment to Section 

404 is Section 404(e) which would exclude from the entire 

coverage of P.L. 92-500 and Sections 9, 10, and 13 of the 

1899 Rivers and Harbors Act any discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters other than waters of the United States 

as newly defined, and adjacent wetlands (keeping in mind 

our concern over the separation of such adjacent wetlands 

from the definition of navigable waters). While some 

have argued that EPA could still control discharges of 

pollutants into waters excepted from the coverage of 

Section 404, Mr. Chairman, I must state the firm opinion 

of the Department of Justice that this.conclusion is of 

substantial doubt, and that this section could remove all 

federal control over discharges of dredged or fill material, 

whatever its physical characteristics, be they dirt, sand 

and gravel, or Kepone and arsenic laden spoils or soil.
It repeals by implication the express language of the 

Refuse Act applying to dis charg es in the non-n avigable 

tributaries of navigable waters. Such an a mendment is 

highly objectional and could serve to undermine the

whole national effort under the Fe deral Water Pollutio n

Control Act and the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act to protect our waters from toxic and harmful substances.

Under this provision, we could not have brought the 

456 counts in an indictmen t under the Refuse Act against 

Allied Ch emical for its discha rges of Kepone and other 

toxics between July 1971 and O ctober 1972 into the nonnavigabl e Gravelly Run flowing into the James River.

I cannot state too strongly the oppos ition of 

the Department of Justic e to this provision. Mr. Chairman 

the 1899 Act has been a principal, and, in many instances, 

the sole means of prot ecti ng public waters from alte ration and destruction. The 1899 Act, as I have previously 

shown, has been const rued by the Supreme Court to extend 

to activities outside public waters w hich substantia lly 

affect such waters. There is not now, and never has been 

in my opinion any just ifica tion for curtailing the scope 

of this statute under the pretense of protectin g normal 

farming operations, which are, by the way, exempt under
123

the current Corps' regulations. Any provisi on such as 

proposed 404(e) which would limit the appli cability of 

that statute is, in my opinion, against the public interest. 

Such a provis ion wou ld not only impair our efforts to 

clean up our Natio n's waters and p rote ct our wetlands, 

it would in some cases go so far as to pr eclude litigation 

in the interests of preservi ng navi gatio n itself. For 

example, under prop osed 404(e), an earth-fil l dam could 

now be built across a maj or tributary suppl ying much of 

the water flow to a navigable river, cutting off that 

flow. Since such an activi ty would involve a discharg e 

of fill materi al into a "non-navigable" water under Section 

404 (e), it would be exempt. This provisi on would largely 

reverse the 1899 Supreme Court decision in Un ited States 

v. Rio Grande Irrigatio n Co. wherein the Cour t specifically

said:

If the State of Ne w York should, even 

at a place above the limits of naviga ­

bility, by appropri atio n for any 

domestic purposes, diminish the volume 

of waters, which, flowing into the 

Hudson, make it a n aviga ble stream, 

to such an extent as to destroy its 

navigability, undo ubtedly the juri sdiction of the National Governme nt would 

arise and its p ower to restr ain such 

appropr iati on be unquestioned.

76-161 0 - 76 - 9
124

This sub-rosa effort to limit the applicability 

of the 1899 Act is a direct attack upon the general ability 

of the United States to protect its public waters and 

would send us back to the last century. The Congress, in 

its wisdom has, over many years, when passing related 

legislation, specifica lly prese rved the or igin al scope 

of the 1899 Act, and did so specifically whe n P.L. 92- 

500 was enacted in Section 511. Nothing occu rred to 

raise doubts as to the continuing need for and vitality 

of that Act. I ferven tly hope and trust that the Congres s 

will continue its p olicy of preserving the author ity contained in the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulat e this Committee for 

holding hearings today to look into this matter. The 

House of Representativ es passed its amendments without 

the opportunity for such hearings and, in my opinion, took 

positions which they mi ght not have had the issues been 

fully heard in a forum such as this. As the testimony 

here today reflects, the interrelati onshi p of interests 

in navigation, flood control, fish and wildl ife preserv ation, wate rshed protection, pollut ion abatement, and 

hydroelectric power crossing the jurisdicti onal lines 

and statutory interests of many differ ent federal agencies
125

makes tampering with the basic jurisdictional statutes 

a most sensitive legislative task. It is also a task 

which requires, in my opinion, a full airing of relevant 

public and private interests. If requested to give 

priorities concerning immediate legislation, I would 

suggest the following:

1. The traditional Corps of Engineers’ responsibility for navigation and flood control require 

preservation of the full jurisdiction of the 1899 Rivers 

and Harbors Act, including that statute's jurisdiction 

over activities on non-navigable waters which adversely 

impact navigable waters.

2. Phase I of the current Corps' regulation 

under Section 404 cover the vast majority of the key 

wetlands and estuarine zones. Phase I also incorporates 

the most important areas of interrelationships between 

various federal agencies such as the Corps, the Federal 

Power Commission, TVA, Department of Interior, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Attempts at State 

delegation within this area would pose substantial risks 

of major and unintended interference with the primary 

responsibilities of these agencies in carrying out major 

Congressional programs. Phase I jurisdiction is also
126

that area where extens ive past history reflects that 

States are least able to protect our major water resources, 

many of which, espe ciall y fisheries, are becoming a major 

element of foreign affairs as the Law of the Sea Conference and related international incidents concerning 

coastal fisheries clearly reflects. It woul d therefore 

be most inappropri ate in my opinion to interfere with 

the current federal 404 program within Phase I jurisd iction.

3. Phase II and III jurisdictio n under the 

current Corps' regulations pursuant to Section 404 pose, 

in my opinion, fewer problems. The diverse interests of 

many federal agencies are less acute. Except for Corps' 

interests under the 1899 Act, our primary national interests in Phase II and Phase III co ncern water quality and 

fish and wil dlife preservation. These are interests 

which are more easily made the subject of delegation to 

the States. However, once again, based on past experience 

with the States in the water po lluti on area, I would 

suggest that the de lega tion be made under strict standards 

similar to del egat ion provisions of the 1972 amendments 

to the FWPCA.

Mr. Chairman, I do not envy your task in 

attempting to handle this matter at this time. I hope 

that my comments have been helpful and I am prepared 

to respond to such matters as the Committee may wish 

to pursue.
127

Senator R andolph. We will have your statement, and the comments 

you have made during the testimony have been helpful.

We will hope t ha t tonight’s session running for approximately 2^ 

hours explored some of the subject matter and has opened up statements and counterstatements tha t have been clarifying. We will 

continue tomorrow evening at 7.

Senator Domenici?

Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, might I just 

make one closing observation?

Senator R andolph Yes, Senator.

Senator Domenici. I think the last remark by the Secretary about 

the difference in delegable authority under 402 and 404 is a very 

important issue. I think the bind we find ourselves in is tha t under 

404, there is no delegability. So if we have Quentin’s farmer or your 

farmers or my bridge man, if it is subject to the jurisdiction of 404, 

we can’t help but find ourselves in a dilemma, that it can’t be delegated 

under any circumstances because we intended a different scope 

under 404.

We didn’t want States involved in the dredge and fill process, 

which was obviously a major interstate proposition.

On the other hand, we are to a point where 402 is not being implemented to its full extent because of the court opinion which placed 

most of the burden on 404.

We have to clearly elucidate what it is th at we want to delegate and 

clearly indicate tha t it is delegable. T hat will be one of the issues th at 

will clarify this business of do they retain authority because they 

create exceptions.

Many of the areas we are concerned with—and I am not talking 

about wetlands, understandably. It is a completely different issue.

Senator Randolph. That is dry land.

Senator Domenici. I do think tha t we have come down to that 

situation where the court interpretation—and I do think the good 

Senator from Maine, when he is talking about their implementing 

in a certain way, does intend to give them the benefit of being mandated by a court.

Senator Muskie. I understand that. B ut my friends in the southern 

part of the country often remind me the courts can be wrong.

Senator Domenici. I think tha t we have had an excellent nearing.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, Pete.

Adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 9:30 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene 

at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, July 28, 1976.]

SECTION 404 OF THE FEDER AL WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972

WED NE SD AY , JU LY 28, 197 8 y

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Public Works,

Washington, D.C .

The committee met at 7:30 p.m., purs uant to recess, in room 4200, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jennings Randolph (chairman 

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Randolph, Gravel, Bentsen, Burdick, Morgan, 

Hart, Baker, Buckley, and Domenici.

Senator Randolph. We appreciate you r presence and your patience.

Jack Odgaard, will you give the final portion of the stateme nt of 

Senator Curtis.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL CURTIS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF NEBRASKA, PRESENTED BY JACK ODGAARD

Mr. Odgaard. Than k you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jack 

Odgaard. I am appearing here for Senator Curtis to present his brief 

oral remarks and submit a written state men t for the record. Senator 

Curtis’ remarks follow:

“The committee is to be commended for its responsiveness to the 

outcries of the State s on the ma tter of Federal regulation of all of our 

waterways.

“Mr. Chairman , I won’t argue the merits or liabilities of regulating 

dredging and filling operations as they affect navigation or critical 

coastal and marsh areas for ecological reasons. We have all heard 

those arguments, and understand tha t situation. I will state simply 

tha t those issues have little contention.

“On the other hand, there is no basis and can be no justification for 

establishm ent of Federal regulations—over nonnavigable waters, over 

exclusive intrasta te streams, and over farm ponds and private and 

public isolated bodies of water.

“I suggest to the committee tha t the problems with implementation 

of the section 404 regulations by the Army Corps of Engineers stem 

from the fact tha t the adminis tration of this program on other than 

navigation waters and those of primary environmental importance is 

seen by the States as nothing more than additional Federal infringement on the rights of the States and citizens.

“Clearly, Mr. Chairman , the Congress did not intend that the Fed ­

eral Government should encroach on the rights of the States in the
130

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, by imposition of a massive, all-encompassing Federal regulatory program over 

all waters.

“However, as is the case with laws we enact on occasion, some of 

the language was so ambiguous in the 1972 law th at the Federal courts 

have rendered an interpretation of the intent of Congress tha t there 

should be Federal control over all waters of the Nation.

“We have only one recourse, and that is to amend the law to clarify 

the intent of Congress. I have joined with Senator Tower and several 

others on a bill, S. 1878, tha t would amend the 1972 act by properly 

defining the control of the Federal Government, and urge tha t the 

committee act as swiftly as possible to hold hearings and report this 

or a similar measure to the Senate floor.

“My written statement is submitted for the record and I thank the 

chairman.”

[Senator Curtis’ statem ents follow:]
S ta te m e n t by S e n . C a r l C u r t i s b e f o r e th e C o m m it te e ^ o n P u b l i c W or ks 

J u l y 2 8 , 197 6 » ■ '• V . ‘

' '■ 1

 . V •••-, . '.j. ’ .

On F e d e r a l C o n t r o l s O v er W a te rs o f t h e N a tio n , u n d e r 

.. S e c t. "4Q4 o f t h e F e d e r a l W ate r P o l l u t i o n C o n tr o l A ctAmen dm en ts o f 1 9 7 2 .

. j ' * : ” . . • i

Tha nk y o u ; M r. C h a ir m a n , f o r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p e a r b e f o r e ^ , 

y o u r c o m m it te e t o d a y . Kno wing o f th e h e a v y s c h e d u le t h e m em be rs 

o f th e c o m m it te e h a v e , a n d i n t h e 'i n t e r e s t o f tim e , I w i l f \ k e e p - 

my re m a rk s b r i e f - a n d s u b m it a w r i t t e n s ta t e m e n t f o r 't h e r e c o r d f o r 

th o ro u g h e x a m in a ti o n 'a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n - by t h e c o m m it te e .

I t r u s t m ost m em bers o f t h e c o m m it te e a l r e a d y kn ow w h e re 1 s ta n d 

on th e s u b j e c t o f t h e s e h e a r i n g s . The c o m m it te e i s t o b e co mmen de d 

f o r - i t s r e s p o h s i v e n e s s t o th e o u t c r i e s o f t h e s t a t e s on t h e m a tte r 

o f f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n o f a l l o f o u r w a te rw a y s . - :• -

As th e c h a ir m a n , M t. R a n d o lp h , w ro te me o n J u l y l i n r e s p o n s e t o

a l e t t e r on t h i s s u b j e c t , t h e s e h e a rip g s ^ w e re c a l l e d t o lo o h i n t o

' •- "'S

th e p ro b le m s a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s in im p le m e n ta tio n o f t h e S e c t . 404 

r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e F e d g k a l W a te r P o l l u t i o n C o n tr o l A c t Am en dm en ts 

o f 1 9 7 2 . M r. C h a irm a n , I w on’ t a rg u e th e m e r i t s o r l i a b i l i t i e s 

o f r e g u l a t i n g d r e d g i n g a n d f i l l i n g o p e r a t i o n s a s th e y a f f e c t 

n a v ig a tio n o r c r i t i c a l c o a s t a l a n d m ars h a r e a s f o r e c o l o g i c a l 

r e a s o n s . We h a v e a l l h e a r d th o s e a rg u m e n ts , an d u n d e r s ta n d t h a t 

s i t u a t i o n . I w i l l s t a t e s im p ly t h a t th o s e i s s u e s h a v e l i t t l e c o n ­

t e n t i o n .

On th e o t h e r b a n d , t h e r e i s no b a s i s an d c a n b e no j u s t i f i c a t i o n 

f o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s - o v e r n o n - n a v ig a b le 

w a t e r s , o v e r e x c l u s i v e i n t r a s t a t e s tr e a m s , a n d o v e r fa rm p o n d s
and private and public isolated bodies of water.

I suggest to the committee that the problems with implementation

of the Sect. 404 regulations by the Army Corp s of Engineers stem

from the fact that the administration of this program on other

than navigation waters and those of primary environmental importa nce is seen by the states as nothing more than additional

federal infringement on the rights of the states and citizens.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the Congress did not intend that the federal

government should encroach on the rights of the states in the Federal

Water Pollution Co ntrol Act Amendments of 1972, by imposition of a

massive, all- encompassing federal regulat ory program over all waters.

However, as is the case wit h laws we enact on occasion, some of

the language was so ambiguous in the 1972 law, that the federal

courts have rendered an interpretation of the intent of Congress

• >

that there should be federal control over all waters of the nation.

In vie w of this it is obvious that we have only one recourse,

and that is to amen d the law to cla rify the intent of Congress. I

have joined with S enato r Tower and several o ther s on a bill, S.1878,

that would amend the 1972 Act by properly d efi ning the control of

the federal government, and urge that the commit tee act as swiftly

as pos sible to hol d h earings and report this o r a similar measure

to the Senate floor.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when the publi c is more aroused and angered

about federal gove rnme nt interference and rest riction than ever before, I think it is necessary that the Cong ress act in response to

individual outrag es as quickly as possible. The matter of federal

control over all waters is surely one of those issues involving

outrage, and I urge the committee to act on this matter as a matter

of utmost priority.

Thank you.
Supplemental Statement: to remarks by Sen. Carl Curtis before the Conslttee on

Public Works, July 28, 1976

On Federal Controls Over Waters o f the Ration, under Sect. Uok

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

Mr. Chairman, as you and the members of this committee are aware, by the fact

of your scheduling of these hear ing s, the Congress has been barraged with complaints

about Federal overregulation, red tape and harassment since Imposition of regulations

under Section UoU of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. It

is four years since the enactment of that law, yet only in the past year has most of

the Congress become aware of the major controversy created by the Act.

It has taken a long time for this matter to come to the attention of Congress

because o f the lengthy controversies both in the Administration and the courts as the

Executive Branch moved to implement the sweeping provisions of the Act. Row, during

the past year, as a result of settlement of the controversy at the Executive and

Judiciary levels, the matter has come home to roost in the Legislative Branch, from

which it originated. /

It is right that the controversy is back within the Congress, since it is because of Congress that it came about— by Congress’ failure to clearly and succinctly

spell out its intentions in the 1972 Act. Specifically, the problem centers around

an issue of how much Federal control and regulation there should be over waters o f

the United States. The implementation of the Act has led to Federal encroachment

on the rights of the states. It is now back in the Congress because it has not been

resolved by the Executive or Judiciary Branches to the satisfaction of the citizens

and the states.

I have no doubt that both the Executive and Judiciary functioned properly in

their various actions and decisions on the matter; but the problem that still exists

is that those actions and decisions reflect something I d on ’t think the Legislative

Branch had intended to be, and with which the States are at odds— Federal control

and regulation over all of the waters of the United States.
I don 't th in k I t was th e In te n t o f th e Co ngr ess a r b it r a r il y to e s ta b li s h Fed er al

con tr o ls ov er a l l w at er s o f th e n a ti o n In th e 197 2 Act. We alr ead y ha ve Fed er al wa ter

p o ll u tio n co n tr ol st an da rd s and a program th at fo r se v era l y ea rs ha s bee n most e f f e c ­

t iv e In h el p in g to cle a n up ou r w at er s by tr ea tm en t o f w as te w ate rs and commercia l

by -p ro du ct s th a t flow In to ou r stre am s and la k es. Why th en th e cu rr en t con tr over sy !

Why th en th e need fo r fu rth er Fed er al co n tr o ls ov er our w a te rs!

The answers ar e c le a r to me— th ere Is no need fo r fu rth er Fed er al c o n tr o ls , and

th e co ntr ov er sy ha s come ab ou t bec ause th e sta te s sh ar e t h is vi ew and th e f e e lin g th at

th e 1972 Act was Ju st an ot he r Fed er al bure au cr at ic e f f o r t to In fr in g e on th e r ig h ts

o f th e peo ple and crea te not hin g but fu rth er governm ent r e g u la tio n , re d ta pe and

In te rf er ence

Mr. Chairman, I would li k e to p o in t ou t th at th e co n tr o v ersy ov er th e 1972 Act

d oesn 't eve n d ea l w ith th e Issu e o f b io lo g ic a l p o ll u tio n wh ich has be en ou r major

conc ern in cle a n in g up th e w at er s o f th e n ati on . R at he r, i t i s co nc er ne d w it h dredgin g and f i l l i n g o f and al on g st re am s, r iv e r s , la k es and th e c o a s ta l sh o res.

Thi s p ro v is io n was added to th e Fed er al Water P o ll u ti o n C on tr ol Act bec ause o f

conc ern fo r un sc ru pu lous de velopm en t th a t ha s le d to th e d estr u cti o n and lo s s o f

some h ig h ly d esir a b le and im po rtan t e c o lo g ic a l a re a s, p a r tic u la r ly alo ng ou r ocea n

c o a stli n e s and th e ma rsh es and ba ck wat er s o f th e Uni ted S ta te s . B ut, i t i s not a

m atter o f b io lo g ic a l p o ll u tio n and cle a n in g up th e w at er s o f th e n a ti o n .

In our ze a l t o p ro te ct th e w ate rs o f th e nation from p o ll u t io n , and to p ro tect

c r it ic a l e c o lo g ic a l w at er a r e a s, we ha ve ov er step pe d ou r bo un ds , in my o p in io n , and

sim ply extend ed th e te n ta c le s o f Fed er al co n tr ol to ar ea s th a t in no way ar e co nc er ne d

with p o ll u ti o n but th a t fu rth er en cr oa ch on th e rig h ts o f th e s t a t e s and th e in d iv id u a l

c it iz e n s .

Su re ly th e ve ry co n tr over sy over im plem en tatio n o f th e 19 72 Act w it h in th e

E xe cu tive Branch and in th e co u rts sh ould be pro of enough th a t Co ngress ha s not conc is e ly and c le a r ly e sta b li s h e d i t s in te n t in t h is re ga rd . W it n es s, fo r in sta n c e ,

th e d if fe r in g op in io n s among th e Army Corps o f E ngi nee rs , th e En vir on men tal P ro te cti o n
135

Agency and th e J u s t ic e Departm ent th a t oc cu rr ed in 19 71* fo ll o w in g p u b li ca ti o n by th e

Corps o f E ng in ee rs on A p ril 3 , 197>t, in th e Fed er al R e g is te r , o f reg u la ti o n s p erta in in g

to th e 1972 A ct. I hav e cop ie s o f co rr es po nd en ce be tw ee n th e Co rp s, EPA and J u stic e

Departm ent o f f i c i a l s dat ed in June and A ug us t, 197**, in wh ich co n si d er ab le d if fe r e n c e s

about th e in te n t o f Con gr ess and in te r p r e ta tio n o f Fed er al au th o rit y ar e ar gu ed .

The co u rts ha ve bee n w restl in g with th e prob lem th em se lv es sin ce en actm ent o f

th e 197 2 amendments. On March 15 , 19 71*, th e U .8 . D is t r ic t Court fo r th e Mi ddle D is t r ic t

o f F lo rid a , in U .S . v s . H ol la nd, ru le d th a t w et la nds ab ove th e mean hi gh wat er li n e

ar e su b je ct to Fed er al J u r is d ic tio n under S e c t. UoH o f th e Fed er al Water P o ll u tio n

Con trol Act as amended. In August o f th at same y ea r , as a r e s u lt o f th e Corps o f

Eng in ee rs r e g u la tio n s , th e Na tura l Res ou rc es D ef en se C ou nci l and N ational W il d li fe

Fed er at io n f il e d s u it t o re quir e th e Corps o f Eng in ee rs t o co ve r br oa de r J u r is d ic tio n

ov er w at er s.

Argum ents co n ti n u ed on th e ex te n t o f Fed er al co n tr o l and re g u la ti o n among th e

vari ous Fed er al a g e n c ie s , and th e m at ter wa sn’t re so lv ed a t th e Exe cu tive le v e l u n til

March 2 7 , 19 75 . Th en , U .S . D is tr ic t Jud ge fo r th e D is t r ic t o f Colum bia , Aubrey E.

Ro binson , J r . , ru le d in th e 197*» s u it o f th e Nat ur al R es ou rc es Defen se Cou nc il and

th e N at io nal W il d li fe F edera ti on , th a t th e Corps o f Engi nee rs must expand i t s J u ris ­

d ic tio n ov er th e n a tio n ’s wa ter wa ys, and th a t th e Corps i s resp o n si b le fo r waterwa ys

al on g non -n avi gab le st re am s as w e ll as th e n avig ab le w ate rs and c o a s tli n e s .

The id ea o f F edera l co n tr o l veste d in th e Army Corps o f Eng in ee rs under i t s re ­

s p o n s ib il it y fo r m ain ta in in g th e n a ti o n 's n avig ab le r iv e r s and ha rb ors ste ms from th e

I8 99 River s and Harbo rs A ct . In a le t t e r o f Ja nu ary 1 7 , 19 75, MaJ. Gen. J . W. M or ris,

D ir ect or o f C iv il Wo rks, ad vi se d me th a t u n t il th e 1972 A ct, th e Army Corps o f

Eng in ee rs ' reg u la to ry per m it program had be en bas ed e n t ir e ly on th e re qu irem en ts o f

th e 1899 R iv er s and Ha rbors A ct . Ge neral Mo rris s a id th e Corps li m it ed i t s e x e r c is e

o f re gula to ry a u th o rit y , as s p e c if ic a lly d ef in ed in th a t 189 9 A ct, t o th ose a c t i v it ie s

per formed in or a f f e c t in g wat er s whi ch were p rese n tly use d to tr an sp ort in t e r s t a t e

commerce.
136

Th us th e pr ob le m In I n te r p r e tin g th e I n te n t o f Con gr es s stem s from th e 197 2 A ct . 

Ju d g e R obin so n, in h is March 27 r u li n g , s a id "C on gr es s by d e fin in g th e te rm 'n a v ig a b le 

w a te r s ' in S e c ti o n 502 (7 ) o f th e F ed e ra l W ater P o ll u tio n C o n tr o l Act Amendments o f 

1 9 7 2 . . . t o m e an -' th e w a te rs o f th e U nit ed S ta t e s , in c lu d in g th e t e r r i t o r i a l s e a s , ' 

a s s e r te d F ed era l J u r is d ic t io n over th e n a t io n 's w ate rs t o th e maximum e x te n t p e rm is sib le 

u n d e r th e Commerce C la use o f th e C o n s ti tu ti o n . A cco rd in g ly , as u sed in th e W at er A ct, 

th e te rm i s n o t li m it e d to th e t r a d iti o n a l t e s t s o f n a v i g a b il ity ."

I th in k i t sh o u ld b e p o in te d o u t th a t Ju dg e R ob in so n, in a r r i v in g a t h is d e c is io n 

in th e c a s e , made i t c l e a r th a t th e d e c is io n was base d on l i t e r a l in t e r p r e ta tio n o f 

th e la nguage and w or di ng o f th e 1972 A ct . He in ti m a te d th a t an ap p eal fro m h is d e c is io n 

to th e h ig h e r c o u rt co u ld h e lp fo cu s on th e is s u e th a t th e in t e n t o f Con gr es s could 

n o t c l e a r ly be d ete rm in ed from th e A ct, and th a t a d e c is io n had to be made in th e 

l i t e r a l se n se o f th e A ct. Tha t Im pli ed th a t he f e l t i t w is e f o r Con gr es s to s p e c if y 

i t s in t e n t c le a r ly an d c o n c is e ly .

Mr. Cha irm an , a lt h o u g h th e co n tr o v e rsy has come to th e a t te n t io n o f'm o st Members 

o f C ongre ss only in th e p a s t y e a r, we in N eb ra sk a ha ve know n ab o u t i t f o r n e a rly two 

y e a r s , i t came to my a t te n tio n in O cto b er, 197*>, when th e Co rps o f E n g in eers an no un ce d 

t h a t i t was go in g to u n d ert ak e a stu d y o f th e P la t te R iv er in N eb ra sk a to d ete rm in e, 

w h eth e r o r n o t i t sh o u ld be d e c la re d n a v ig a b le .

I d o n 't min d t e l l i n g th e mem bers o f t h i s co m mitt ee th a t th e P la t te R iv er in 

N eb ra sk a h i s t o r i c a l l y h as bee n d e s c rib e d as " a m il e wi de an d an in c h d ee p ," an d th a t 

d u rin g much o f th e y e a r i t wo uld be im p o ss ib le t o f l o a t a to o th p ic k down th e r i v e r , 

l e t a lo n e co m mer ci al b a rg e s . By no s tr e t c h o f th e im ag in a ti o n co u ld th e P la t te 

R iv e r be co n sid e re d n a v ig a b le .

But th a t i s n o t to sa y th a t we in N eb ra sk a do n o t re g a rd th e P la t te R iv er as 

im p o rta n t. I t i s n o t a d ee p -g o rg in g , c r y s ta l b lu e , w h it e -ra p id s r i v e r o f th e n a tu re 

o f t h e Col or ad o th a t c u ts th ro u g h th e Gr and Ca nyon. I t i s a m ean der in g, ca lm , sl ow - 

mov in g str eam th a t h as many im p o rt an t u ses t o us in N eb ra sk a. Among th e se u eses a re
137

i rri g a t i o n o f farm la n d s, d iv e rs io n fo r h y d r o - e le c tr ic an d st ea m e l e c t r i c g e n e ra ti o n . 

Impo und men t f o r f is h in g , w ate rf ow l h u n ti n g , an d game h u n ti n g an d tra p p in g .

In an y e v e n t, on le a r n in g o f th e p la n s o f th e F e d e ra l go ve rn m en t t o stu d y th e 

P la t te R iv er f o r n a v i g a b il ity , mo st N eb ra sk an s p ro b ab ly th o u g h t th a t a l l o f th e 

F ed e ra l b u re au c ra cy ha d ta k en le a v e o f t h e i r s e n s e s . Was th e r e some new g r e a t scheme 

to b r in g G u lf C oas t s h ip p in g up th e P la t te R iv e r from Omaha on th e M is so u ri t o O g a ll a l 

on th e P la tte ? Would i t mean new in d u s tr y f o r H eb ra sk a, wh ere b arg e t r a f f i c wou ld 

dock a t Fre m ont, Colum bu s, Grand I s la n d , L ex in g to n , K ea rn ey an d N orth P la t te ? Would 

i t be a new so u rc e o f d ir e c t tr a n s p o r ta tio n o f N eb ra sk a cro p s to m ar ke t t h a t wo uld 

r e lie v e th e s h o rta g e o f r a i l f a c i l i t i e s fo r g r a in tr a n s p o r ta tio n ?

I ad m it th a t on th e s u rfa c e some o f th o se p o s s i b i l i t i e s may hav e loo med a t t r a c ­

ti v e ly in th e minds o f N eb ra sk an s. B u t, b ecau se th e y a re so und, lo g ic a l p e o p le , 

N eb ra sk an s wou ld s to p to th in k ab out wha t th e c o s t im pl em en ting su ch an u n li k e ly ' 

v en tu re wou ld b e . L e t’ s s e e —a n in e -fo o t de ep c h a n n e l, p ro b ab ly 200 y ard s w id e a t th e 

minimum, wou ld c o s t $20 o r $30 m ill io n p e r m il e . At 300 m il es th a t wou ld b e $6 o r $8 

o r $10 b i l l i o n . R ea so nable ? L ik ely ? No t s o , u n le s s , as perh ap s we hav e been su sp e c ti n g a l l alo n g , th e F e d e ra l go ve rn m en t has go ne in s a n e .

H ap p il y , Mr. C ha irm an , I ca n r e p o r t th a t i t was n o t th e in te n t o f th e F e d e ra l 

go ve rn m en t t o dre dge th e P la t te R iv e r to make i t n a v ig a b le . On in v e s tig a tio n o f th e 

an no un cement by th e Cor ps o f E n g in eers, we fo un d t h a t ' i t was n o th in g more th a n an 

ag en cy c a rry in g o u t a pr og ra m under re g u la ti o n s i t was fo rc ed t o im pose b ec au se o f 

la nguag e in a law p assed by th e C ongre ss .

No t so h a p p ily , on f u r th e r in v e s tig a tio n we fo und th a t th e d e s ig n a ti o n o f th e 

P la t te R iv e r as n a v ig a b le wou ld mean th a t th e F e d e ra l go ve rn m en t wo uld hav e co m ple te 

c o n tro l o v er th e r i v e r . Tha t means fa rm er s wou ld hav e to go th ro u g h a le n g th y , ti m e - 

co ns um in g, re d ta p e , pa pe rw or k a p p lic a tio n p ro c e ss in o rd e r t o p u t a pump alo n g th e 

r iv e r t o i r r i g a t e t h e i r la n d ; an d th a t th e many co m m un itie s alo n g th e r i v e r wou ld have 

to r e c e iv e ap p ro v al o f th e F ed e ra l go ve rn m en t to i n s t a l l w e ll f ie ld s to p ro v id e dom est ic w a te r s u p p lie s ; an d th a t o u r p u b li c e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s wo uld be s u b je c t to
138

F ed era l c o n tr o l o v er f a c i l i t i e s fo r us e o f th e r iv e r t o g e n e ra te e l e c t r i c i t y f o r th e 

s t a t e ; an d t h a t co m m un itie s wou ld not be ab le to e r e c t le v e e s t o p r o te c t th em se lv es 

from fl o o d in g u n le ss th e F e d e ra l go vernment s a id th e y co u ld do so .

W ell , Mr. Cha irm an , s e v e r a l Neb ra sk a o f f i c i a l s an d I we nt to work to n o tif y o th e r 

s t a t e s o f th e pr ob le m we we re h av in g , c e r ta in th a t th e y , to o , wou ld on e da y hav e su ch 

pr ob le m s in t h e i r s t a t e s . We ap peal ed to th e Co rps o f E n g in e e rs, an d d ir e c te d i t s 

a t te n t io n to v a rio u s d ic tio n a r ie s o f th e E n g li sh la n g u ag e wh ich ex p la in e d th e me aning 

o f th e word n a v ig ab le a s b e in g "d ee p enough an d wide en ou gh to a ffo rd p ass ag e to s h ip s ." 

Ye t we we re c o n s ta n tl y co nf ou nd ed by a r e f u s a l to a c c e p t t h i s d e f i n iti o n , wh ere th e 

Cor ps r e f e r r e d us to la w s o f th e U nited S ta te s th a t s p e ll o u t q u ite a n o th e r mea ning .

I h aven’t meant to b e la b o r th e pr ob le m w it h th e d e f i n iti o n o f n a v ig a b ility , b u t 

i t becam e c l e a r to us t h a t th e la ng ua ge pr ob le m was r e a l l y c e n te re d in th e w or di ng

o f o u r la w s.

J u s t when we th o u g h t we were g e ttin g som ewhere w it h th e Co rps o f E n g in eers , we 

fo un d th a t th e March 2 7 , 197 5 D i s tr ic t Cou rt d e c is io n e f f e c tiv e ly b ro u g h t to an end 

o u r co n tr o v e rsy o v er th e te rm n a v ig a b ility . The c o u rt d e c is io n was base d on th e 1972 

A ct —la nguag e in th a t a c t —t h a t to ok no co gniz an ce o f w heth er o r n o t a str eam was 

n a v ig a b le , b u t th a t si m ply s a id th e F ed era l go ve rn m en t s h a ll ha ve c o n tro l an d a u th o rit y ! 

o v er a l l w ate rs o f th e n a tio n . I' m su re yo u ca n im ag in e o u r p e r p le x it y a t th a t ti m e. 

A ga in , we fo un d th e la nguag e o f th e law was th e c u l p r i t . At th a t ti m e , as In th e 

p a s t, q u e s ti o n s a ro s e : *

How i s i t th a t th e Cor ps o f E n g in eers , wh ich i s ch arg ed w it h r e s p o n s ib il ity o v er 

w ate rs o f th e n a ti o n o n ly a f f e c tin g n a v ig a ti o n an d h a r b o r s , was deemed to ha ve a u th o ri t y o v er a l l w ate rs ? What a re w ate rs o f th e U n it ed S ta te s ? Are th e y th e in d iv id u a l 

b ro o k s , c re e k s and str eam s t h a t l i e s o le ly w it h in a s ta t e ? Are th e y th e la r g e and 

sm all la k e s , an d th e fa rm p o n d s, n a tu r a l o r ma n-ma de, t h a t l i e s o le ly w it h in a s ta te ?

Or a re th ey th o se m aj or str eam s th a t flo w be tw ee n many s t a t e s , an d th a t c a rry i n t e r ­

s t a t e com merce? Ar e th e y th e m aj or la k e s th a t a re b o rd e re d by s e v e ra l s t a t e s and

th a t a re use d f o r com merce?
139

Mr. Cha irman, th e s e a re th e q u est io n s th a t we re o f co nc er n and th a t were answered

by th e peo ple In th e en su in g co ntr ov er sy In volv in g th e Corps o f Engi nee rs a c t i v it ie s

and d e c is io n s by th e Fed er al Cou rts.

The S ta te s— th e c i t iz e n s —have to ld us th ey th in k th e w at er s o f th e United S ta te s

sh ou ld be only th e c o a s t li n e s and stream s a c tu a ll y use d fo r n a v ig a tio n , and th at th e

oth er w at er s sh ou ld be w at er s o f th e s t a t e s and co u n ti es and commun ities in whi ch th ey

ar e e x c lu s iv e ly lo c a te d . As a mat ter o f f a c t , w ith th e ex cep ti o n o f th e sc a tte r e d ,

lo o s e ly co nnec te d o rg a n iz a ti o n o f en viro nm en ta l and oth er s p e c ia l In te r e s t gr ou ps, I

know o f no p u b li c su pp or t fo r Fe de ra l co n tr o l and a u th o rit y Ip so fa c to ov er a l l w at er s

lo c a te d w it h in th e bou ndar ie s o f th e n a ti o n .

The Governo r o f Neb ra sk a, S ta te L e g is la tu r e , and Ne brask a Game and Parks Commission

ha ve sta te d t h e ir o p p o sit io n to Fe de ra l co n tr o l o f a l l th e w at er s lo c a te d In Ne braska.

On May 7 , 19 75 , th e member s t a t e s o f th e M isso ur i R iv er Bas in Comm ission—C olor ad o,

Iowa , Kan sa s, M in nes ot a, M is so u ri , Montana, Neb raska, North Dak ot a, So uth Dakota and

Wyoming— ad op ted a r e so lu tio n op po sing any Fed er al co n tr o ls ov er w ate rs fo r oth er th an

n avig ab le p urp ose s.

In Ju ne , 1 9 75, th e go ve rn or s o f th e S ta te s o f th e Old West R eg io nal Comm ission

Montana, Ne br as ka , North Dak ota, South Dakota and Wyoming— sta te d t h e ir op p o sit io n to

all -e n co m p ass in g Fed er al c o n tr o ls ov er w at er ; and in th a t same month , th e N ational

Go ve rn ors' Con fere nc e p ass ed a p o li c y p o sit io n in o p p o sit io n t o Fed er al in tr u sio n on

S ta te s ' rig h ts on non -n av i ga b le st re am s.

In Se pt em be r, 19 75, th e Fiv e S ta te L e g is la tiv e C on fe re nce , c o n s is tin g o f 121

se n ato rs from th e S ta te s o f Nebraska, Montana, South Dak ot a, No rth Dakota and Wyoming,

pass ed a r e so lu tio n c a llin g fo r Fed er al le g is la t io n to red efi n e n a v ig a b il ity as ap ply ­

in g o n ly to w at er s havin g p re se n t a ctu a l c a p a b il it y fo r tr a n sp o rti n g commerce.

Mr. Cha irman, i t sh ou ld be cle a r by now th a t th ere i s no p u b li c se ntim en t fo r

Fed er al co n tr o l over w at er s as i s ap pa re ntly e s ta b li s h e d in th e 1972 Water P o ll u tio n

Con trol Act amendm ents. L es t ny remarks be dis re garded as em oti on all y charged or

76-161 0 - 76 - 10
w ithout fa c t or fo un da tio n- , I would remind members o f th e Committee o f th e e f f e c t s

o f th e re g u la ti o n s bei ng imple me nte d by th e Corps o f E n gin ee rs.

As a r e s u lt o f th e E xe cu tive Branch and co urt co n tr o v er sie s and d e c is io n s , th e

Corps o f Eng in ee rs la s t yea r de ve lo pe d fin a l reg u la ti o n s to be implemente d In th re e

p h a ses. The f i r s t ph ase went In to e f f e c t In J u ly , 19 75 , and co ve re d th e c o a sta l w at er s

o f th e U.S . and a l l nav ig ab le st re am s. The se cond phase , which ha s be en def er re d fo r

60 days from J u ly -1 , 19 76 , pe nd ing outcom e o f e f f o r t s in Co ngress t o amend th e law ,

wo uld ha ve br ou gh t p rin cip a l tr ib u ta r ie s o f nav ig ab le str ea ms and a l l b odie s o f wa ter

w it h f iv e or more su rfa ce acr es under th e Fed er al r e g u la tio n s. The th ir d phase , now

sc hed ule d to ta ke e f f e c t In J u ly , 19 77, w ill b ri n g ALL OTHER WATERS under Fe de ra l

c o n tr o l.

Mr. Chairman, p rio r to th e 1972 amendments to th e Water P o ll u tio n Con tr ol A ct ,

th e on ly pe rm it program ca rrie d ou t by th e Army Corps o f Eng in ee rs was th e S ecti on 10

program under th e R iv er s and Har bors Act o f 18 99 , wh ich regu la te d stru ctu res o n ly ,

in n avig ab le stre am s and tr ib u ta r ie s a ffe c tin g th e co u rse s o f st re am s. In f is c a l

y ea r 19 72 , th e Corps o f Eng in ee rs receiv ed a t o t a l o f 9 ,6 0 0 pe rm it a p p li ca ti o n s

nationw id e.

But, s in c e im pl em en ta tio n o f th e 197 2 amendm ents, th e Corps a ls o ha s ta ke n on

S ecti o n s 103 and hOh pe rm it pr og rams, under th e Marine P ro te cti o n and S anctu arie s Act

and th e Fed er al Water P o ll u ti o n C on tr ol Ac t Amendments, r e s p e c tiv e ly . As a r e s u lt ,

th e Corps esti m a te s th at throug h f i s c a l 19 76, i t w ill hav e had a t o t a l o f 19, 873 pe rm it

a p p li c a tio n s —more than do ub le th e number o f th e la s t f i s c a l yea r b efo re th e new la w s.

I would l i k e to p oin t ou t th a t th ese per m its und er th e 1972 Amendments have be en

imple mente d fo r on ly one yea r under th e f i r s t ph ase o f th e th r e e -s te p im plem en tatio n

pro gram. This ha s in volv ed th e c o a s ta l w at er s and n avig ab le stre am s o n ly . Imagine

how many more th ou sa nd s o f m il es o f tr ib u ta r ie s and n on -n avi gab le w at er s and la k es

th ere must be in th e Uni ted S ta te s th a t w ill be added tinder re g u la ti o n s o f ph as es

two and th r e e . I th in k i t i s re aso nable t o assume th e pe rm it program o f th e Corps

o f Eng in ee rs may t r i p l e or qu ad ru ple in on e or two y ea r s.
141

I br ing th es e fi gure s out her e to emphasise ano ther po in t about Feder al re gu lati on s and contr ols . Be sid es our utmost concern over nee dl es s Feder al encroachment on

th e ri gh ts o f th e sta te s and o f the c it iz e n s , ve must be aware th at such all -en com pass

in g Federal r estr ic ti o n s prove c o stly , cumbersome, and time-consuming, and do no thing

but he lp to dra in ta x doll ars and cr ea te fu rther resentm ent among Americans fo r th eir

government. ••

How many government employees w il l have to be added to th e Feder al pa yr ol l to

han dle th e tremendous amount of paperwork with th es e per mits? How much more co st w il l

th er e be in th e m at er ia ls and su pp lies used in th is program? Surely no one knows

e xactl y, and we can on ly guess th at th is w il l be ano ther c o stl y Feder al program to

ad minist er.

The committee may be in te re st ed to know th at in th e f ir s t six months o f th is

year I re ce ived n o ti ces o f permits pending from th e Omaha D is tr ic t o ffic e o f th e Corps

o f Engineers on UU app licati ons. I str ess th at th es e were on ly noti ce s o f pend ing

pe rm its , and on ly from one d is tr ic t o ffic e o f the Corps fo r a h a lf ye ar . The to ta l

number o f pages in th os e noti ce s came to 211. Imagine th e fa n ta st ic aspunt o f paper

used fo r th e forms, n o tic e s, and mailin gs by the Corps o f Engineers in th is program.

I t would be in te r e sti n g to see a stu dy done to dete rmine how much o f our resour ces of.

timber must be used to produce th e paper th at w il l be used Ju st fo r th is one Federal

program.

Mr. Chairman, I b eli eve I have made my posi ti on cle ar. There is no b asi s for th e

Fed eral government to assume to ta l co ntr ol and re gu la tio n over a ll waters o f the

United S ta te s. The pe op le do not want such co ntr ols . The Sta te s have th eir ri ghts

in fr in ge d upon. I t was no t th e in te n t o f th e Congress th at th e 1972 amendments to

the Federal Water P oll u ti on Control Act should est ab li sh such con tr ols . Those provis io ns are on ly le adin g to fu rthe r disenchantment wi th th e Federal government and

the Congr ess, and w ill on ly add fu rthe r to our dra in on na tu ra l res ources and exp enditu re s o f ta x d oll ars
142

It Is tim e th e Co ngress wakes up to th e w ill o f th e p eo p le , and a cts resp on si b ly

in th e in te r e s t o f th e n a ti o n . In th e m at ter o f Fed er al co n tr o ls ov er ou r w a te rs, I

th in k we sh ou ld move s w iftly t o amend th e 197 2 Act c le a r ly to e s ta b li s h Fed er al co nt r o l s on ly ov er th o se wat er s o f th e U.S. th a t ar e n avig ab le and c o a s ta l.

I commend th e b i l l on which I am a co sp on so r, S .1 878, to th e a tten tio n o f th e

P u b lic Works Co mm itte e, and ur ge sw if t a cti o n by th e committee to re por t i t to th e

flo o r o f th e Se na te so th a t t h is tra v esty o f law can be co rrecte d in t h is 9**th Con gr es s.

I I I I ! I ! I I I I
143

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much, Jack. Before leaving, is 

there comment from any of the members of the committee? Tha nk 

you very much.

Mr. Odgaard. Thank you very much.

Senator H art. If it is in order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to subm it 

for the record a statement prepared by Congressman Paul McCloskey, 

of California, who was unable to be here.

Senator Randolph. Yes, Gary. Did you want to read the statement?

Senator Hart. No; I do not. I will only submit it for the record. 

The only comment I make is I like it. He comes up in favor of a 

proposal which I have submitted.

Senator Randolph. Tha t is understandable.

Senator Hart. I thank the chairman.

[Congressman McCloskey’s statem ent follows:]
STATEMENT OF PAUL N. McCLOSKBY, JR . 

BEFORE

THE SENATE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

ON SECTION 404 REGULATIONS

J u ly 28 , 19 76

M r. C hair m an:

When th e Hou se p a s s e d th e F e d e r a l W at er P o l l u t i o n C o n tr o l A ct Ame ndme nts 

o f 19 76 a few w ee ks a g o , th e s o - c a l l e d "W ri g h t Amen dm en t" was o f f e r e d a t th e 

l a s t m in u te an d p a ss e d w it h v i r t u a l l y no s u b s t a n t i v e d e b a te . Th e W ri g h t 

Am endm ent ma de a m a jo r change in C orp s o f E n g in e e r s ' f i l l p e rm it j u r i s d i c t i o n , 

Rem ov in g j u r i s d i c t i o n fr om a r e a s w hic h w ere once c o v e re d by n a v ig a b le w a te r s 

o r w e tla n d s , b u t a r e no lo n g e r .

Th e n e c e s s i t y f o r some am en dm en t to th e 19 72 A ct was made n e c e s s a r y by 

th e U .S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t's d e c i s io n in N a tu r a l R e so u rc e s D e fe n se C o u n c il v .

C a lla w a y , 392 F . Supp. 68 5 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , w hic h in e f f e c t r e q u ir e d th e C orp s to 

c o n t r o l f i l l in a l l w a te r s o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s , in c lu d in g s m a ll u p la n d

s tr e a m s .

C l e a r l y , C o n g re ss d id n o t in te n d t h i s r e s u l t u n d e r th e 1972 A c t, an d a l l 

o f u s w ould a g re e t h a t o r d in a r y u p la n d fa rm ponds and tim b e r in g o p e r a tio n s 

s h o u l d n 't r e q u i r e a C orp s f i l l p e r m it.

On th e o th e r h a n d , th e W ri g h t Am endm ent a n sw e rs t h i s p ro b le m w it h a m e a t- a x e 

a p p ro a c h , an d re m ov es a l l e s tu a r y a n d t i de l a n d mars h a r e a s fr om p r o t e c t i o n , 

i f th e y h av e b e en d ik e d o f f an d a r e no lo n g e r n a v ig a b le o r a d ja c e n t to 

n a v ig a b le w a te r s .

In th e Sa n F r a n c is c o Bay A re a a l o n e , f o r e x a m p le , th e r e a r e 63 s q u a re
m ile s o f s a l t p o n d s b e h in d d ik e s and 12 5 s q u a r e m ile s o f m a rs h la n d , a 

m a jo r p o r t i o n o f w h ic h i s a ls o b e h in d d i k e s . Th e C o rp s ' p e rm it s y ste m 

h a s e f f e c t i v e l y p r o t e c t e d th e s e a r e a s s o f a r , b u t th e W ri g h t Am end me nt 

w oul d te r m in a te t h i s p r o t e c t i o n s in c e i t l i m i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o w a te r s 

w hic h a r e p r e s e n t l y n a v ig a b le .

Th e key la n g u a g e ( n o te th e w or d " p r e s e n t l y " ) o f th e W ri ght Am endm ent

i s a s f o llo w s :

" ( d ) ( 1 ) The te rm ’n a v ig a b le w a t e r s ' a s u sed in t h i s s e c t i o n 

s h a l l m ea n a l l w a te r s w hic h a r e p r e s e n t l y u s e d , o r a r e s u s c e p t i b l e 

to u se i n t h e i r n a t u r a l c o n d itio n o r by r e a s o n a b le im pro vem ent 

a s a m ea ns to t r a n s p o r t i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e ig n co mmerce sh o re w a rd 

to t h e i r o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m a rk , in c lu d in g a l l w a te r s w h ic h a r e 

s u b je c t to th e ebb an d fl o w o f th e t i d e sh o re w a rd to t h e i r me an 

h ig h w a te r m ar k (m ean h ig h e r h ig h w a te r m ar k on th e w e st c o a s t ) " 

(E m p h asi s add ed )

I hav e p re p a re d a s im p le am en dm en t to th e W ri g h t Am end me nt w h ic h I h ope 

yo u w i l l c o n s id e r . Th e am en dm en t d iv id e s th e ab ove d e f i n i t i o n o f n a v ig a b le 

w a te r s i n t o tw o p a r t s , u s in g th e p r e s e n t l y n a v ig a b le re q u ir e m e n t f o r u p la n d 

w a te r s (a b o v e me an h ig h t i d e ) , b u t u s in g th e h i s t o r i c a l l y - n a v i g a b l e t e s t f o r 

t i d a l a r e a s belo w me an h ig h t i d e . Thus th e lo n g h i s t o r y o f j u d i c i a l 

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f C orp s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t i d a l w a te r s w i l l n o t b e a f f e c t e d .

Th e W ri g h t Amen dm en t, a s am en ded , w ould th e n re a d a s fo llo w s :

" ( d ) ( 1 ) The te rr a 'n a v ig a b le w a t e r s ' a s u se d in t h i s s e c t i o n 

s h a l l m ea n:

(A) in th e c a s e o f w a te r s w hic h a r e s u b je c t to th e ebb and 

fl o w o f th e t i d e , o r w ere a t an y ti m e s u b j e c t to in u n d a tio n by 

me an h ig h t i d e (m ea n h ig h e r h ig h t i d e on th e w e st c o a s t ) , th o s e 

w a te r s s h o re w a rd to t h e i r me an h ig h w a te r m ar k (m ean h ig h e r h ig h 

w a te r m ark on th e w e st c o a s t ) , w h ic h a r e p r e s e n t l y , o r h a ve b een 

i n th e p a s t , o r may be in th e f u t u r e , s u s c e p t i b l e f o r u s e f o r 

p u rp o s e s o f i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e ig n co m m er ce ; an d
146

(B) in th e c a s e o f a l l w a te r s n o t s u b je c t to th e eb b and 

fl o w o f th e t i d e , o r w ere n o t a t an y ti m e s u b j e c t to in u n d a tio n 

by th e me an h ig h t i d e (m ea n h ig h e r h ig h t i d e on th e w e st c o a s t ) , 

th o s e w a te r s s h o re w a rd to t h e i r o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m ar k w hic h 

a re p r e s e n t l y u s e d , o r a r e s u s c e p tib le to u s e in t h e i r n a t u r a l 

c o n d itio n o r by r e a s o n a b le im pro vem en t a s a m ea ns to t r a n s p o r t 

i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e ig n com m erc e.” (E m phasi s ad d ed )

I know t h i s i s a com pl ex p ro b le m and I am g r a t e f u l f o r th e e f f o r t s 

o f y o u r C om m itte e to c o n s id e r S e c tio n 40 4 c a r e f u l l y in th e s e h e a r in g s .

I f e e l th e S e n a te h a s a s p e c i a l o b l i g a t i o n to a c t c a u t i o u s l y on t h i s 

m a tte r , a s th e Hou se h e ld no h e a r in g s on th e W ri ght Am endm ent p r i o r to 

i t s c o n s id e r a tio n on th e F lo o r , and even th e n d e b a te was l i m i t e d to 20 

m in u te s , w it h e a c h Member l i m i t e d to no more th a n one m in u te o f a rg u m e n t.

F r a n k ly , I w ould p r e f e r to s e e th e C o n g re ss amend S e c tio n 404 by 

p a s s in g S e n a to r H a r t 's b i l l , S. 3 6 63. T h is b i l l i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l 

to th e C le v e la n d -H a rs h a Am endm ent w hic h was o f f e r e d on th e f l o o r d u rin g

th e d e b a te on H .R . 9 5 6 0 , b u t by a p a r lia m e n ta r y m aneuver was r e p la c e d a t 

th e l a s t m in u te by th e W ri g h t Amen dm en t. I am s t i l l c o n v in c e d t h a t th e 

C le v e la n d -H a rs h a Am endm ent w ould h a v e re c e iv e d s u b s t a n t i a l s u p p o rt in th e 

H ouse , q u ite p o s s i b l y th e n e c e s s a r y m a jo r ity , had n o t M r. W ri g h t b een 

s u c c e s s f u l in l i m i t i n g d e b a te in su ch a m an ner t h a t fe w Mem bers w ere aw ar e

o f th e r e a l im p a c t o f th e W ri g h t Am en dm en t.

Tha nk yo u f o r t h i s c o u r te s y .
147

Senator Randolph. Our colleague, Senator Bartlett, has joined us. 

We are ready for you to present your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. DEWEY F. BARTLETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, thank you, very much.

I would ask tha t my statement be included in the record.

[See p. 148.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out tha t an analysis by several 

farm organizations shows tha t the following steps would be necessary 

to meet the requirements tha t are being established under section 404. 

I am not going to describe them, but just give the steps:

Permit application, public notice, comments and hearing, section 

401 certification, coastal zoning management certification in some 

cases, environmental impact statement, Corps decisionmaking, EPA 

review.

This would not be required in all instances, but would in many. 

These requirements are in addition to applicable State and local 

requirements, which include compliance with State environmental 

policy acts, State forest acts, and State and local land use laws. Also, 

there are other Federal requirements from the specific agencies.

This type of delay can be ill afforded by the agricultural community 

or any otner type of business. A decision is made on the basis of a 

number of tangible and intangible considerations, but particularly 

depends on immediate need, anticipated need, availability of capital, 

and present costs. Lengthy delays can do nothing but detrimentally 

affect the business planning tha t has become increasingly imperative 

in complex agribusiness.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that 60,000 

additional permits per year would be required if the normal conservation practices now being carried on by USDA and farmers are 

continued. Each of these conservation practices would be delayed, 

thus perpetuating the enviionmental problem tha t the practice is 

seeking to solve.

First: If the court decision to expand the jurisdiction of the Corps 

to all bodies of water, both public and private, in excess of 5 acres 

is an accurate reflection of legislative intent, then it should stand.

However, if the Congress should decide tha t it was not their intention to extend such jurisdiction, then it should immediately act to 

correct this error, by adopting legislation such as I have introduced.

Second: If Congress is serious about eliminating unnecessary paperwork, redtape, and bureaucratic interference, this is the specific place 

to begin.

The problem is apparent, and these hearings stand to draw atte ntion 

to the need for remedial legislation. This legislation is already in the 

hands of the committee, and I would again like to congratulate 

Senator Randolph for this effort to move the Senate toward language 

tha t will specifically express the original congressional intent.

I urge the members of the Public Works Committee to consider the 

presentations made at these oversight hearings and forward a bill such 

as the one I introduced which will reflect, I believe, the intention 

of the Congress.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you, very 

much.

[Senator Ba rtlett’s prepared statement follows:]
148

STATEMENT BY SENATOR DEWEY F. BARTLETT

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

SECTION 404, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

Mr . Chair ma n:

The Public Works Com mi tt ee / and you pa rt ic ul ar ly/ 

ARE TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THESE

OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON THE EFFECTS OF SECTION 404 OF THE

Water Pollu tio n Cont rol Ac t, an d mor e particu lar ly the

EFFECT OF THE Ac t's EXPANDED APPLIC ATION UNDER FEDERAL

COURT DECISION.

The House has ac te d on thi s ma tt er , and it is now

the Sen at e's re sponsibility to exped ite the con sid era tio n

OF THE SEVERAL BILLS NOW IN THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

WHICH SEEK TO CLARIFY THE POSITION OF CONGRESS ON WHAT

WATERS ARE TO BE FEDERALLY CONTROLL ED UNDER THE WATER

Poll uti on Cont rol Ac t,

My own bi ll , S. 3224, provid es specif ic exem pti ons

FROM FEDERAL CONTROL FOR BODIES OF WATER O WNED AND CONTROLLED

BY EITHER STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR PR IVATE CITIZENS.
149

These oversigh t hea rin gs sho uld cla rify the pro ble ms

THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED, AND I HOPE THAT THE HEARINGS WILL

focus the Sen at e's att ent ion on the need to ado pt leg isl ati on

BEFORE THE END OF THIS SESSION. It IS IMPERATIVE THAT

Cong res s cl early expres s its intent so tha t the Corps and

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL HAVE CLEA R AND SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

WITHIN WH ICH TO OPERATE. ALSO, IT IS NECESSARY THAT CONGRESS

DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF THE WATER POLLUTIO N CONTROL ACT FOR

FEDERAL COURTS, THEREBY PRECLUDING ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR THE

COURT TO MISINTERP RET THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS.

My CONCERN IS THE IMPLICATION OF THIS SECTION IF THE

co ur t's interpr eta tio n is all owed to st an d. The dec isi on

PROVIDES THAT THE CORPS SHOULD REGULATE ALL BODIES OF

WATER, EVEN IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PARTICULAR

BODY WOULD EVER BE NAVIGABLE.

Not onl y is this a sta gge rin g exp ans ion of fed era l

AUTHORITY, NOT TO MENTION THE STAFFING THAT WOUL D BE

REQUIRED, BUT IT IS ANOTHER MAJOR EXTENSIO N OF FEDERAL

INTERFERENCE INTO PRIVATE LIVES, PRIVATE BUSINESS, AND

LOCAL CONTROL.
150

The Corps has published its "interim fi nal" reg ula tio ns

REQUIRING A "GENERAL PERMIT." THIS SEEMS TO LEAD TO THE 

ACCEPTANCE OF THE PREMISE THAT ALL AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITIES 

ARE "POINT SOURCES" OF POLLUTION. UNDER P. L. 92 -500 , THE 

Water Poll uti on Cont rol Act, Cong res s cle arly state d that

ONLY CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WOULD BE CONSIDERE D "POINT SOURCES" 

REQUIRING TREATMENT. THE COST OF THIS PERMIT IS $100, BUT 

THIS EXPENSE IS MI SLEADING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE

COST TO THE FARMER IN TIME, EFFORT, AND DELAY TO SECURE THE

PERMIT.

An anal ysi s by sev era l far m org anizations shows that

THE FOLLOWING STEPS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS 

BEING ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 004:

1. Permit Appl ica tio n -- The app lic ation will include

A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES,* LOCATION,*

PURPOSE; USE,* SCHEDULES; NAMES AN D ADDRES SES OF ADJOINING

PROPERTY OWNERS; ALL OTHER FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED; THE TYPE, SOURCE, COMPOSITION,

QUALITY AND TRAN SPORTATION METHOD OF MATERIALS INVOLVED;

AND OTHER INFORMATION RE QUESTE D BY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER.
151

2. Public Not ic e, Comm ent s and Heari ng — Noti ce mus t

BE GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER OF THE APPLICATIO N

ALLOWING OPPORTUNITI ES FOR AND CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC

COMMENTS TO INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

3, Sect ion 001 Certific ati on — The appli can t mus t

OBTAIN CERTIFICATIO N FROM THE STATE^WHEN AN ACTIVITY

WOULD DISCHARGE INTO A NAVIGABLE WATER,THAT THE

DISCHARGE WILL COMPLY WITH THE ACCEPTABLE EFFLUENT

LIMITATION S AND STANDARDS FOR THAT PARTICULAR WATERSHED,

0. Coastal Zone Man agement Certific ati on — An

APPLICANT IN A COASTAL ZONE AREA MUST OBTAIN A

CERTIFIC ATION FROM HIS RESPECTIVE STATE WHERE THE

ACTIVITY WOULD AFFECT LAND OR WATER IN THE COASTAL

ZONE.

5. Environme nt al Impa ct Stat ement -- The District

Engin eer mu st det erm ine whe ther an EIS is nece ssa ry

FOR THE PARTICULAR PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IF NECESSARY,

MUST COMPLETE PRIOR TO THE HEARING ON THE APPLICATION.
152

6 . Corps Decision Making — The Corps must apply

A COMPLEX AND LENGTHY SERIE S OF GENERAL AND SP EC IF IC

PO LICI ES INCLUDING FACTORS AND CRIT ERIA MENTIONED IN

TH EIR OWN REG ULATIONS, THOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

Protection Agency and policies under numerous other

statutes. The Corps must also engage in substantial

INTERAGENCY CONSU LTATION.

7. EPA Review — The EPA must consult with the Corps

of Engineers and has final veto power if it determines

THE DISCHARGE WILL HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE ADVERSE EFFEC T.

These requirements are in addition to applicable state

AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE

ENVIRONMENTAL POLIC Y AC TS, STATE FOREST ACTS, AND STATE AND

LOCAL LAND USE LAWS. ALSO, THERE ARE OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

FROM SP EC IF IC AGENCIES SUCH AS THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WHICH ALREADY MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. It HAS BEEN ESTIMATED

BY CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL ORG ANIZATIONS THAT SEC TION AOA

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WOULD TAKE BETWEEN S IX AND TWENTY-FOUR

MONTHS FOR COMPLETION, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIF IC PROJECT

UNDERTAKEN BY THE FARMER.
153

/ this typ e of del ay can be ill affo rd ed by the agricultural

COMMUNITY OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF BUSINESS. A DECISION IS MADE

ON THE BASIS OF A NUMBER OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE

CONSIDERATION S BUT PARTICULARY DEPENDS ON IMMEDIATE NEED#

ANTICIPATED NEED/ A VAILABILITY OF CAPITAL/ AND PRESENT COSTS.

Length y delays can do not hin g but deterime nt al ly affec t the

BUSINESS PLANNING THAT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY IMPERATIVE

IN COMPLEX AGRIBUSINE SS.

The Unit ed State s Depart men t of Agricult ure has est ima ted

tha t 6 0 ,0 0 0 addition al per mit s per yea r wo ul d be requi red if

THE NORMAL C ONSER VATION PRACTICES NOW BEING CARRIED ON BY

USD A AND FARMERS ARE CONTINUED. EACH OF THESE CONSERVATION

PRACTICES WOUL D BE DELAYED, THUS PERPETUATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

PROBLEM THAT THE "PRACTICE* IS SEEKING TO SOLVE.

I

1. If the cour t deci sio n to expa nd the jur isd ict ion

of the Corps to all bodi es of wa te r, both

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, IN EXCESS OF FIVE ACRES

IS AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF LEGISLATIVE

INTENT, THEN IT SHOULD STAND.

Howev er, if the Cong res s shou ld deci de that

IT WAS NOT THEIR INTENTION TO EXTEND SUCH

JURISDICTION, THEN IT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY

ACT TO CORRECT THIS ERROR, <$/

2. If Cong res s is seri ous abou t elim inatin g

UNNECESSARY PAPER WORK, RED TAPE, AND

BUREAUCRATIC INTERFERENCE, THIS IS THE

-S X A W PLACE TO BEGIN.
154

The problem is apparent/ and these hearings stand to

DRAW ATTENTION TO THE NEED FOR REMEDIAL LE GIS LA TION. TH IS

LEGISLAT ION IS ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF THE COM MITTEE/ AND I 

WOULD AGAIN LIKE TO CONGRATULATE SENATOR RANDOLPH FOR TH IS

EFFORT TO MOVE THE SENATE TOWARD LANGUAGE THAT WILL

SP EC IFICAL LY EXPRESS THE OR IGINAL CONGRESSIONAL INTE NT .

I URGE THE R « r O F THE PUB LIC WORKS COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER

THE PRESENTATIONS MADE AT THESE OVERSIGHT HEARINGS AND

REPORT A BIL L!T O THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE BEFORE THE END OF

TH IS SESSION .
155

Senator Randolph. Senator, we understand tha t you consider this 

a very serious farm problem, not only to the larger farmer, b ut especially to the smaller farmer. Is that correct?

Senator Bartlett. Particularly to the small farmer, yes, Mr. 

Chairman, I certainly do. I would say particularly to the smaller 

farmer. When you fly over many of the States, such as yours and the 

Southwest and Western States, you can see, particularly when the 

Sun is setting or rising, a great number of ponds tha t are affected by 

this, 5 acres or more.

So I think tha t in a sense we could say, Mr. Chairman, tha t the 

integrity of the Congress is at stake to protect itself, the sovereignty 

tha t has been given to it by the people, from confiscation by judicial 

action. I think this is the issue involved and I think the Congress 

should act very quickly to express its inte nt as it was originally 

intended.

Senator Randolph. Senator Bartlett, in West Virginia the Soil 

Conservation Service, with local cooperation, has constructed at least 

400 water impoundments, small lakes or ponds, throughout the 

agricultural sections of our State.

They are of real value, not only for the livestock, but also for the 

water necessary for the crops themselves, especially during periods of 

drought. Is tha t the situation in your State?

Senator Bartlett. Jus t exactly, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Randolph. I think you addressed yourself to this point 

last night, Senator Burdick.

Senator Burdick. I would like to ask the Senator another question. 

I believe it is understood that this proposed law would have no application to stock ponds 5 acres or less. I raised the question last night and 

I ask you the same question.

You also outlined the various procedural steps that would be 

required for some of these farm impoundments which, incidentally, 

are not included in impoundments of fresh water. In order to determine whether or not it is 5 acres, an application would have to be 

made, wouldn’t it, to have a formal finding tha t it was or was not 5 

acres?

Senator Bartlett. I think the Senator is raising a very basic and 

fundamental point because certainly a lot of them would be a little 

less or a little more than 5 acres.

Senator Burdick. My point is tha t application has to be made to 

make tha t determination.

Senator Bartlett. I agree with you. I can see that, because so 

many farmers’ ponds would be just a little less or a little more than 5 

acres. This would require an application, yes, to ascertain the size. Of 

course, this would be a requirement for any pond, so your point is 

well taken.

I agree tha t this would require general response from the farmers, 

regardless of the size of the ponds, to be able to show his pond was a 

certain size and would require in many cases, I think, a survey and an 

official determination as to whether it was 5 acres or more. But he 

would have to have it approved.

Senator Burdick. We have another complication in my county. 

These ponds are produced by melting snows. It depends upon the 

snowfall. One year you may have a 3-acre pond and the next year 

you have a 9-acre pond. What would you do about that?

76 —161 0 — 76-------11
156

Senator Bartlett. I think this is just another example of what 

goes wrong when we have legislation by the courts. I think tha t they 

aren’t in a position to consider these kinds of matters tha t you are 

presenting, and what would be done would be done by a bureaucratic 

fiat.

I don’t know, but they would be able to apparently assume the 

authority as far as the courts would allow them. This is one of the 

basic things tha t have angered and frustrated the people in our 

States, tha t this takes place not because of legislative intent, but 

because of judicial determination.

I feel tha t this puts the Congress on the spot. We should respond 

and respond quickly. I certainly congratulate the chairman and the 

committee for their willingness to have this hearing tonight.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Buckley?

Senator Buckley. No questions.

Senator Randolph. Senator Hart?

Senator Hart. No.

Senator Randolph. Senator Domenici?

Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Senator 

Bar tlet t for appearing. I don’t know th at I have a question of Senator 

Bartlett, but I listened last night and read a little bit on this question. 

I read the decision of the Corps. I would share with you for several 

minutes what I think happened.

It appears to me that in section 404, the original mistake tha t was 

made—and I say this having considered my remarks very carefully— 

the original decision by the Corps of Engineers as to what their 

jurisdiction was under section 404 was in fact far too narrow.

As a matter of fact, if they would have held to tha t and the courts 

hadn’t ruled, then there would be very little or no jurisdiction over 

wetlands other than wetlands tha t abutted traditional navigable 

waters.

So those who felt that the Corps was wrong went to court with a 

very simple proposition which said tha t it was wrong and the act has 

a very broad definition in it of what navigable waters are. The court 

said the Corps is wrong, the act defines it as all waters, for purposes of 

our discussion. The Corps then had to live with tha t definition.

It appears to me tha t we did intend tha t the corps have somewhat 

broader jurisdiction than their traditional wetlands, but we didn’t 

intend tha t they have jurisdiction over your ponds, my bridges, and 

Senator Burdick’s 5%-acre pond.

But we have another very serious problem. That is tha t under 

section 402, EPA had some jurisdiction and it could delegate tha t 

jurisdiction. So tha t it could have begun a program wherein it would 

nave delegated portions of its authority to the States.

In contrast, section 404, because of its nature, was nondelegable 

because we didn’t want the Corps of Engineers to be delegating their 

jurisdiction, which was seen as peculiarly interstate in nature.

I don’t think it is fair to be critical of the Corps of Engineers 

because, as a matter of fact, they are trying desperately to do what a 

court told them to do. If there was a mistake, it was very early on. 

If we could go back in history and trace that, we might be able to 

undo it.
157

I give you that, Senator Bartlett, so that you will know we have a 

very difficult decision and a very short time to make it. I appreciate 

your remarks and share some of the conclusions as to what we ought 

to try to do.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much.

Senator Morgan?

Senator Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of the Senator, 

but I would like to take this opportunity to submit for the record a 

letter from the Governor of North Carolina with a two-page statem ent 

attached which contains remarks. He was unable to attend.

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to submit it for the 

record.

Senator Randolph. Yes; the correspondence from your Governor 

will be included and I am sure it will be helpful in the committee’s 

deliberations.

[The letter referred to follows:]

State of North Carolina,

Governor’s Office,

Raleigh, July 28, 1976.

Senator Edmund S. Musk ie,

Senate Committee on Public Works,

4204 Dirksen Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Mus ki e: The State of North Carolina had hoped to be represented at the hearings conducted by the Committee on Public Works pertaining 

to amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Unfortunate ly, we were unable to obtain time on the hearin gs schedule. I would like to 

request th at the attached sta tem ent which outlines our position on the amendments be inserted in the record in lieu of direct testimony.

Your cooperation in this m atter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

J ames E. Holshouser, Jr.

Because our sta te was unable to appear before your subcommittee on July 27, 

I request t ha t this s tatem ent be included in the record as N orth Carolina’s position 

on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, including Section 404.

While we certainly endorse the Senate ’s intentions to un dertake a comprehensive 

review of this legislation next year, we would urge adoption of several proposals 

as quickly as possible. These include equitable formulas for distributin g construction gra nt funds among the states, more realistic deadlines for completion of 

manda ted water quality managem ent plans, streamlined procedures for the review 

and approval of wastewater tre atm ent plan applications, and extension of the 

deadline for compliance with 1977 tre atm ent requirements. In approving HR 

9560 the House of Rep rese ntatives has already adopted several of these much 

needed changes.

We endorse the Talmadge-N unn allocation formula, which would be based 

50 percent on population and 50 percent on needs, as the most equitable formula 

for the distribu tion of “201” construction gra nt funds. The present formula is 

riddled with inaccuracies and has been repudiated by EPA. North Carolina is 

inequitab ly treate d by the formula which is based en tirely on needs.

We support the House-passed amendment to Section 203 of the Act, which 

would perm it the consolidation of steps two and three for projects und er one 

million dollars. This revision would clearly expedite the certification of small 

projects. Presently, in many instances, the current thre e-step process has caused 

excessive delays in the completion of small projects.

Water qua lity management planning as authorized in Section 208 of the Act 

is another area of critical concern. A recent Federal court ruling manda tes the 

completion of such plans sta tewide by November, 1978. The experience of regional 

planning agencies across the country suggests th at a t least two and one-half years 

is required to produce a “208” plan, from the date of gra nt award to the actu al
158

app roval of EPA. At our re que st Senator Morgan has proposed an amendment to 

rela te the deadline for plan completion to the award date for the planning grant. 

I urge your suppo rt of that amen dment.

Section 13 of the House bill proposed amendment of Section 301 of the Act to 

allow extensions of the original deadline of July 1, 1977, for public tre atmen t 

plants to meet secondary tre atm ent standards. At present, it appears th at less 

than half of the publicly-owned plants in the nation will be able to meet those 

stan dards. It seems only reasonable to perm it defined extensions to those local 

governments that are making a conscientious effort to att ain compliance.

In regards to Section 404, North Carolina would favor the introduction in the 

Senate of an amen dment which would achieve the following:

A simple moratorium on the enforcement of Phase II and II I perm it requiremen ts. The Congressional moratorium would remain in place for one ye ar until a 

comprehensive review of P.L. 92-500 could be undertaken and completed by the 

next Congress. In the interim, the ACE would continue to require permits in Phase I 

areas only, and futu re perm it requirements would not affect projects currently 

und er contract for construction.

Our second preference would be as follows:

The Wright/Hart Amendments w'ith certain clarifications and additions. . . .

(a) With regard to the Wright ame ndment: The definition of navigable waters 

shou ld be revised to include waters which have been used in the past as a means 

of transport in in terstate commerce as well as those which are or could be used in 

this manner, (Section 404(d)(1) of the amendm ent). This revision wrould make the Wright definition synonomous with the definition of navigable waters in existing 

ACE Regulation, 33 CF R 209.120(d)(1) which governs perm its under the 1899

Act.

The section outlining the exemption of federal or federally assisted projects 

which require an environm ental impact statem ent or assessment is too broad. 

It should be made more specific or eliminated.

Any amendment should include a section which allows the ACE to delegate 

the pe rmit programs to the s tates with a provision for penalties. In addition, there 

should be a provision authorizing mutual agreements between s tate governors and 

the ACE to allow designation of wetlands in addition to those covered in the 

Phase I definition.

(b) With regard to the Har t ame ndment: We are supportive of the provision 

to exempt from permit requirements normal farming, silviculture, ranching 

activ ities, certain main tenance activities or regulation of farm stock ponds or 

irrig ation ditches.

We su ppo rt the authority for issuance of general permits.

We are concerned abo ut the use of the wording “minimal adverse cumulative 

effect” which is vague and can vary greatly depending upon the issuance of 

regulations. This should be clarified in the Ha rt Amendment.

A provision for delegation to states of the responsibility for the adm inistration 

of the permit program should be added.

We support th at portion of the Hart Amendment which exempts from permit 

requirem ents th e main tenance of existing structures, etc. (Section 404, paragraph 

2).

Senator Randolph. Senator Baker?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to impose on Senator 

Ba rtlett’s time. In general I think it was a very excellent statement. 

I thank you for taking the time to appear and express your concern.

Senator Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, could I say one brief, final 

statement?

Senator Randolph. Yes.

Senator Bartlett. I thank you, very much. I do want to thank 

you for undertaking what I know is a difficult job. I do also feel 

assured that the farmers in the United States are going to receive some 

relief tha t they greatly need.

Thank you.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, very much, for your presence and 

for your counsel and wisdom.

We are privileged tonight to have a panel composed of more individuals than appeared last night.
159

Mr. McCredie, Mr. Speth, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Hawley, 

Mr. Callison and Mr. Barthauer. Tonight, as I look at the panel, I 

see a West Virginian on the list whom I will call as our first witness, 

William S. Ritchie, »Jr., the highway commissioner, speaking not for 

the State of West Virginia but for the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ritchie, if you will proceed.

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM S. RITCHIE, JR., AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGH WAY OFFICIALS; CHARLES H. CALLISON,

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY; WILLIAM H. McCREDIE, NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION ACCOMPANIED BY:

HAR RIET B. MARPLE, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY, INTERN ATIONAL PAP ER CO. AND DAVID C. NICHOLSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, WEYE RHAEUSER CO.;

GUS SPETH, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; G. L. BARTHAUER, AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS; LOUIS CLAPPER, NATIONAL WILD LIF E FEDERATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: KENNETH S.

KAMLET, FEDERATION COUNSEL; LAURENCE JAHN, ECOLOGIST,

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INST ITUTE AND JOHN CLARK ECOLOGIST, CONSERVATION FOUNDATION; AND BRUCE HAWLEY, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. Ritchie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear here on behalf of the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

I have a prepared statement tha t I would like to submit for the 

record and I would like to talk very briefly of th at statement, without 

reading the statement.

Senator Randolph. Yes; it will be made a part of the printed record. 

(See p. 162.) Tha t will apply to all of the witnesses.

Mr. Ritchie. Thank you, sir.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials supports appropriate and adequate efforts to protect water 

quality and valuable wetlands in each of our States. We do not 

believe, however, that a national land use permit program administered by the U.S. Army is appropriate to the protection of these 

wetlands. We feel tha t there should be reasonable limits on the areas 

for which a permit is required and tha t there should be a reasonable 

limit on the activities for which a permit is required. We feel tha t the 

States can best determine what areas and activities should be controlled and how they should be controlled.

Because highway and railroad construction is of linear configuration, almost all highway and railway projects touch some body of 

water. We feel tha t many of these contacts tha t are made do not have 

an environmental significance in and of themselves. Public highway 

projects are already subject to stringent environmental controls at 

both the State and the Federal level. We have at least 15 laws providing for protection of the wetlands.

Based on a survey that AASHTO has made—and I would like to 

submit a copy of the results of th at survey for the record, if I might.
160

Senator Randolph. Is tha t a recent survey?

Mr. Ritchie. Yes; in the last 2 weeks.

Senator Randolph. Thank you.

[The survey appears at p. 171.]

Mr. Ritchie. We estimate tha t 5,000 additional permits would 

be required annually for highway projects under phase II of the 

Corps’ regulations. The processing of these permits would take 

months and even years in some cases if the permit results in an environmental statement being prepared on a project tha t would not 

otherwise require an environmental statement. I am referring particularly to projects which would be funded 100 percent by State 

funds, and which would now possibly come under a full environmental statement submitted through the channels to the Federal 

level.

We do have in the States now, as a result of our action plan under 

the Federal Highway Administration, an environmental overview, for 

an environmental statement if necessary or a negative declaration on 

State projects. This would require additional permits above and 

beyond the permits tha t are now required in my State, for instance, 

by the Department of Natural Resources or the Departm ent of Health, 

for the protection of the water in our State.

Of 27 of the 37 States responding to an inquiry tha t we made concerning the possibilities of general permits, we find tha t only one 

State has received a general permit from the Corps of Engineers. Th at 

was in the case of about 100 yards of deposited material.

Senator Randolph. That would hardly be a permit, would it?

Mr. Ritchie. It was hardly so, sir. We feel that the placement of 

the fill differs drastically from a continuous discharge from pipes and 

cannot be meaningfully controlled by effluent limitation for point 

sources. The controls for the nonpoint sources are more appropriate 

for this activity because i t is a temporary activity and is completely 

covered, we feel, in our presentation of an environmental statement 

in preparation for the construction of any Federal aid project that 

we have in our State.

Again, I would like to state tha t we feel tha t for any project that 

is not a Federal aid project, we have adequate controls and regulations 

within each of our States to control this problem.

Thank you, sir.

Senator Randolph. Mr. Ritchie, what has been the effect of phase 

1 on the highway construction programs throughout the country?

Mr. Ritchie. I don’t doubt at all, sir, tha t it has increased the 

cost, because any delay in time of construction is an increased cost. 

I think tha t it is also a duplication of previous permits and similar 

permits tha t we do receive from some other source or have to have 

approved by another source. So it is a delay in the construction of the 

project, and I don’t believe tha t it really goes beyond or increases 

the protection to the water control tha t it is intended to have.

Senator Randolph. Do you have a question, Senator Gravel?

Senator Gravel. No.

Senator Randolph. Senator Baker?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions at this time.

Senator Randolph. Senator Bentsen?

Senator Bentsen. No questions.
161

Senator Randolph. Senator Buckley?

Senator Buckley. No.

Senator Randolph. Senator Hart?

Senator Hart. No, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Ritchie’s statement and the survey previously referred to 

follow:]
162

STATEMENT OF

WILLIAM S. RITCHIE, J R ., COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS 

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

BEFORE THE

SENATE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

Ju ly 28 , 1976

Mr. Cha irm an , members .o f th e co m m it te e, my name i s W illiam S . 

R itc h ie , J r . , Com missio ne r o f Highwa ys f o r th e S ta te o f West V ir g in ia 

I am ap p eari n g on b e h a lf o f th e America n A s so c ia ti o n o f S ta te High way 

an d T ra n s p o rta ti o n O f f ic ia ls . As you know, AASHTO i s an o rg a n iz a ti o n 

fo rm ed to f o s te r th e de ve lo pm en t and o p e ra ti o n o f a n ati o n w id e t r a n s ­

p o r ta tio n sy st em . I t s members a re th e re s p e c ti v e high way an d t r a n s ­

p o r ta tio n dep art m ents o f ea ch o f th e 50 S ta te s , th e D i s t r i c t o f 

Colum bia, an d P uer to R ic o , an d th e U nited S ta te s D ep ar tm en t o f T ra n sp o r ta tio n .

At th e o u ts e t, may I ex p re ss our a p p re c ia tio n f o r your ask in g 

us to appear to d is c u ss a pr obl em o f s e rio u s concern to u s , as w e ll 

as to o th e rs who a re t e s ti f y i n g b e fo re yo u to d ay .

We a ls o wo uld lik e to endors e c e r ta in m aj or f e a tu re s o f th e 

te sti m o n y o f ea ch o f th e w it n e sse s ap p eari n g b e fo re you to d ay .

As S ta te o f f i c i a l s , we wo uld lik e to a s s o c ia te o u rse lv e s w it h 

vi ew s ex p re ss ed on b e h a lf o f envir onm enta l gro up s in su p p o rt o f ap ­

p r o p ria te and ad equate e f f o r t s to p r o te c t w ate r q u a lity and v a lu a b le 

w e tl a n d s.

We d i f f e r , ho wev er , in our view s on wha t a c tio n sh o u ld be ta k e n , 

an d who sh ould d ete rm in e wh at w ate r and w etl an d s sh o u ld be p ro te c te d .
163

A c co rd in g ly , we s tro n g ly endo rs e p ro p o sa ls made by o th e rs to 

p la c e re a so n a b le l i m ita tio n on a c t i v i t i e s and a re a s co vere d an d on 

th e sc ope o f re v ie w , and to p la c e tiaximum r e lia n c e on S ta te pro gra m s, 

in s te a d o f a N a ti o n a l la n d use pr og ra m a d m in is te re d by th e U nited 

S ta te s Army.

B ec au se o f t h e i r l i n e a r c o n fig u ra tio n , al m ost a l l hi gh way , as 

w e ll as r a i l r o a d , p r o je c ts to u ch up on some bo dy o f w ate r in c lu d e d in 

th e ex pa nd ed a re a covere d by th e C orp s' r e g u la tio n s o f J u ly 25, 19 75 . 

W ith r a r e e x c e p ti o n , ho w ev er , th e s e a c t i v i t i e s ha ve no s i g n if ic a n t 

im pa ct on w ate r q u a lity an d a l l wo rk co nduct ed by p u b li c high wa y and 

tr a n s p o r ta tio n d ep art m en ts a lr e a d y is s u b je c t to s tr in g e n t e n v ir o n ­

m en ta l c o n tr o ls , in c lu d in g m ea su re s to p r o te c t w ate r q u a lity .

We w is h to em ph as iz e t h a t p u b li c high wa y p r o je c ts in st re am s o r 

w etl an d s a re a lr e a d y s u b je c t to a wid e ra nge o f S ta te and F ed era l r e ­

s t r i c t i o n s whi ch sh o u ld be s u f f i c i e n t to p r o te c t w ate r q u a lity and 

v a lu a b le w e tl a n d s . High way p r o je c ts a re s u b je c t a t b o th th e S ta te and 

F ed era l le v e ls to th re e g e n e ra l le v e ls o f en v ir o n m en ta l c o n tr o ls : (1) 

th o se w hi ch ap ply to a l l a c t i v i t i e s in w etl an d s an d w at er w ay s; (2) 

th o se whi ch apply only to p u b li c wo rks o r p r o je c ts fo r which F ed era l 

a s s is ta n c e is made; an d (3) th o se which app ly to high way s o n ly .

A t th e F e d e ra l l e v e l , Con gr es s ha s e n a c te d a t l e a s t 15 la w s, o th e r 

th a n s e c . UOU o f th e F e d e ra l W ater P o llu tio n C o n tr o l A ct, to r e g u la te , 

o r pr om ot e th e r e g u la tio n o f , a c t i v i t i e s in w e tl a n d s . As a lte r n a tiv e s 

to a co m pre hen si ve d ir e c t F ed era l la n d use c o n tro l pr og ra m , su ch as th e 

C orp s' s e c . 904 re g u la tio n s wo uld impos e, Con gr es s ha s ta k en a t l e a s t 

th re e d i f f e r e n t appro aches to ad d re ss wha t i t d ete rm in es a re n a tio n a l
164

problems in the prot ec ti on of wetlan ds. These a ppr oaches Inclu de:

(1) acts, such as the Coa stal Zone Ma nag ement Act, to encourage States to

con tro l suc h areas, (2) act s to fund .programs to a cq ui re areas, su ch as the 

Wet lands A cquisi ti on Act, or t o fund the pr otection of f is h o r wil dlife, such 

as the Feder al ai d in Wi ld li fe Restor ati on A ct or t he Fe de ra l ai d in Fi sh 

Restoration Act, USC, and (3) acts to pr otect cer tain are as or species, such 

as the Wil d and Sce nic R ive rs Act, or the E ndangered Species A ct o f 1973. The 

laws in the t hird category, en acted to pr ovide d irect Fed er al cont rols to 

protect area s or species, ha ve t hei r ow n en forcement mec han ism s.

State laws also re gulate al l activi tie s in wetl an ds an d wa te r areas. A 

recen t surve y c onducted by the Inter sta te C on ference o n Wa te r Pro blems found 

that a t least 26 of t he States ha d prog ram s whi ch met, or co ul d me et the 

signifi can t fea tures of the Corps' regulat ion s for sec. 40 4 of t he F ed er al Wat er 

Pollution and Contr ol Act.

In add ition to the se restric tio ns w hi ch ap ply to al l construc ti on in 

wetlan ds o r wa te r areas, ma ny highway p roj ect s are s ub ject to require me nt s imposed 

on Fed erally as sisted proj ects. Th e mo st notable o f th ese are imposed b y the 

Nat ion al Environmen tal P ol ic y Ac t (N EP A) . Th e Cou nci l on Environme nt al Qu al it y (CEQ) 

guide lin es dire ct agen cie s to c ons ider pos sibl e adverse effects o n wat er qu ality 

and lan d use in the p re pa ra ti on of an EIS. Pursuant t o sec. 309 of the C le an Air 

Act, EP A rev iews each EIS wi th th e oppo rtunity to c an nent o n the d is cu ss io n on 

wa te r quality. FH WA regulations g o ev en fu rth er to s pe cifically r e q u i r e 

con sid eration of impac ts on wat er qu ality (23 CFR 771.18) wetl an ds and an d coastal 

ar ea s, st re am alte rat ion s an d impoundm en ts , an d f loo d h azar ds .
O th er F e d e ra l a c ts impose a d d itio n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on F e d e ra ll y 

a ssis te d a c t i v i t i e s in w etl ands o r w ate r a r e a s , su ch as th o se impo se d by se c . 30 7( c) o f th e C o a sta l Zone Man agem ent A ct.

C o n s tr u c ti o n co nduct ed by p u b li c a g e n c ie s a ls o is s u b je c t to 

a d d itio n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on th e S ta te l e v e l. The C ouncil on E nvir onm en ta l Q u a li ty in i t s An nu al R eport f o r 197 5 l i s t e d 18 S ta te s w it h 

co m pre hen si ve envir onm enta l p o li c y a c ts p a tte rn e d a f t e r NEPA, an d 

abo u t o n e -h a lf do ze n o th e r S ta te s w it h s p e c ia liz e d pro gra m s, d ir e c te d 

la r g e ly to th e p r o te c tio n o f w etl an d s o r th e c o n tro l o f high wa y p ro ­

j e c t s . S e v e ra l S ta te s ha ve ad opte d th e p r a c tic e o f p re p a rin g e n v ir o n ­

m en ta l assessm en ts which wo uld mee t th e re q u ir em en ts o f NEPA f o r h ig h ­

way p r o je c ts f o r which no F ed era l a s s is ta n c e i s p ro v id e d . T hi s p r a c tic e 

is fo ll o w ed la r g e ly be ca use a t th e i n i t i a l s ta g e s o f high wa y p r o je c ts 

i t i s n o t known w het her o r n o t fu ndin g w ill come from F ed era l so u rc e s .

F in a lly , th e r e a re s ta tu to r y p ro v is io n s to r e g u la te th e im pac t o f 

hig hw ay s, p e r s e , in a c q u a ti c a r e a s . At th e F ed era l l e v e l , th e s e r e ­

s t r i c t i o n s in c lu d e s e c . 10 9( g) o f t i t l e 23 o f th e U .S . Code, w hi ch r e ­

q u ir e s th e im p o sit io n o f g u id e li n e s f o r m in im iz in g p o s s ib le s o i l 

e ro sio n fro m high wa y c o n s tru c tio n , and s e c . 10 9( h) o f t i t l e 23, w hi ch 

re q u ire s th e de ve lo pm en t o f a c tio n p la n s to e lim in a te o r m in im iz e 

ad v ers e en v ir o n m en ta l e f f e c t s , in c lu d in g w a te r p o llu tio n . S ec . 9 (f) 

o f th e D ep ar tm en t o f T ra n s p o rta ti o n A ct, 99 U .S .C . 1653(f ) p r o h ib its 

th e u se o f any p u b lic ly owned la n d fro m a p a rk , r e c r e a tio n a r e a , o r 

w i ld lif e o r w a te r fo wl re fu g e , u n le s s th e r e i s no f e a s ib le o r p ru d e n t 

a l t e r n a tiv e and su ch use in c lu d e s a l l p o s s ib le p la n s to m in im iz e ha rm .
166

Design sta n d a rd s ap pr ov ed by FHWA und er s e e . 109 o f t i t l e 23 p ro ­

v id e an o th e r im p o rt an t means to c o n tro l th e im pa ct o f highwa y c o n s tr u c ­

tio n on w ate r q u a lity . The se ap pr ov ed s ta n d a rd s , which a re l i s t e d in 

s e c . 625 .3 o f t i t l e 23 o f th e Code o f F ed era l R e g u la ti o n s , in clu d e a 

wide ra nge o f sta n d a rd s de vel ope d by AASHTO f o r th e purp ose o f p r o te c tin g w ate r q u a lity an d th e en vir onm en t.

AASHTO re c e n tly as ked i t s member d epart m ents to l i s t th e S ta te 

ag en cie s fro m wh ich p e rm it s mu st be o b ta in e d o r w hi ch comment on h ig h ­

way p r o je c ts fo r im pa ct on w ate r q u a lity . Fo rty o f th e 45 who r e ­

sp on de d re p o rte d t h a t one o r more S ta te ag en cie s re vie w ed su ch a c t i v ­

i t i e s . A l i s t o f th e S ta te ag en cie s i s a tta c h e d .

The im pa ct o f th e new re g u la tio n s on tr a n s p o r ta tio n prog rams wo uld 

become s i g n i f i c a n t as so on as th e ex pa nd ed a re a covere d un der phas e I I 

o f th e r e g u la tio n s wo uld beco me e f f e c tiv e to co v er p ri m ary t r i b u t a r i e s , 

w etl ands a d ja c e n t to th em , and la k e s o f f iv e a c re s o r mo re. Ba sed on 

a q u e s ti o n n a ir e d is tr ib u te d to member d epart m ents o f AASHTO l a s t mon th, 

we e s ti m a te t h a t 5,0 00 a d d itio n a l in d iv id u a l p e rm it s wo uld be re q u ir e d 

f o r highwa y p r o je c ts , a lo n e , under phas e I I o f th e re g u la tio n s .

I t is ta k in g mon ths to p ro cess th e s e p e rm it s which d u p li c a te 

o th e r envir onm enta l re v ie w s. Fo r in s ta n c e , New Yo rk and Te xas re p o rt 

t h a t i t ha s ta k e n from fo u r to s ix mo nth s to p ro c e ss a r o u tin e s e c . UOU 

p e rm it , b u t t h a t t h i s ti m e fra mew ork wo uld be ex pa nd ed as more p erm it s 

a re re q u ire d . Bo th New York and Te xas face ad de d d i f f i c u l t y bec au se 

th e re a re f iv e d i f f e r e n t D is tr ic t O ffic e s , w it h s l i g h t l y d if f e r e n t
167

re q u ir e m e n ts , w hi ch ha ve j u r is d i c t i o n in d if f e r e n t a re a s o f th e S ta te s .

T en ne ss ee r e p o rts t h a t i t a p p li e d in Decemb er, 1975 f o r p e rm it s in 

S c o tt an d H am ilto n C o u n ti es, but p e rm it s ha ve n o t y e t be en is s u e d .

The se d ela y s can s t r e t c h in to y e a rs i f an EIS is re q u ir e d s o le ly fo r 

th e s e c . U04 p e rm it . The se d ela y s w ill be p a r t i c u l a r l y tr ouble so m e to 

th e b rid g e re pla cem en t pr og ram .

The se d ela y s w ill a ls o r e s u l t in th e lo s s o f a n tic ip a te d em ploy ­

ment in th e c o n s tru c tio n in d u s tr y a t a tim e when un em plo ym ent re m ai ns 

a t th e le v e l o f 17.8 p e rc e n t. The F ed era l Highway A d m in is tr a ti o n ha s 

e sti m a te d th a t ex p e n d it u re o f $1 b i l l i o n f o r highwa y c o n s tru c tio n w ill 

g e n e ra te 26 ,0 00 man y e a rs o f d ir e c t o n - s ite em ploy men t; 29 ,0 00 a d d itio n a l man y e a rs o f o f f - s i t e em ploy ment; p lu s 77 ,7 50 man y e a rs o f in ­

du ced em ploy men t. F u rt herm ore , S ta te o f f i c i a l s e s ti m a te t h a t $1 b i l ­

lio n o f high wa y c o n s tru c tio n w ill p ro v id e em plo ym ent fo r appro x im ate ly 

8, 00 0 a d d itio n a l em ploy ee s a t v a rio u s gover nm en ta l le v e ls f o r p la n n in g , 

d e sig n in g , and s u p e rv is in g th e c o n tr a c t wor k. T his gover nm en ta l empl oy m en t sh ould in duce 28 ,0 00 a d d itio n a l jo b s .

At th e s u g g e sti o n o f o f f i c i a l s in th e Co rps and EPA, S ta te h ig h ­

way an d tr a n s p o r ta tio n o f f i c i a l s ha ve ex pe nd ed c o n s id e ra b le e f f o r t s 

to dev el op g e n e ra l p e rm it s which m ig ht b rin g some r e l i e f by ex em pt in g 

many hig hw ay a c t i v i t i e s fro m req u ir em en ts f o r in d iv id u a l p e rm it s . The 

re sp o n se fro m th e 37 d if f e r e n t D i s t r i c t O ffi c e s o f th e Co rps ha ve be en 

mixed . Some ha ve en co ur ag ed a p p lic a tio n s f o r g e n e ra l p e rm it s , w h il e 

o th e rs ha ve d is c o u ra g ed them . Most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , ho wev er, ev en th o se 

o f f ic e s which ha ve en co ura ge d p ro p o sa ls f o r g e n e ra l p erm it s ha ve n o t, 

w it h on e ex c e p ti o n to ou r kn ow le dg e, is su e d an y g e n e ra l p e rm it s fo r 

highwa y a c t i v i t i e s . T ha t one e x c e p ti o n , in Id ah o , was fo r very sm all 

d is c h a rg e s o f on e hu nd re d cu b ic y ard s o r le s s f o r b rid g e s o r c u lv e r ts .
168

AASHTO ha s as ke d i t s Member Dep ar tm en ts to r e p o rt on t h e i r ex ­

p e rie n c e in ap p ly in g f o r g e n e ra l p e rm it s . T w en ty -s ev en o f th e 37 

S ta te s re sp o n d in g re p o rte d t h a t th ey had so ught g e n e ra l p e rm it s , b u t 

w it h th e ex c e p ti o n o f Id ah o , none had be en o b ta in e d .

We w ill c o n ti n u e t o work w it h th e Co rps an d EPA in e f f o r t s to 

dev el op g e n e ra l p e rm it s , b u t do not b e lie v e t h a t g e n e ra l p e rm it s , in 

th em se lv e s, w ill b rin g s u f f i c i e n t r e l i e f .

As s ta te d ab ove, we b e li e v e th e r e g u la tio n s o f th e Co rps a r e un ­

re aso n a b ly e x c e ssiv e in (1) co ver ag e o f a c t i v i t i e s , (2) a re a co v ere d , 

and (3) th e sc ope o f re vie w .

With re g a rd to a c t i v i t i e s co v ere d , we q u e s ti o n th e a p p ro p ria te ­

n ess o f th e use o f a p erm it prog ram to re g u la te th e pla ce m en t o f f i l l 

m a te ria l in co n n ecti o n w it h highwa y c o n s tru c tio n as a p o in t so u rc e o f 

w ate r p o llu tio n . The pla ce m en t o f f i l l m a te ria l a p p ears to d i f f e r 

s ig n if ic a n tly fro m a co n ti n u o u s d is c h a rg e o f chem ic al w as te from a pip e 

o r s im ila r f ix tu r e whi ch ca n be re g u la te d by m eanin gfu l e f f lu e n t l im ita ­

t io n s . The pla ce m en t o f f i l l f o r hig hw ay p r o je c ts do es n o t norm ally 

p re s e n t pro bl em s f o r e f f lu e n t l im ita tio n , ex cep t f o r te m pora ry t u r ­

bule nce in a lim ite d a re a . I t wo uld appear th a t t h i s im pa ct on w a te r 

q u a lity wo uld more a p p ro p ria te ly be re g u la te d as a n o n -p o in t so u rc e 

under s e c ti o n s 208 o r 303 o f th e A ct, w it h p o s s ib le r e lia n c e on s e c tio n s 

on s e c tio n s 307 and 311 to r e s t r i c t any pl ac em en t o f to x ic o r haz ar dous 

m a te ria ls .

C u rt ail m en t o f e ro sio n is im p o rt an t f o r so un d high wa y fo u n d ati o n s

as w e ll as f o r th e p ro te c tio n o f w ate r q u a lity
169

The most s i g n i f i c a n t envir onm enta l im pa ct o f th e pla ce m en t o f 

f i l l in wat er w ay s on w etl an d s is mor e l ik e ly to r e s u l t fro m p e rra n e n t 

ch an ge s in th e s h o re lin e s o r su b su rfa c e e le v a tio n s . C o n tr o l o f th e s e 

a r e a s , ho w ev er , ap pears to be a q u e s ti o n o f la n d use c o n tr o l, w hi ch we 

b e li e v e sh o u ld be dev el oped f o r im ple m en ta ti on a t th e S ta te and lo c a l 

l e v e l , r a th e r th a n by th e U nited S ta te s Army.

The a re a co ver ed f o r th e re g u la tio n o f f i l l by th e s e r e g u la tio n s 

go es w ell be yo nd th e a re a in which th e re ap p ears to be any N a ti o n a l 

i n t e r e s t in th e pla ce m en t o f f i l l an d in to a re a s in whi ch th e p la c e ­

me nt wo uld ha ve n o t bee n en v ir o n m en ta ll y s i g n i f i c a n t . We b e lie v e 

t h a t a re a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y w e tl a n d s, which d eserv e p r o te c tio n , can b e s t 

be id e n tif ie d a t th e S ta te l e v e l. We do n o t o b je c t to F ed era l a s s i s t ­

an ce in th e i d e n t i f i c a t io n o f su ch a re a s , b u t b e lie v e th a t th e b a s ic 

la n d u se d e c is io n s sh ould be made a t th e S ta te and lo c a l le v e l. Fur ­

th erm o re , th e r e i s now a v o id o f F ed era l guid ance in th e i d e n t i f i c a ­

tio n o f s ig n i f i c a n t a r e a s , which was re co g n iz ed by th e S enate on >iay 

26, 19 76 , when i t passe d th e Lan d and W ater R es our ce C o n serv ati o n A ct 

o f 1976 (S 2081), which d ir e c ts th e S o il C o n serv ati o n S e rv ic e to co nd u ct an in v e n to ry o f s i g n i f i c a n t la n d , w a te r, an d r e la te d re s o u rc e s .

W ith re g a rd to th e sc op e o f re v ie w , we o b je c t to th e 34 ,0 00 word 

r e g u la tio n s o f th e C orp s, which in clu d e as p a r t o f a s o - c a lle d p u b lic 

i n t e r e s t re vie w m a tt e rs w hi ch ap p ear to ha ve no r e l a t i o n to th e F ed era l 

W at er P o llu tio n C o n tr o l A ct. F urt herm ore , we o b je c t to p ro v is io n s in 

th e g u id e li n e s is su e d by EPA which appear to p la c e u n r e a l i s t i c e r p h a s is 

on th e p r o te c tio n o f any v e g e ta ti o n o r w i ld lif e re g a r d le s s o f o th e r 

c o n s id e ra tio n .

S ta te o f f ic ia ls o b je ct to th e pla cement o f Fed er al la nd us e c o n tr o ls and 

re qu irem en ts fo r Fed er al pe rm its fo r a c tiv itie s fun ded e n tire ly w ith S ta te

money.
170

With regard to specific legislative proposals now before the Congress, 

we favor the approach of S1878 which would restrict the jurisdiction of the 

sec. 404 program to waters which are navigable in fact. We would, however, 

be willing to accept a compromise approach similar to that contained in the 

so-called Wright amendment which would extend jurisdiction to those additional 

wetlands adjacent to coastal or navigable waters and to those additional 

waters designated by the Governor of the State in which they are located as 

environmentally significant.

We find the so-called Cleveland-Harsha amendment, which was considered 

by the House, to be unacceptable because it would leave too large an area 

subject to requirements for Federal permits. Also, it would appear to create 

new problems because: (1) the enumeration of specific statutory exemptions 

for some activities may raise questions about the authority of the Corps to

I

exempt activities by regulation, and (2) the specific authority for general 

permits under sec. 404 may raise questions over the authority to issue general 

permits under other sections, particularly sec. 402. We have similar concerns 

about those provisions in the Wright amendment on statutory exclusions and 

general permits. Also, we believe the Wright amendment should provide for the 

delegation of the permit program for the States in all areas and not just the 

adjacent wetlands.
171

ATTACHMENT

State Agencies Reviewing Activities

Alabama Water Improvement Commission

Alabama State Docks

Alaska Department of Fish & Game

Alaska Department of Environmental, Conservation

Arizona Water Commission

California State Reclamation Board

California State Water Quality

California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission

California State Lands Commission 

California Department of Fish and Game

Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division

Colorado Department of Natural Resources

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Hawaii Department of Health, State of Health

Idaho Department of Water Resources

Illinois Department of Conservation

Illinois Division of Water Resources Management

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board

Iowa Department of Environmental Quality

Iowa Conservation Commission

Iowa Natural Resources Council

76-161 0 - 76 - 12
172

Kansas Board of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources

Kansas Board of Health

Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Division 

of Water Quality

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Maine Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

Maine Land Use Regulation Commission

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration 

Michigan Hydrological Survey Division 

Michigan Bureau of Water Management 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Watershed Districts

Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Commission

Mississippi Marine Resources Council

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (MDHES)

Montana Department of Fish and Game

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Nebraska Department of Environmental Control

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

Nebraska Natural Resources Commission

Nebraska Department of Water Resources

Nevada Department of Fish & Game

Nevada State Health Department, Environmental Services Division

New Hampshire Special Board for Dredge and Fill

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission

New Jersey Bureau of Water Control, Division of Water Resources

New Jersey Bureau of Marine Lands Management, Division of Marine Services
173

New Mexico Health & Social Services

New Mexico Water Qualit y Division

New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency

New Mexico Game & Fish

New Mexico State Engineer

New Mexico State Parks & Recreation

New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

New Mexico State Land Office

New Mexico State Museum (of New Mexico)

New Mexico Natural Resources Conservation Commission 

New Mexico State Planning Office

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

North Carolina Department of Natural & Economic Resources 

North Dakota State Health Department

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Oregon Division of State Lands

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

Pennsylvania Fish Commission

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council 

Rhode Island Department of Health 

Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources 

South Carolina State Budget and Control Board 

Utah State Division of Water Rights 

Utah State Division of Health
174

Vermont Department of Water Resources

Vermont Department of Fish and Game

Vermont Water Resources Board (for lakes and ponds)

Virginia Marine Resources Commission

Washington Department of Ecology

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Washington Department of Fisheries

Washington Department of Game

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION Or STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFF ICIALS 

34 1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g 

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 S 

Ju n o 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS TOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FI LL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC ,. 4 04 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

P le a s e l i s t t h e n u m b er o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h y o u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h a se I I o f t h e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e r s p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v i g a b le w a t e r s , 

w e tla n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

I t is e sti m a te d th a t th e Alabam a Highway Dep ar tm en t w ill be re q u ir e d to o b ta in 

appro xim ate ly 25 -3 0 p erm it s fo r p r o je c ts under Pha se I I o f th e C orp s' r e g u la tio n s .

P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h a v e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

A l i s t o f th e fo ll o w in g a c t i v i t i e s was s e n t to th e Co rps w it h th e re q u est th a t th e y 

be co n sid e re d f o r a g e n e ra l p erm it :

Mino r roa dw ay an d b ri d g e ab ut m en t f i l l s , r ip ra p and slo p e p av in g , te m po ra ry e ro s io n 

c o n tr o l s tr u c t u r e s , bdlk head s and b a c k f i ll , do lp h in s and fe n d e r sy stem s fo r b r id g e s , 

te m po ra ry d e to u r and h a u l ro ad s, d ra in ag e p ip e s and minor c u lv e r ts , mi no r ch an n el 

Im pr ov em en t, su bm ar in e and a e r i a l c a b le s , e t c .

P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m i t s .

We be ga n n e g o tia tin g fo r a g e n e ra l p erm it w it h th e Mob ile D i s t r i c t o f th e Cor ps o f 

E ngin ee rs in November o f 19 75 , when we s e n t a l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s wh ich we f e l t sh o u ld 

be co vere d. Sin ce th en we ha ve ha d s e v e ra l d is c u s s io n s w it h the m concer nin g th e 

req u este d g en e ra l p e rm it . The Co rps is c u rre n tly co o rd in a ti n g w it h o th e r f e d e r a l 

and s t a t e ag e n cie s to wo rk o u t an ac c e p ta b le g e n e ra l p e rm it . The y e sti m a te i t w ill 

be an o th er 3- 5 mo nth s b e fo re a g e n e ra l per m it can be in e f f e c t' .

/ . S ig n e d

S t a t e o f Ala ba m a Hig hw ay D ep a rtm e n t 

Me mb er D e p a rtm e n t

Ju ne 17 , 1976 ______________________

D a te

s i 8 n t ? t l c o Py o f t , l i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s
176

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION Or STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OPriCIALS 

341 N a ti o n a l P re ss B u il d in g

W as hin gto n, D.C . 20045 . .

Ju ne 11, 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. ‘109 Or THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a se l i s t th e numb er o f p e rm it s under s e c . 404 o f th e FWPCA w hi ch you 

a n tic ip a t e w ill be re q u ire d f o r hig hw ay p r o je c ts under Ph as e I I o f th e 

C orp s’ r e g u la tio n s , whi ch c o v ers pri m ary t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs, 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t to p ri m ary t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c re s o r more.

We a n ti c ip a te we co ul d get by w ith 50 perm its. However, with a l l stre am s d is ­

ch ar gi ng d ir e c tl y in to th e oc ean co ns id er ed major tr ib u ta r ie s by th e Corps of 

En gi ne er s, we co ul d be re q u ir ed to ap ply fo r as many as 900 perm its unle ss we 

g e t r e lie f by gener al pe rm it pr oc ed ur e.

2 . P le a se d e s c rib e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r which yo u ha ve so u g h t g e n e ra l 

p e r m its .

. We have ap plied fo r a gener al per m it co ve ring bri dge approa ch es and c u lv e rt f i l l s .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s ta t u s o f a l l a p p lic a tio n s f o r g e n e ra l p e rm it s .

We are s t i l l n e g o ti a ti n g w ith th e Corps of En gi ne er s. They are in b a sic agreement 

w ith our pr op os al bu t pro gre ss is sle w due to li m it ed Corps o f Eng in ee rs ' pe rs on ne l.

Member Dep.

Dat e

P le a s e r e tu r n on e s ig n e d co py o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e to th e AASHTO G ener al O ff ic e s 

by June 25, 197 6.
177

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

34 1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g 

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 0 US

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1.- P le a s e l i s t th e num be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 9 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

Three

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

Not a p p li ca b le

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
178

AMERICAN AS SOCIAT ION OF STA TE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFF IC IA LS 

3 4 1 N a t i o n a l P r e s s B u i ld i n g

W as hi ngto n, D.C. 20045

J u n e 1 1 , 1 976

QUE STIONNAIRE ON PER MITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FIL L MATE RIAL

UNDER SE C. 4 04 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a se l i s t th e num ber o f p e rm it s under s e c . 404 o f th e FWPCA w hic h you 

a n tic ip a t e w ill be re q u ir e d f o r hig hw ay p ro je c ts under Ph as e I I o f th e 

C orp s' re g u la tio n s , which co v ers pri m ar y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs, 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t to pri m ar y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c re s o r more.

I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d a p p ro x im a te ly f i f t y S ec. 40 4 p e rm it s w i l l be 

r e q u ir e d by th e D ep art m en t f o r jo b s pr og ram m ed w ith in th e n e x t 

5 o r 6 y e a r s . At l e a s t e ig h t p e rm it s w i l l be r e q u ir e d b e f o r e 

J u l y 1 , 197 7.

2 . P le a se d e s c rib e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s fo r whi ch yo u ha ve so u g h t g e n era l 

p e rm it s .

S ee g e n e r a l p e rm it a tta c h e d s u b m it te d to l o c a l D i s t r i c t C orp s o f 

E n g in e e rs on Dec em be r 4 , 1975.

3 . P le a se r e l a t e th e s ta t u s o f a l l a p p li c a ti o n s fo r g e n e ra l p e rm it s .

No a c t i o n a t ti m e .

We a r e a l s o e n c lo s in g a copy o f th e o p e r a tin g g u i d e l i n e s f o r S ec. 

404 p e rm it s in A rk a n s a s . We r e c o rd e d th e s e Ju n e 1 , 1976.

Sig ned

A rk a n sa s S ta te Highwa y De partm en t

Member D ep ar tm en t 

Ju n e 2 4 , 19 76

Da te

P le a se r e tu r n on e sig n ed co py o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e to th e AASHTO G enera l O ff ic es 

by Ju no 25, 19 76 .
179

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIAL S 

34 1 N a ti o n al P re ss B u il d in g

W as hin gt on , D .C , 20045 

Jun e 1 1 , 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FIL L MATERIAL 

* ------ UNDER SEC. 404 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a se l i s t th e number o f p erm it s un de r s e c . 404 o f th e FWPCA w hic h yo u 

a n t ic ip a t e w i l l be r e q u ir e d f o r high wa y p r o je c t s un de r Ph ase I I o f th e 

C orp s' r e g u la t io n s , whic h co v e rs pri m ar y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s, 

w etl an d s a d ja c e n t to pri m ar y t r i b u t a r i e s , and la k e s o f S a c re s o r m or e.

TWO.

2 . P le a se d e s c r ib e , b r i e f l y , any a c t i v i t i e s f o r w hic h yo u hav e so u gh t g e n e ra l 

p e r m it s .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p li c a tio n s f o r g e n e r a l p e rm it s.

p , C. Dep ar tm en t o f T ra n sp o rta tU

Member De pa rtm en t 

June 22, 1976

P le a se r e tu r n one sig n e d co py o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G en era l O ffic e s 

by Jun e 25, 19 7 6 .
180

• • AMERICAN ASSOCIATION Or STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

• . * 34 1 N a ti o n a l P re ss R u il d in g

W as hin gto n, D.C . 20045 

June 1 1 , 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE Or DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 404 OF T11E FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1. - P le a se l i s t th e numb er o f p e rm it s under s e c . 409 o f th e FWPCA w hi ch yo u 

'a n tic ip a te w i l l be re q u ire d f o r high way p r o je c ts u nder Ph as e I I o f th e 

C o rp s' r e g u la tio n s , w hic h c o v ers pri m ary t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t to p ri m a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m or e.

There will be approximately 100 Section 404 Permits required for DOT projects

during Phase II of the Corps' regulations. Of these it is estimated that

approximately 30 are due to the expanded jurisdiction of Phase II.

2. P le a se d e s c r ib e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w hi ch you ha ve so u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

Due to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation's present position

on Water Quality Certification, it is virtually impossible .to effectively

develop any.general permits.

3 . P le a se r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p lic a tio n s f o r g e n e r a l p e rm it s .

N/A

S ig ned

Florida Department of Transportation

Member D ep ar tm en t

June 25, 1976

D at e

by CJn iier 25 U 19 76 C 8 , S M ®d C P p y t , , i s q u e s tio n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G ener al O ffic e s
181

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

34 1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g 

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 5

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 404 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e num ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

2 0 0

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

N on e

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

N on e

-----------------------UAU Aii_____

t . Membe r D ep art m en t

________ .I n n a 2 3 . 1 9 7 6 ___

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o t h e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
182

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFF ICIALS 

■ 3U1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 0 US 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. UOU Of THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 .- P le a s e l i s t t h e num be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . UOU o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r h ig h w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v i g a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

We a n t i c i p a t e t h a t 10 S e c . 40 4 p e r m i t s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r FY 1977 

p r o j e c t s .

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l

®e r .^ s * T h e S t a t e o f I d j h o h a s b e e n i s s u e d 2 G e n e r a l P e r m i t s 

t o d a t e f o r f i l l s p l a c e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h c u l v e r t s a n d b r i d g e s .

T h e o n e p e r m i t c o v e r s f i l l s o n f e d e r a l l a n d s a n d t h e o t h e r o n n o n -

• f e d e r a l l a n d s . U n d e r t h e s e g e n e r a l p e r m i t s t h e q u a n t i t y o f f i l l 

w i t h i n t h e o r d i n a r y h ig h w a t e r r e c t a n g u l a r p r is m f o r t h e p la c e m e n t 

o f c u l v e r t s o r b e h i n d a b u tm e n ts f o r b r i d g e a p p r o a c h e s c a n n o t e x c e e d 

1 00 c u b i c y a r d s .

v*.

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m i t s . 

No o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e p e n d in g

I d a h o

S ig n e d

Mem ber D ep art m en t

J u n e 22 , 1976

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n on e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASHTO G e n e r a l O f f ic e s 

jy Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
183

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIA LS 

34 1 N a ti o n a l P r e s s B u il d in g 

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 S

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FI LL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 9 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h y ou 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

86

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e so u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

NONE

3UU 28 iota

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

NONE

1AL NOTE: Th is in fo rm ati on was re la y ed 

by te le phone to Mr. S ta fs e th by — 

Roger Nusbaum on June 24. S ig n e d

ILLINOIS

Mem ber D ep art m en t 

J u n e 2 4 , 1976

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
184

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

34 1 N a ti o n a l Pre ss B u il d in g

W as hin gt on , D.C . 20045 

Ju ne 1 1 , 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FIL L MATERIAL

UNDER SEC . 404 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a se l i s t th e number o f p erm it s un de r s e c . 404 o f th e FWPCA whic h yo u 

a n t ic ip a t e w i l l be r e q u ir e d f o r high wa y p r o je c ts under Ph ase I I o f th e 

C orp s' r e g u la t io n s , whic h co v e rs pr im ar y t r ib u t a r ie s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s, 

w etl an d s a d ja c e n t to p ri m ar y t r i b u t a r i e s , and la k e s o f 5 a c re s o r mo re.

In dian a Sta te Highway Commission P ro je cts - - - - 25 

County Highway P ro je cts 75

2 . P le a se d e s c r ib e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s fo r whic h yo u ha ve sought g e n e ra l 

p e rm it s .

We have requ es te d a ge ne ra l permit fo r th e a c t i v it ie s ass oci at ed with 

co nst ru ct io n o f br id ge s and cu lv e r ts . Th is w i ll in cl ude .con st ru ct io n of 

fo un da tio ns , b a c k fi ll in g o f foun da tio n ex ca va tio ns and pla cem ent o f slop e

• p ro te ct io n.

To da te th e Corps o f En gin eers has dec lined to s ta r t pro ce ss in g of th is 

ge ne ra l pe rm it.

3 . P le a se r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p li c a tio n s fo r g e n e r a l p e rm it s.

No ge ne ra l permit has been is su ed fo r any a c t iv it y at t h is tim e, in 

fa c t, no se ct io n 404 pe rm it has been f u ll y pr oc es se d and a pe rm it is su ed fo r 

any highway p ro je c t.

Member De pa rtm en t 

M 7 ? Eft

D at e

P le a s e re tu rn on e sig n ed co py o f t h i s q u e sti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G enera l O ffic e s 

by June 25, 19 7 6 .
185

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFF ICIALS 

34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 5 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERLAL

UNDER SEC. 404 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t th e num be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c , 40 4 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h y o u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi gh w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ’ r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a t e r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

Twenty on the primary road system. Counties w il l submit ad ditio na l ap plications 

fo r secondary road pr ojec ts.

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l

V

e rm its.

—Minor mod ifica tio n of stream channels at bridge sites (new construction & maintenance)

2—Constructing temporary causeways (co ntractor access).

3—Construction of temporary stream crossing (con tra ctor access).

4—Constructing culv ert footing s in In te ri o r Iowa streams.

5—Constructing encased p ile bent pie rs in in te ri o r Iowa streams.

6—Constructing bridge pie r footings in in te ri o r Iowa streams.

7—Minor bank mo difica tions at bridge site s over in te rio r Iowa streams.

8—Rip-rap bank protec tio n fo r in te ri o r Iowa steams. • ' / 0

.s.

3 .

P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l^ p e r m it s .

General permit ap plications were sent to the Corps on February 6, 1976.

The Corps ind ica ted ve rb ally on June 21, 1976, th at they are ju s t beginning 

to process the ap plications .

Iowa Department of Tra nsp ortation 

1 . Member D ep art m en t

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d copy o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

- 34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D.C .- 20 04 5 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE. ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e e . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m ore .

T h ree on P r im a r y S y ste m .

S ev en on S ec on d ary S y s te m ,- _______

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e ra l 

p e r m i t s .

A pp li ca ti on fo r a G en eral P e r m it h as b ee n m ad e co v erin g th e in sta ll a ti o n

an d b a ck fi ll of s m a ll d ra in a g e str u ctu res in cl udin g p ip es an d RC B cu lv e rts

le s s than 20 ' sp a n , ch a n n el c le a n in g , or re lo ca ti o n 'n o t to ex c eed 75 0' in

le ngth , low w a te r c r o s s in g s , b ri d ge p ie r co n str u cti o n , b erm p ro te cti o n ,

sp ur d ik e s , e r o sio n c o n tr o l, str u c tu r e s , c o r e d r il li n g , rep a ir and m a in te ­

n ance of ex is tin g f a c t ilit ie s , th e sn a g g in g , cle a rin g and re m o v a l o f d eb ris

at s tr u c tu r e s .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

A G enera l P e r m it now is bei ng p r o c e ss e d by th e C or ps of E n g in e e r s. The

C or ps of E n g in eers h as req u este d ad dit io n al in fo rm ati on fo r it s u se in

pre p ari ng a P u b li c N o tic e .

■

S ig n e d

K an sa s D ep art m en t o f T ra n sp orta ti on

Mem ber D ep art m en t

____________J un e 2 8 , 19 76 _______________

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d copy o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by J u n e 2 5 . 1 9 7 6 .
187

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

3 U N a ti o n a l P re s s B u il d in g 

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 200*15

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t th e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . *404 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h y ou 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi ghw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P has e I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

A p ro je cte d e stim a te o f th e num ber of p h a se II p e r m it s is 20 p er y e a r .

A p ro je cte d e s tim a te o f th e num ber o f p h a se III p e r m it s is 42 p er y e a r .

-----

P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

1. P la c e m e n t of 75 0 cu b ic y a rd s o r le s s o f slo p e p ro te cti o n at b ri d ge s it e s .

a . D ry cy clo p ea n sto n e

b . C ru sh ed A g g reg a te

c . ' En d D um ped Sto ne

2 . C o n str u cti o n o f box c u lv e r ts and m in o r ch an nel ch a n g es

3 .

b.

c .

d . P le a s e r e

f ill m a te r ia l, 20 00 cu bic yard s or le s s

e x c a v a ti o n , 20 00 cu b ic y a rd s o r le s s

ch an n el ch an ge le n g th , 60 0 ft . or le s s

bott om su r fa ce a r e a , 10 00 sq u are y ard s o r le s s

l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

In it ia l c o r r esp o n d en ce with su g g e ste d quan ti ty li m it s an d m a te r ia ls

h as b een m ade to C orp s of E n g in eers - pen di ng r e v ie w and p r o c e ss in g .

P . E.

S ig n e d

S e c r e ta r y , K en tu ck y D ep t. of T ra n sp o rta ti o n

Mem ber D ep art m en t

_________Ju ne 2 3 , 1976 __________________

D ate

b i e

j J ^ o

r 25 U r i

lq7 fi e s i g n e d c °P y o f t h l s Q u e s tio n n a ir e t o t h e AASHT0 G e n e ra l O f f ic e s

76-161 0 - 76 - 13
188

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY ANDTRANSPORTATION OFFICIA LS 

• * ' 34 1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , O .C . 20 04 5 

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FI LL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 ,- P le a s e l i s t t h e num be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h y o u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o r p s ’ r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tla n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

Primary trib u ta rie s to nav ig ab ly wat er s - 24 _ In cl udes co un ty p roje cts

Wetlands ad ja ce nt to prim ary tr ib u ta r ie s * 3 no t on s ta te sy stem .

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

1. - S in gle or m u lt i- c e ll re in fo rced co ncr et e box c u lv e r ts .

2 . Corrugated meta l and co ncr et e pi pe s and pipe ar ch es up to 144" in dia m et er .

S in gle or m u lt ip le pip e in s t a ll a t io n up to fou r p a r a ll e l adja ce nt p ip es.

3 . Rock and s o il bor in gs fo r s o i l surv ey s and fo un da tio n d esi gn .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

A dra ft o f 1 and 2 und er 2 above i s being c ir cu la te d by th e Corps o f En gine er s to

co ord in at in g agen ci es a s o f June 10 , 1976 fo r in i t i a l comments.

Corp o f Eng ineers ha s de ter min ed no permit nec es sa ry fo r 3 ab ov e.

The A dm in istr at io n 1s p resen tl y pr ep ar in g a ge ner al permit re ques t fo r "Channel

and Slop e P rote ct io n " . Work Is ap pr ox im at ely 807. co m ple te .

_____________

S ig n e d

Maryland Departm ent o f T ra ns po rt at io n

--------S ta te Highway A d m in ia f r a tin n ________

: j Me mber D ep art m en t

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASHT0 G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

b y J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
189

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIAL S 

34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 200*15 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC . 40*1 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . - P le a s e l i s t t h e num ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40*1 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h y o u

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a t e r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r i m a r y - t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

In f is c a l 1977 we expect to submit 150 to 170 S ec. 404 pe rm it a p p li cati on s to the 

COB. Of the se* 40 to 50 w i ll in volv e stream cr ossin gs or la ke and we tla nd en croa ch ­

ments due to normal highway impr ovem ents. The rem ain der w i ll in vo lv e a br id ge re ­

plac ement program on the tow nsh ip, co un ty , mun icip al and tru nk highway syste ms 

fin an ce d in par t by a 50 m il li on d o ll a r Br idge Act passed by the Min nesota 

L e g is la tu re .. •

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

We have begun dis cu ssio n with the COE r e la tiv e to id e n ti fy in g ca te g ori es o f 

p ro je c ts , suc h as br id ge replacem en ts or c u lv e r t ex te n sio n s, to whic h ge ner al 

pe rm its would be a p p li c a b le . No con sen sus has y e t been re ac he d, th ere fo re no 

ge ner al pe rm its have been ap plie d fo r .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

r ~ S ig n t• d / 7

M ln nn an ta HiljJty ia y D e o a r tm e n t

Member DepJu ft m en t

Juna 18. :

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o th e AAS1IT0 G e n e ra l O ffic e ! 

by J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
190

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

34 1 N a ti o n a l P re s s B u il d in g

" 3

2S W70 Wash ington , D.C. 20045 

June 11 , 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FI LL MATERIALUNDER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c , 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi ghw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

25

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

We h av e re q u e s te d a g e n e r a l p e r m it fo r m a in te n a n c e d re d g in g o p e r a tio n s , 

i. e . , c h a n n e l, d it c h an d c u lv e r t c le a n o u t. A d d it io n a ll y , w e h av e re q u e s te d 

a g e n e ra l p e r m it fo r h ig h w ay c o n s tr u c ti o n . T h e lo c a l C o rp s D is tr ic t is 

d e s ir o u s of co m b in in g th e tw o.

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l ic a t io n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

W e h av e h ad s ix m e e ti n g s w it h th e C o rp s o f E n g in e e rs r e l a ti v e to g e n e ra l p e r m its 

fo r b o th m a in te n a n c e a n d c o n s tr u c ti o n o f h ig h w ay s. T h e lo c a l d is tr i c t s e e m s to 

th in k it p r e f e r a b le an d is w o rk in g to w a rd o n e p e r m it fo r b o th a c tiv itie s . T h ro u g h 

th e s e m e e ti n g s w e h av e f u r n is h e d in fo rm ati o n - r e la tiv e to ty p ic a l hig hw ay fil l an d 

d re d g e a c tiv i tie s , ty p ic a l b r id g e c r o s s in g s o f s tr e a m s , s p e c if ic a tio n s r e la tiv e to 

c o n tr a c t r e q u ir e m e n ts r e g a r d in g th e c o n tro l o f s il ta ti o n an d p o ll u ti o n , an d c o p ie s 

o f e n v iro n m e n ta l a s s e s s m e n ts o f h ig h w ay w o rk . T h e C o r p s is u s in g th is in f o r m a ­

ti o n in e v a lu a ti n g th e g e n e r a l p e r m it. A p u b li c n o ti c e h a s n o t y et b een is s u e d .

S ig n e d D ir e c to r

___________ M IS SI S S IP P I_________________

Member Departme nt

J u n e 24, 1976

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHT0 G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
191

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION Or STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFIC IALS 

’ • » 341 N a tio n a l I’ro s s B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , D.C .- 200 U5 

J u n e 1 1 , 197G

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR TILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 't Of THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 ,- P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h y o u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r h ig h w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v i g a b le w a t e r s , 

w e tla n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

23 5/ye ar

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h a v e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s . . ,

Bridge const ru cti on and re la te d const ru ct io n such as tem porary ha ul ro ad s, bank 

trim ming, min or cha nnel re al ig nm en ts , ro ck bla nkets , sp ur dik es, reve tm en ts alo ng 

stre am ban ks and removal of ex is ti n g br id ge str u c tu re s th a t are be ing re pl ac ed by 

new s tr u c tu re s.

Ro utine d ail y ma intenanc e of br id ge s tr u c tu re s, suc h as chan ne l cle an outs , removal 

of d r if t a t bridg e s ite s , rem oval of brus h in channe l a t bridge s ite and flood 

damage re p a ir . A ll of th e above new const ru ct io n is in Pha se I I and I I I wat ers 

and ma intenanc e a c tiv itie s in Phases I , I I and I I I w at er s.

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m i t s .

Ge neral Pe rm it ap p li c ati o n is pre sentl y be ing proc es se d in th e Kansas City 

D is tr ic t Co rps' O ff ic e.

Z ’

'fJ u-y tC tr. O ______

Sign ed

.M isso uri S ta te Highway Department----------

. Me mb er D e p a rtm e n t

. t i ____________Ju ne 22, 1976__________ '

• • D a te

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d c o p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AAS1ITO G e n e r a l O f f ic e s 

b y J u n e 2S , 1 9 7 6 .
192

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIA LS 

* 3 4 1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , D.C.- 20 04 5 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE Or DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SE C. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 .- P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 90 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h y ou 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f S a c r e s o r m o re .

U n d e r P h a s e I I N e v a d a a n t i c i p a t e s no r e q u i r e m e n t f o r S e c t i o n 4 0 4 

p e r m i t s ; h o w e v e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f P h a s e I I I w o u ld s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t 

o u r p r o g r a m t o t h e e x t e n t o f r e q u i r i n g a n e s t i m a t e d 4 0 ± p e r m i t s .

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

N e v a d a i s i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y s t a g e s o f p r e p a r i n g a g e n e r a l p e r m i t 

r e q u e s t f o r e x c a v a t i o n , i n s t a l l a t i o n a n d b a c k f i l l f o r c u l v e r t s 

a n d b r i d g e a b u t m e n t s .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its . 

N e v a d a 's s u b m i s s i o n o f a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r g e n e r a l p e r m i t c o n ­

s i d e r a t i o n i s p e n d i n g .

G r a n t B a s ti a n S ig n e d S t a t e Hw y. E n g r .

N e v a d a

Membe r D ep art m en t

_______ 6- 22 -7 6__________________ ’

D a te

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d c o p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n o 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
193

ZM EP.Tf.AN A S SO C IA T IO N O F STATE HIGH WAY AND TR ANSP O RTA TIO N O F F IC IA L S 

3 4 1 N a t i o n a l P r e s s B u i l d i n g 

W a s h i n g t o n , D .C .- 2 0 0 4 5

J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 7 6

Q U E ST IO N N A IR E ON PERM IT S FOR DIS CHA RGE OF DREDG ED OR F IL L MAT ER IA L

UNDER S E C . 4 0 4 OF TH E FE DE RA L WATER POLLUTIO N CONTROL AC T

1 , - P l e a s e l i s t t h e n u m b e r o f p e r m i t s u n d e r s e c . 4 0 4 o f t h e FWPCA w h i c h y o u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r h i g h w a y p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h a s e I I o f t h e 

C o r p s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h i c h c o v e r s p r i m a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s , 

w e t l a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r i m a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , a n d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o r e .

ESTIMATED AT 25

2 . P l e a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , a n y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h i c h y o u h a v e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

WE ARE PRESENTLY WORKING OUT THE DE TA ILS CW A GENERAL PERM IT FOR SMALL BRIDGE AND 

CULVERT WORK. T H IS GENERAL PER MIT HAS YET TO BE FI NA LI ZE D WITH THE CORPS OF 

EN GI NE ER S.

3 . P l e a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s

PENDING AT TH IS TIM E

f o r g e n e r a l p e r m i t s .

MEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF PU BL IC WORKS A HWYS 

M e m b e r D e p a r t m e n t

J u n e 2 4 , 1 9 7 6

D a t e

P l e a s e r e t u r n o n e s i g n e d c o p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AA SHTO G e n e r a l O f f i c e s 

b y J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .

I '.
194

. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFIC IALS 

3>+l N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 09 5 

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 90 9 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t th e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 90 9 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi gh w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t to p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m ore .

(S ee A tta ch m en t)

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

(S ee A ttac hm en t)

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

(S ee A ttac hm en t)

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d copy o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
195

AASBTO QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTION NO. 1

The c h a r t e n te re d bel ow , re p re s e n ts o u r b e s t e sti m a te a t t h i s tim e 

o f th e numb er o f Ph as e I I a p p li c a ti o n s p ro je c te d f o r J u ly 1 , 1976 to 

J u ly 1, 1977• some o f w hi ch a re in th e p ro c e ss m ill:

l&U Ph ase I I P erm it s (J u ly 1 , 1976 - J u ly 1, 19 77 )

Design Area A n ti c ip a te d A p p li c a ti o n s

D es ig n Are a I « y j

D es ig n Area I I = ^5

Des ig n Area I I I - 90

D es ig n Are a IV n jq

T o ta l A n ti c ip a te d a p p lic a tio n s n e x t 2 y e a rs = 206

QUESTION NO, 2

On F ebru ary 9, 19 76 , NJDOT me t i n th e P h il a d e lp h ia D i s t r i c t COE an d 

p re se n te d 5 su g g este d G ener al Perm it fo rm ats which we f e l t wo uld be f a i r an d co v 

c o v er us f o r g e n e ra l c a te g o r ie s an d lo w er volum e d e p o s it s d u ri n g Ph as e I I 

an d I I I o f th e I4OI4 P erm it Pr og ram. Th ese c a te g o r ie s we re a s fo ll o w s:

1 . E xcavati on an d Embankment

2 . Dra in ag e S tr u c tu re s

3. S o il S ta b iliz a tio n

b . E le c tr ic a l an d U t i l i t y C o n str u cti o n

5 . B ridg e S tr u c tu re s

The COE P h il a d e lp h ia D i s t r i c t , fro m o u r subm is si on, h as dev el oped 11 

G en er al Perm it fo rm ats w hi ch COE f e e ls f u l f i l l s th e m an dat es o f S e c ti o n bOU. 

Si nc e i t tu rn s o u t th a t th e COE in te r p r e ta tio n o f " f i l l m a te ria l" i s 1 i mi t.nd 

to pla ce m en t o f s o il a g g re g a te s o n ly , NJDOT e f f o r t in p re s e n ti n g th e 5 ab ov e 

ty p e s was a b i t more a m b it io u s th a n was r e a l l y re q u ir e d in d e v elo pin g G en er al 

P erm it s to co v er " f i l l m a te r ia l" . The P h il a d e lp h ia D i s t r i c t COE, on A p ri l 22 , 

a f t e r v a ri o u s m eetings w it h NJDOT, in fo rm ed u s o f t h e i r in te n t to pr om ul ga te 

11 G en er al P e rm it s a s fo ll o w s :

1 . P riv a te R e c re a ti o n a l Docks

2 . P riv a te R e c re a ti o n a l Docks

3 . Be ach R e s to ra ti o n 

b. Subm arine C ab le s

5 . Moorin g Bouys

6 . P ie r s , R e c re a ti o n a l

7 . P ie r , R e c re a ti o n a l

*8. Roadway F i l l s (NJDOT S p ec.)

*9. Stream Bank P r o te c ti o n (NJDOT S p ec.)

10. B ulk hea din g, Mean H ig hvate r

11. B ul kh ea ds an d F i l l s

New J e rse y

Delaw are

Delaw are

New Je rse y

P h il a d e lp h ia D i s t r i c t

New Je rse y

De law are

New Je rse y

New Je rse y

New Je rse y

New Je rse y
196

QUESTION NO. 3

General Permits No. *8 and *9 which are of gr ea t importance to NJDOT 

and which have rec eiv ed much NJDOT attenti on and monito ring NJDOT have been 

completed by the Ph ila de lphia COE to Stage U, Shown Below.

Stage

1. Perm it Text and Con ditions developed

2. Environmental Review Stage Complete (Neg.)

3. D is tr ic t Engineer approval imminent.

U. Public Notices imminent

5. Public Notices Pos ted .

6. EIS (no t an tici pat ed )

7. Publio Meetings (not an tici pat ed )

8. Pub lio Bearings (no t an tici pat ed )

9. Fina l Review

10. A va ilab ility

We have been adv ised th at the month of October, 1976 would app ear to be 

e a rlie s t which we cou ld expect to u ti li z e General Perm it No. 8 and 

Semptember 1976 fo r No. 9
197

AMERICAN ASSO CIAT ION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFF ICIALS 

34 1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g 

W a sh in g to n , D.C .- 2 0 0 US

Ju ne 11, 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC .. 40 4 Or THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 .- P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h y ou 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r h ig h w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o r p s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a t e r s , 

w e tla n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , a n d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

150 Permita.

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

a. Streambank and shoreline protection

b. Embankment fill

c. Culvert construction

d. Bridge pier and abutment construction

e. Temporary stream crossings.

3 . P l e a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m i t s .

Not a single one has been publicized yet by the C.E. despite months

of discussions and meetings ending last February. The New York C.E.

office has informed us that we should not expect any general permits

to be issued prior to September 1.

S ig n e d

N.Y. State Department of Transportation

Me mb er D ep art m en t 

■June, 17 . 1376

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASHTO G e n e r a l O f f ic e s 

o y J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
198

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D.C . 20 04 5 

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC . 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t th e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi gh w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m ore .

The number w ill depend on th e type general pe rm it dev eloped by the

Corps of En gine ers. With ou t a general perm it co ve rin g ro utin e opera tions,

the number would be es tim ated a t two hundred (2 00) a y e a r. With a

gene ral perm it, th is number would be reduced to abo ut 60 a yea r.

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h a v e s o u g h t g e n e ra l 

p e r m i t s .

Bridge approach f i l l s , tem porary de tour f i l l s fo r br idge replac em en t,

c u lv e rt, b a c k fill, sand reco ve ry ex cav at io n, channel changes, and bank

r ip rap.

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

The Wilm ington , N. C. D is tr ic t O ff ic e of the Corps o f Engin eers

has delayed action on ge ne ral pe rm its pending ac tion by Congress

on the amendments to Se ction 404 which they hope w il l e s s e n tia ll y

elim in ate Phase I I and I I I of the Corps Program.

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d copy o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 . G e n e ra l O f f ic e s
199

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION Or STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION Or FICI AL S 

3*11 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g 

W a sh in g to n , D.C .- 200*15 

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS TOR DISCHARGE OP DREDGED OR PIT.L MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. ilO't OP THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 , P le a s e l i s t t h e num be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . U0*l o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

The number w il l depend on the type general permit developed by the 

Corps of Engineers. Without a general permit covering ro utine operation s, 

the number would be estimated at two hundred (200) a year. With a 

general pe rm it, th is number would be reduced to about 60 a year.

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

Bridge approach f i l l s , temporary detour f i l l s fo r bridge replacement,

culv ert , b a c k fi ll , sand recovery excavation, channel changes, and bank _____ _

rip rap . - •» j

• I

\__

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

The Wilm ington, N. C. D is tr ic t Office of the Corps o f Engineers 

has delayed actio n on general permits pending ac tio n by Congress 

on the amendments to Section 404 which they hope w il l ess entially 

elim inate Phase II and I I I of the Corps Program.

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASIITO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

fay Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
200

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

39 1 N a ti o n a l P re s s B u il d in g 

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 09 5

Ju ne 11, 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 909 Or THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t th e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 90 9 o f th e FV.’PCA w h ic h yo u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r hi ghw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r Phas e I I o f th e 

C o r p s ’ r e g u l a t i o n s , w hic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f S a c r e s o r m ore .

A p p ro x im a te ly 15 p r o j e c t s t o b e l e t b e f o r e J u ly 1 , 19 77 w i l l r e q u ir e 

p e r m its . Of t h e s e , a n y th in g t o b e l e t a f t e r O c to b e r 1 , 19 76 w i l l 

r e q u i r e p e r m its u n d e r P h a se 3 . , '

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h you hav e s o u g h t g e n e ra l 

p e rm it s .

A. No s ta te w id e g e n e r a l p e r m its a p p lie d f o r .

B. P r o j e c t g e n e r a l p e r m its a p p lie d f o r c o v e r :

(1 ) O rd in a ry hig hw ay em ba nk m en ts in c lu d in g p la c e m e n t o f 

c u l v e r t s .

(2 ) R ip ra p f o r bank and em ba nk m en t p r o t e c t i o n w here 

n e c e s s a r y .

(3 ) I n s t a l l a t i o n o f b r id g e a b u tm e n ts an d p i e r s in c lu d in g 

p i l e s .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

U nd er "B" a b o v e :

A t o t a l o f 12 p r o j e c t s h a v e b e en a p p lie d f o r b e g in n in g 

D ec em be r 5 , 1975. As o f t h i s d a t e , one p e rm it was s u b m it te d 

t o us f o r a p p ro v a l b e f o r e f i n a l s i g n a t u r e s . I t h a s b een 

r e tu r n e d t o Omaha f o r c o m p le ti o n . On 3 p r o j e c t s we have 

b e e n a d v is e d t h a t no p e r m it i s n e c e s s a r y u n t i l P h a se 3 o f 

t h e p ro g ra m be co m es e f f e c t i v e J u ly 1 , 1977. Th e o t h e r 8 

a r e i n v a r io u s s t a g e s o f c o n s id e r a tio n by t h e C o rp s . We 

f i n d t h a t i n s t e a d o f th e pr og ra m m ed 90 d a y s f o r i s s u a n c e , 

a m or e r e a l i s t i c ti m e p e r io d w ould he 18£f d a y s . /J

S i g n e d 7

North Dakota State Highway Dep artment

t .

Mem ber D ep art m en t

June

D at e

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co py o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AAS1IT0 G e n e ra l O ffic e s 

by J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
201

. AMERICAN ASSO CIATION Or STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIA LS 

3 4 1 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g 

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 5

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SE C,. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 .- P le a s e l i s t t h e num ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h yo u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r h ig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f t h e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tla n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

We no w h a v e 16 p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n s p e n d in g w i t h t h e C o rp s o f 

E n g i n e e r s f o r P h a s e I I w a t e r s . We a n t i c i p a t e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 15 t o 20 

m o re t h i s y e a r u n l e s s r e g u l a t i o n s a r e c h a n g e d .

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

We h a v e r e q u e s t e d a n d t h e C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s i s no w d r a f t i n g P u b l i c 

N o t i c e s f o r f o u r t y p e s o f G e n e r a l P e r m i t s a s f o l l o w s :

1 . E m bankm ent F i l l A c t i v i t i e s

2: S tr e a m B an k a n d S h o r e l i n e P r o t e c t i o n A c t i v i t i e s .

3 . . C u l v e r t C o n s t r u c t i o n A c t i v i t i e s

4 , T e m p o ra ry S tr e a m C r o s s i n g A c t i v i t i e s

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

T h e b a s i c p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e f o u r g e n e r a l p e r m i t s h a v e b e e n a g r e e d 

u p o n b y 0DOT a n d t h e f i v e D i s t r i c t s o f t h e C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s h a v i n g 

j u r i s d i c t i o n i n O h io . D r a f t P u b l i c N o t i c e s a r e b e i n g p r e p a r e d b y t h e

. H u n tin g t o n D i s t r i c t a n d a r e t o b e s u b m i t t e d f o r r e v i e w a b o u t J u l y 8' 

1 ^ 7 6 . T h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n ts a r e b e i n g p r e p a r e d f o r e a c h g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t w i t h n o d a t e e s t a b l i s h e d f o r c o m p l e t i o n .

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d c o p y o f t h i s 

by J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 . q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AASIITO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s
202

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

341 N a ti o n a l P re ss B uil din g 

W as hin gto n, D.C. 20015 

Ju ne 11, 1976

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL__________

UNDER SEC. MOI OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

I ___ ___

1 . P le a se l i s t th e num ber o f p e rm it s un der s e c . 409 o f th e FWPCA w hi ch you 

a n tic ip a te w ill be re q u ir e d f o r highway p r o je c ts under Ph as e I I o f th e 

C orp s' re g u la tio n s , wh ich co v ers pri m ar y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs, 

w etl ands a d ja c e n t to pri m ary t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c re s o r more.

Approximately f if ty - s ix (56) pe rm its are re quir ed under Phase I I .

2 . P le a se d e s c rib e , b r i e f l y , any a c t i v i t i e s fo r whi ch yo u ha ve so ught g e n era l 

p e rm it s .

On A pril 15 , 1976, we f ile d wi th th e Corps of Big in ee rs Ba ltimore D is tr ic t 

. a ge ne ra l pe rm it appli cati on e n ti tl e d , " In s ta ll a ti o n of Rock Ri prap fo r S ta b il iz a ti o n

o f Stream Banks o r Highway Slo pes ".

3 . P le a se r e l a t e th e s ta tu s o f a l l a p p li c a ti o n s f o r g e n e ra l p e rm it s .

To date , we have not re ce iv ed th e gen er al pe rm it fo r ou r a ppli cati on as 

re fe rr e d to in ite m 2 abo ve. We un de rstand th a t th e Corps is pre sentl y pr oc essin g 

ou r appli cati on in ass o cia ti o n with se ver al sim il ar appli cati ons su bm itt ed by ot he r 

ag en ci es .

The Corps has informe d us th a t se ver al ge ne ra l pe rm it ap pl ic atio n! * rc ia ti 

to highway and br id ge p ro je cts ar e curr entl y under co nsi dera tion and th a t th ey vd ll 

n o ti fy us as soon as i t is co ncluded th a t th es e appli cati ons ar e acc ep ta ble . We plan 

to submit th e sim il a r appli cati ons to th e Corps as soon as we re ce iv e th e "go-ahead" 

noti ce from them. These ap p li cati o n s will in cl ud e br id ge abutme nt and appro aches, 

tem porar y stream cro ss in gs, c u lv e rt const ru ct io n, and embankment f i l l s .

----------llj Qu irf .(Z llL 2K <2 <______________

S ig ned Deputy Secre ta ry ,

Pe nnsylva nia Departm ent of T ra nsp ort ati on 

I . Member D ep ar tm en t

______________ Ju ne-25, 1976___________

D at e

P le a se re tu rn on e sig n ed co py o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e to th e AASHTO G ener al O ff ic e s 

by Ju ne 25, 19 76 .
203

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIA LS 

3M-i N a tio n a l P re s s B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 09 5 

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FIL L MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 90 9 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 9 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f S a c r e s o r m o re .

B ri dge P r o je c ts - J 

Highway P r o je c ts - A

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

On F eb ru ar y 16, 19 75 , th e R. I . D ep ar tm en t o f T ra n sp o rta ti o n re q u e s te d a 

g e n e ra l p erm it to cover th e fo ll o w in g a c t i v i t i e s :

. 1 . A ll hig hw ay p r o je c ts th a t th e F ed era l Hig hway A d m in is tr ati o n appro ves as

b ein g no n- m aj or a c ti o n s und er th e e x is tin g r u le s .

2 . , A c tiv itie s re q u irin g th a t th e d is ch a rg e o f le s s th a n 1, 00 0 c .y . o f e x is tin g 

"s tr ea m a l te r a t io n s wh ere le s s th a n th a t amoun t i s to be ex cavate d o r re a rra n g e d .

3 . Te mp orary st re am d iv e rsio n s co nd uc te d in ac co rd an ce w it h u s u a ll y re co g n iz ed 

goo d e n g in eeri n g sta n d a rd s.

A. B a c k f il ls beh in d b ri d g e ab utm en ts .

5 . B a c k f il l f o r d ra in ag e o u t f a l l s .

6 . B ri dge re p la cem en t p r o je c ts e s s e n tia lly a t th e same s i t e ex c ep t th o s e over 

n av ig ab le w a te rs .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

On March 10 , 19 76 , th e Co rps o f E ngin ee rs ackn ow led gd r e c e ip t o f o u r r e q u e s t 

and sta g e d th e y wo uld be in to uch w it h u s to arra n g e a m ee ting w it h in two o r th re e 

w ee ks . We h a v e n 't heard from them s in c e .

r 

j? j ; /

Membe r D ep art m en t '

Ju ne 21", 1976

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d copy o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .

76-161 0 - 76 - 14
204

AMERICAN AS SO CI AT IO N Q r STATE HIGHWAY AND TRAN SPORTATION OFF IC IA LS 

3 4 1 N a t i o n a l P r e s s B u i l d i n g

* ’ ’ * ’W a s h i n g t o n , D .C . 2 0 0 4 5 

J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 7 6

QU EST ION NAIRE ON PER MIT S FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR F IL L MATERIAL

UNDER SEC , 4 0 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 , P l e a s e l i s t t h e n u m b e r o f p e r m i t s u n d e r s e c . 4 0 4 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h y o u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r h ig h w a y p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h a s e I I o f t h e

, C o r p s ’ r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e r s p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s , 

w e t l a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r i m a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , a n d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

Based on the estimated mileage proposed to be constructed under phase I I ,

It Is an tic ipated that approximately 225 permits w il t be requ ire d.

2. Pleas e d escri be, b r ie f ly , any a c tiv itie s fo r which you have sou ght genera l

p erm it s. ( I) New cu lver t and bridge construction on new lo ca tio n, Including necessary

approach f i l l . (2) Bridge and cu lver t replacement, Inc luding earthwork necessary to

Widening shoulders of approach f i l l s . (3) Extensions of cu lverts and bridge wldenings,

Inc luding earthwork necessary to widen shoulders of approach f i l l s . (4) So il borings

and foundation exp lora tio n. (5) Emergency repa ir of ex is ting approach f i l l s , shoulders

or structures regardless of lo ca tio n. (6) The placement of rip rap at ex is ting cu lve rts

and on ex is ting bridge approach f i l l s . (7) Ferry landin gs, Inc luding bulkheads, ramps,

channel, dredging and f i l l fo r approach access roads. (8) In sta llati on of fis hi ng or

pedestrian sidewalks on exi sting stru ctur es . (9) Recreational pie rs , fis hing structures

and boat ramps. (10) Shore and bank erosion pr ot ec tio n. (11) Construction roads

except in wetlands adja cent to navigable and/or ti d al waters which sh all requ ire a

special pe rm it. (12) Removal of unstable foundation m at erials . (13) Minor mining

consisting of the removal of earth materials by excavating below the ex istin g ground

line to obtain material fo r construction purposes'. (14) Minor channel changes or stream

The South Carolina State Highway Department has on two occasions \J a c I111ies.

addressed the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on the po ssib ilit y of Issuing

the South Carolina Highway Department a general permit to discharge dredged

or f i l l material In conjunction with roadway and bridge co ns tru ction. At

th is tim e, the Corps of Engineers Is In the process of gathe ring related data and

reviewing the progress made on and sim ila r general permits. The Corps has te nta tively

scheduled a general permit proposal fo r highway construct Ion .projects for July 1976.

M em be r D e p a r tm e n t

D a te

b y 'j u n o ’i r ^ T g / G * S l g n e d C O p y ° f t h l s 4 u e s t i °

n n a i r c t o t h e AASHT 0 G e n e r a l O f f i c e s
205

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIA LS 

' ' * 34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 5 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FIL L MATERIAL

UNDER SE C. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi ghw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ’ r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f S a c r e s o r m o re .

F o r t y - t h r e e ( 4 3 )

JUM 2 4 1STC

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h 

p e r m i t s .

\ — -------

y ou h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l

a ) F i l l m a t e r i a l o n t h e a p p r o a c h e s t o b r i d g e c r o s s i n g s o v e r s tr e a m s

b ) Box c u l v e r t s a n d b o x b r i d g e s u n d e r t h e ro a d w a y t o p a s s d r a i n a g e 

o f m in o r s t r e a m s .

c ) C h a n n e l r e l o c a t i o n s .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

R e q u e s ts

16

A p p r o v a l

* 4

R e m a in d e r

* * 1 2

♦ P r o j e c t a o o r o v a l b a s e d u p o n C o rp s o f

E n g i n e e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t c o m p le t io n 

d a t e w o u ld b e p r i o r t o im p le m e n ta t io n 

o f p h a s e I I I .

* * 0 f t w e l v e ( 1 2 ) r e m a in i n g p r o j e c t s , p u b l i c 

n o t i c e s h a v e b e e n s e t o u t o n tw o ( 2 ) 

p r o j e c t s .

__________ W, A , G oodw in ______________

S ig n e d

T e n n e s s e e D e p t. o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

Mem ber D ep art m en t 

6 - 2 1 - 7 6 ________

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 . ,—

q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s
206

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFIC IALS 

34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 5 

Ju n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi ghw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m ore .

We e s t i m a t e t h a t t h e r e w o u ld b e a b o u t s i x t y (6 0 ) c o n s t r u c t i o n 

p r o j e c t s p e r y e a r r e q u i r i n g p e r m i t s u n d e r P h a s e I I o f t h e C o rp s 

r e g u l a t i o n s . Som e o f t h e s e p r o j e c t s w i l l i n v o l v e s e v e r a l s tr e a m 

c r o s s i n g a r e a s r e q u i r i n g d i s c r e e t a p p l i c a t i o n d a t a f o r e a c h 

l o c a t i o n .

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

We h a v e n o t s o u g h t a g e n e r a l p e r m i t .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its . 

No a n s w e r .

Mem ber D ep art m en t

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

oy J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 /6 .
207

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE IIIGUWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

- 34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 04 5 

Ju n e 1 1 , 197G

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS TOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FIL L MATERIAL

UNDER S E C . 40 4 O r THE FE DE RA L WATER PO LL UT IO N CON TRO L ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e num be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r zhig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t t o p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re . 

There ere 8 project* which fell under Sec. 404 of the FWPCA.

See the etteched sheet.

\ __

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

These activities include all types of pipe crossing* as well as bridge crossings. The

Utah Department of Transportation has already applied for a State-wide general permit.

It is in the process of applying for a general permit for all types of channel

changes of streams on any highway project.

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Sacramento District) has already processed our

application for a general permit for pipes and bridge crossings? A public

notice will be circulated in the immediate future to receive consent* and

response from various agencies.

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHT0 G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n e .2 5, 1 9 7 6 .
208

The fo ll ow in g ar e cu rr en t highway p ro je cts th at ar e In Pha se II o f the

Corps regu la ti on s which co ve r primary tr ib u ta r ie s o f nav ig ab le w ate rs ,

w et la nd s ad ja ce nt to prim ary tr ib u ta r ie s , and la kes o f fiv e acre s or more:

P roje ct Number Loc at io n

I n te r sta te

1-8 0-3 (5 )1 16

1-8 0-3 (8 )1 05

1-2 15-9 (3 )2 97

1 -7 0-4 (2 )1 63

9t h West to 5200 West

5200 West to S a lt a lr

1800 Sou th to 2500 North

E lg in to Fl oy (Gre en Riv er Br id ge )

RF -028 (2)17

RF- 028(2 )17

OS -03(06 )

OS -244(1 )

Primary

Blue Cut to Ea st P ric e

West P ri ce Co nn ec tio n

Off-S ys tem

Bear Rive r Br idge at Benson

Pric e River Br idge in North He lpe r
209

. '•AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

3>H N a tio n a l P r e s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C . 20 09 5 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FI LL MATERIAL

UNDER SE C. 909 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 , - P le a s e l i s t t h e n um ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 909 o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h y o u

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig hw ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ’ r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tla n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

84 - Thia is an estimate based on the following:

(1) Status Report, applications to the Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard (attached)

(2) Town Highway Bridge Program

(3) State System Bridge Improvement Program

Since Phase II applicability determinations for projects In 2 and 3 have not been

completed, this Is an estimate.

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h a v e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

Minor Roadway Modification Projects.

(1) Culverts— Fills less than 25cy to ordinary high water.

(2) Small Bridges— Fills less than 500cy to ordinary high water and also

with leas than 400 feet of shoreline alteration.

(3) Shoulder Widening— Less than 3cy of fill per linear foot of existing

roadway.

See Attachments: (1) General Permit Clarifications; (2) Jurisdictional Map;

(3) Proposed General Permit

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

(1) The Corps of Engineers prepared Proposed General Permit #GP-76-002.

(2) On May 24, 1976, the Proposed General Permit was discussed with responsible

state agencies.

(3) Pending approval,

(4) Prior to Issuance

commenting period

the Proposed General Permit Is to be revised,

of the General Permit, there Is to be an additional

for the Revised Proposed General Permit.

’<er of high ways

Member D e p artm en t

________ June 22. 1976

D a te

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e AAS1IT0 G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
210

. AMIfRICAh’ ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

. ' 34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s B u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D.C . 20 04 S 

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FI LL MATERIAL

UNDER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t th e nu m be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h you 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi gh w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f S a c r e s o r m ore .

Phaie J - 50 to 60 peAmiti annually

Phase I I - 100 to 120 peAmiti annually

Phase 111 - 150+ peAmiti annually

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

a. Maintenance and Aecom In ac tio n of ex is tin g fa c il it ie s on an equal design basis

b. CoffeAdams

c. Tempo Aany causeways and bnidges uiithin unieAways and flo odpla ins

d. Box and pipe culve nts in secondaAy, teA tia ny , and highen onden tnibutaA ies to

navigable uateAS, and

e. Relocation of u tiliti e s

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its .

The VepaAtment hoi no t fi le d any genenal peAmiti a t th is tim e, but uie one

act iv el y nego tia tin g ui ith th e CoAps of Engineens and theiA EnviAonmental Aevieui Agencies

genenal peAmiti undeA the above catago Aiei.

The VepaAtment'i cuAAent ne go tia tio n is centeAed uiith the Conpi' EnviAonmental

Review kgenc iei on ex ce ptiom to thes e genenal penmit catag oni es. To date, the

following ex cl ui io m have been com idenedi

a. Tida l watens and adjac ent maAihei

b. His to ni c si te s and uiild life pnesenves 

z

/

c . S cen ic nivens y r ; - * ~ ~ ~ '______

d . Hatu Aa l tn o u t w a te m , an d W ..S . G. P ri?l 8ff ® ‘be p u ty Co mm iss ioner an d

. , Ch ief En gine er, V ir gin ia Department of e. CA iti ca l envxAonmental anea i. ------------- -------- !------------------ ________

H i g i W & d

J u ly 8, 1976___________________________'

D ate

b v <

'.ln n n r ? r i r ?Q 7s e S ± g n e d C o p y o f t h I s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o t h e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s
211

AMERICAN ASSOCIAT ION Or STATE HIGHWAY ANU TRANSPORTATION OFFIC IALS 

• , 3<11 N a tio n a l P r e s s B u ild in g

W a sh in g to n , D .C .- 200<lS 

J u n e 1 1 , 197G

QU ESTION NA IRE ON PERM ITS TOR DISC HAR GE OP DREDGED OR FIL L MATERIAL

UNDER SI X. <KI‘t Of THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 .- P le a s e l i s t t h e num ber o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . HOB o f t h e FWPCA w h ic h yo u 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hig li w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C orp s* r e g u l a t i o n s , w h ic h c o v e rs p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a t e r s , 

w e tla n d s a d j a c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d l a k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

Te n (1 0 ) p e r m its a n t i c i p a t e d u n d e r P h a se I I f o r th e p e rio d 

J u ly 1, 19 76 to Ju n e 3 0 , 1977. To d a t e , an e q u a l nu m be r o f 

P hase I I p e r m its have been s u b m itte d .

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h ic h y o u h av e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m i t s .

Our p r i n c i p a l c o n c e rn , th e volu m e o f p e r m its r e q u ir e d u n d e r 

P h ase I I I . B ecause th e e f f e c t i v e d a te o f P h ase I I I is J u ly 

1 , 1977, a g 'e n e ra l p e rm it f o r s tr e a m s beyond th e p r i n c i p a l 

t r i b u t a r i e s h as n o t been p u rs u e d . I f th e W ri g h t Amend ment 

f a i l s , we w i l l im m e d ia te ly se e k a g e n e r a l p e rm it f o r " a l l 

o th e r w a t e r s " , an d w i l l 'h a n d l e P h ase I I p r o j e c t s on an 

i n d i v id u a l b a s i s , as in P hase I .

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e t h e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m i t s .

T h e re a re none in p r o g r e s s .

7-6 -76

D a te

P le a s e r e t u r n o n e 

hy J u n e 2 5 , 197G .

s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s
212

. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OIT ICI AL S 

34 1 N a tio n a l P re s s U u il d in g

W a sh in g to n , D.C.- 20 04 5

J u n e 1 1 , 19 76

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FI LL MATERIAL

UNOER SEC. 40 4 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1 . P le a s e l i s t t h e num be r o f p e r m its u n d e r s e c . 40 4 o f th e FWPCA w h ic h y ou 

a n t i c i p a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r hi gh w ay p r o j e c t s u n d e r P h ase I I o f th e 

C o rp s ' r e g u l a t i o n s , w hic h c o v e rs p rim a ry t r i b u t a r i e s o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t t o p r im a r y t r i b u t a r i e s , an d la k e s o f 5 a c r e s o r m o re .

Wisconsin has nine district division of highway offices through

which pernlt applications are prepared. Based on an anticipated

average of 5 permit applications per district, we would expect

to apply for approximately 45 .permits under phase II,

2 . P le a s e d e s c r i b e , b r i e f l y , an y a c t i v i t i e s f o r w hic h y o u h a v e s o u g h t g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

To date, we have not sought establishment of general permit

activities. We have, however, been in the process of Identifying

particular project activities to present to the Corps of Engineers

for consideration for general permits.

3 . P le a s e r e l a t e th e s t a t u s o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l p e r m its

As abova.

J U l 1 1375 H .L.Afl /d le r. State Highwa y Engln ear

S ig n e d

W ls , Dept, Transportatlon-Dlv, Hlgh w ay s 

Mem ber D ep art m en t

June 28. 1976

D ate

P le a s e r e t u r n one s ig n e d co p y o f t h i s q u e s ti o n n a ir e t o th e AASHTO G e n e ra l O f f ic e s 

by Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 .
213

Senator R and olp h. Se nator Buckley, y ou migh t p res ent the w itness 

from New York St ate now.

Senator B uck ley. I am del ighted to present Charles H. Callison, 

of the Na tio nal Au dubon Society, who has followed legislation and 

envir onme nta l m atters for years and ye ars on behalf of the Society.

I believe his po int of view ten ds to be ra th er balanc ed. I always 

welcome his view s on the issues th at come before us. Welcome, M r. 

Callison.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. CALLISON. NATIONAL AUDUBON 

SOCIETY

Mr. Call iso n. Tha nk you , Mr. Ch air ma n, and I th an k you, 

Senator Buckley. I t is always a privilege to ap pe ar before thi s com ­

mittee th at has been so sta lw art and fore sighted in advancing the 

clean wa ter and clean air goals of the Un ite d State s.

It has been my privilege to ap pe ar before thi s distinguished com ­

mi tte e in the pa st when you have had un de r con sidera tion the basic 

envir onme nt laws of this country.

Of course, Mr. Ch air ma n, it gives me a w arm feeling to be welcomed 

by my own Se nator from the St ate of New York, whom I adm ire so 

much .

The Na tio na l Au dubon Soc iety has been concerned ab ou t an d 

involved in the prote cti on of we tland reso urces since its ve ry ear liest 

his tor y. We hav e, within our own sa nc tu ary system s, some ve ry 

su bs tantial are as of wetlan ds, incl uding, for exam ple, 26,000 acres of 

coa stal ma rsh in Louisiana, our grea t 10,000-acre Corkscrew Swamp 

Sa nc tuary in Florida, the 5,000-acre Ro okery Ba y Sa nc tuary in 

Flo rida, and 4,000 acre s of the Fo ur H ole Swamp , the Francis Beidler 

Forest, in South Carolina .

So we have long experience and concern with wetlands.

As a na tio na l org ani zat ion , we stron gly oppose an y tam perin g wi th 

sec tion 404. The reg ula tions th at have now been pro mu lga ted by the 

Corps of Engin eer s, after some jud icial guida nce and some fru itful 

consult ati on s with the En vironm en tal Protectio n Agency, are fair, 

reas ona ble, and pract ica ble .

The Corps has alr eady de mo nstra ted th at it can admi nis ter its 

responsibilities un de r section 404 with fairness and dis patch and wi th 

intell ige nt concern for the broader pub lic inter est.

The Na tio na l Au dubon Soc iety was involved as an interven or in a 

str iking case in po int, the applicat ion of the De lto na Corp, for three 

dredge and fill pe rm its affecting 2,200 acre s of high qu ality ma ngrov e 

swa mp and shallow b ay bottom at M arc o Isl an d in south we st Flo rida.

The Na tio na l En vironm en tal Pol icy Ac t was complied with, public 

hea rings wrere held, volumes of scien tific evid ence and socioeconomic 

tes tim on y receive d, and the Corps throug h its Jac kso nville distr ict 

con ducted its own tho rou gh studies.

Th e decision of the Chief of Engineers, ann ounced April 15, 1976, 

was, in our opin ion, based on sound and balan ced judg me nt. Two of 

the perm its, which would have res ult ed in de str uc tio n of 2,039 acres 

of wetlan ds, were denied.

But De lto na was told it could proceed wi th dev elo pm ent in the 

third area, the Collier Ba y area, whe re the envir on ment was alr eady 

pa rti ally altere d and w here on ly 112 acres of we tla nd wTould be affectea.
214

The National Audubon Society as an intervenor had recommended 

denial of all three permits. We were joined in this recommendation by 

cointervenors, the Environmental Defense Fund, Florida Audubon 

Society, and the Collier County Conservancy.

Deltona has appealed the denial of the two permits to the courts. 

But this is only the due process of law—no reason for Congress to be 

stampeded by developers demanding the law be changed.

The regulations have already made certain that no permits are required for normal farming activities, nor for normal and necessary 

maintenance of existing structures in wetland areas. There are agitators, however, who are working hard to keep the farmers from feeling 

reassured—but the motives of such agitators are not agricultural.

They are people who want to drain, dig up, and fill the wetlands for 

other reasons.

The members of this committee are knowledgeable about the economic and ecological values of wetlands. Further evidence of these 

values will be presented by my colleagues on this environmental panel.

But the National Audubon Society also wants again to go on the 

record with reasons why wetlands must be protected and why section 

404 is good law.

My prepared statem ent contains additional reasons, or a repetition 

of reasons, which you probably heard before, why the wetlands of this 

Nation, the estuaries, the salt marshes tha t join, and the freshwater 

wetlands need to be protected.

The records of hearings of this kind are very instructive, of course, 

for many scholars who will study them, so we are pleased to have the 

opportunity to put this material in the record.

The point is, wetlands are not wastelands to be destroyed thoughtlessly or for shortsighted private gain. They are the most productive 

of all land forms in terms of life and must be safeguarded for the 

public good.

The purpose of section 404 and other sections of the Water Act of 

1972 is to prevent their destruction through the deposition of dredged 

or fill material or other pollutants unless it can be demonstrated that a 

greater public good would be served by such deposition.

Some say that the Corps of Engineers has been sidling into ecological 

wisdom somewhat reluctantly and with a nostalgic eye to the simplistic past when dams, dikes, dredges, and draglines seemed to be 

everything.

But the corps is a great organization with great technical competence 

and a capacity to learn. It is demonstrating tha t it can make section 

404 work. We urge this committee and Congress to reject all amendments to section 404 and give the Corps a chance to make it work for 

the public welfare and in the national interest.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an analysis of 

the Wright-Breaux amendment—the amendment to section 404 tha t 

was passed in the House of Representatives—th at was prepared by the 

West Contracoastal Conservation League of Richmond, Calif.

I think it is a thorough study and accurate analysis of what tha t 

amendment does. I believe it will be useful to the committee.

Senator Gravel [presiding]. It will appear in the record to follow 

your statement. (See p. 218.)

Senator Gravel. Do you have any questions, Senator Bentsen?

Senator Bentsen. No.
215

Senator Gravel. Senator Buckley?

Senator Buckley. Yes, if I may.

Mr. Callison, do you have similar analysis of the Cleveland-Harsha 

amendment?

Mr. Callison. Yes, Senator Buckley. This analysis which I am 

submitting for the record also includes an analysis of the ClevelandHarsha amendment. It shows, section by section, which language 

would be changed.

It is our opinion, based on this and our own analysis, that while the 

Cleveland-Harsha amendment, which I think is the amendment that 

Senator Ha rt is proposing in the Senate, would do the least damage. 

But we think that is unnecessary, also.

Senator Buckley. Thank you. I shall read your full statem ent with 

great care, but I must confess that I am disturbed by some reports 

of the perhaps unnecessary resort to unreasonableness where one 

could go to the options.

Mr. Callison. I think a great deal of the apprehension is based on 

an excited and unjustifiable notion that the Corps of Engineers is 

going to be utterly unreasonable in their judgment on these permits.

That is a strange position, I think, for the Public Works Committee 

to take, tha t the Corps of Engineers is going to be unreasonable about 

anything. I hope you will think about it seriously. We don’t think 

they will be unreasonable.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt for a minute. I 

served on this committee for 10 years and I sat here thinking what a 

remarkable change of events this is. The Audubon Society is praising 

the Corps of Engineers as a great environmental unit and the Public 

Works Committee is being cautioned.

Mr. Callison. Yes; that, Senator Baker, is a course of evolution 

tha t is astonishing to us also. We find ourselves surprised.

Senator Baker. It keeps us from growing older as we watch the 

developments.

Senator Gravel. Senator Burdick.

Senator Burdick. No questions.

Senator Gravel. Senator Baker?

Senator Baker. No.

Senator Gravel. Senator Domenici?

Senator Domenici. I will hold mine; thank you.

[Mr. Callison’s statement and the Wright-Beaux amendment 

analysis follow:]

Sta te m e n t o f C h a r l es H. C a llis o n, E x e c u t iv e V ic e P r e s id e n t, N a tio n a l

Audu bo n S o cie ty

The National Audubon Society, one of the oldest and largest conservation 

organizations in the United States, has been working to protect the wetlands of 

America since its earliest history. One of the Society’s first missions was to preserve 

the egrets, terns, spoonbills and other wading birds and seabirds th at late in the 

19th c entury and early in this century were being wiped out by the feather trad e. 

These birds are denizens of the coastal shallows, the estuaries, the salt marshes 

and inland wetlands, all of which in the ir nat ura l functioning, are the most 

productive kinds of land, the most prod uctiv e ecosystems on earth. Acre for acre 

they produce more protein tha n a Kansas wheatfield or an Iowa cornfield.

The fisheries of the seas to which man kind increasingly turns for protein are 

utterly dependent on the wetland ecosystems which Section 404 and other vital 

provisions of the Water Pollution Control Act were written to help pro tect. And 

as ecosystems, they are inseparable. You cannot say they are valuable as life
216

sup port systems only up to the line of salt-waters vegetation, or only to the line 

of mean high tide.

The preservation of America’s vital and eco-essential estuarine, riverine and 

wetland resources has been formally adopted by our Board of Directors as a 

major environmental goal of the Natio nal Audubon Society. Sub stan tial areas 

of wetlands are preserved in the Society’s own sanc tuary system, including 26,000 

acres of coastal marsh in Louisiana, our grea t 10,000-acre Corkscrew Swamp 

San ctuary in Florida, the 5,000-acre Rookery Bay Sanctuary in Florida, and 

4,000 acres of the F our Hole Swamp (The Francis Beidler Forest) in South Carolina.

The Society today has more than 350,000 members, more than half of whom 

are joint members in 371 chapters—local Audubon societies active througho ut 

the United States. We are, in fact, represented by, and strive to represent, 

Audubon chapters and other affiliated organizations in all t he states.

It is a privilege and honor for me to appear before this distinguished committee 

which has been exceptionally sta lwart and foresighted in adva ncing the CleanWa ter and Clean-air goals of the United States. It has been my privilege to 

app ear at many of your previous hearings on basic environmental legislation. 

And I would like to suggest th at you don’t need second-guessing by any oth er 

Committe e or even by the House of Repre senta tives.

The Natio nal Audubon Society strongly opposes any tampering with Section 

404. The Regulations that have now been promulgated by th e Corps of Engineers, 

after some judicial guidance and some fruitful consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency, are fair, reasonable and practicable. The Corps has 

already demonstrated th at it can adm inister its responsibilities u nde r Section 404 

with fairness and dispatch and with intelligent concern for the broa der public 

interest.

The National Audubon Society was involved as an inte rvenor in a striking case 

in point, the Application of the Deltona Corporation for thre e dredge and fill 

perm its affecting 2200 acres of high quality mangrove swajnp and shallow bay 

bot tom a t Marco Island in southw est Florida. The National E nvironmen tal Policy 

Act was complied with, public hearings were held, volumes of scientific evidence 

and socio-economic testimony received, and the Corps throug h its Jacksonville 

District conducted its own thoro ugh studies. The decision of the Chief of Engineers, announced April 15, 1976, was, in our opinion, based on sound and balanced 

judgment. Two of the permits, which would have resulted in destruction of 2,039 

acres of wetlands, were denied. But Deltona was told it could proceed with development in the third area, the Collier Bay area, where the environment was 

already Dartially altered and where only 112 acres of w etland would be affected.

The National Audubon Society as an intervenor had recommended denial of 

all thre e permits. We were joined in this recommendation by co-intervenors, the 

Enviro nmental Defense Fund, Florida Audubon Society, and the Collier County 

Conservancy.

Deltona has appealed the denial of the two permits to the Courts. But this is 

only the due process of law—no reason for Congress to be stam peded by developers demanding the law be changed.

The regulations have alrea dy made certain th at no perm its are required for 

normal farming activities, nor for normal and necessary main tena nce of existing 

structures in wetland areas. There are agitators, however, who are working hard to 

keep the farm ers from feeling reassured—bu t the motives of such agitators are n ot 

agricultural. They are people who wan t to drain, dig up and fill the wetlands for 

oth er reasons.

The members of this comm ittee are knowledgable abo ut the economic and 

ecological values of wetlands. Furth er evidence of these values will be presented 

by my colleagues on this environmental panel. But the National Audubon Society also wants again to go on the record with reasons why wetlands must be 

protecte d and why Section 404 is a good law.

Not only the estuaries—the reaches where rivers meet the sea and fresh water 

mingles with salt water—but also the fresh water wetlands behind the salt and 

brackish marshes are vital to the production of fish, shellfish and other aqu atic 

life. Likewise the tribu tary streams and their associated wetla nds—the Na tural 

lakes, sloughs, marshes and swamps whose waters are fed by and feed into the 

big rivers are as vital to the aqu atic life of the big rivers as the estuarine wetlands 

are vita l to the productivity of the sea.

You cann ot drain, fill-in, pollute or lop off the wetlands withou t damaging and 

ultimately destroying the life sup port systems of the bodies of water traditionally 

considered navigable in the commercial, or transp ortation sense. The reason for 

Section 404 is not navigation. The reason is life, natural life upon which mankind depends.
217

I’m sure it has been pointed out to you already th at marshes are more efficient 

tha n any man-made sewage plant for removing excess phosphates, nitrates and 

other pollutants from water flushing thro ugh th em ; for removing such pol lutants 

and converting them to plant and animal life, or otherwise rendering them har mless. But this point is so important it can sta nd some repetitio n. Freshw ater as 

well as saline and brackish marshes are na ture’s cleansing c omponents in aqu atic 

ecosystems. But like many other misunderstood gifts of nature , man has gone 

abo ut destroying this gift by drainage, filling, and by pouring in an over-load of 

polluta nts beyond the nat ura l capacity of the wetlands to assim ilate and con vert 

them. Thus man has progressively lessened his own chances for prosperous survival 

on earth.

The freshwater wetlands th at Section 404 protects, along with the coas tal 

wetlands, are essential ha bitat for hundreds of species of wild birds and mammals. 

Diving ducks like the grea ter and lesser scaup, the canvasback and the redh ead, 

are tho ught of chiefly in association with the deeper waters of coastal bays and 

estuaries, where the y spend the winters. But these species, as well as the mallard, 

pintail, and other dabblers, are also dependent on freshwater marshes for places 

to nest and rear their young. The canvasback and redhead, famous in the sport of 

wildfowling have become increasingly rare and threatene d because of th e progressive destruction of freshwater wetlands.

A host of other migratory birds th at lend life, bea uty and ecological balance 

to the American landscape depend on the swamps, ponds, marshes, the little and 

big rivers and the estuaries as an ecological continuum. Among them are the 

marsh wrens, phoebes and other small flycatchers, some warblers, the egrets and 

other herons, sandpipers and plovers of several species, and many others. The 

point is, wetlands are not wastelands to be destroyed thoughtlessly or for shortsighted private gain. They are the most productiv e of all land forms in terms of 

life must be safeguarded for the public good. The purpose of Section 404 and other 

sections of the Water Act of 1972 is to preven t the ir destruction thro ugh the 

deposition of dredged or fill material or other pollutants unless it can be demonstrate d th at a greater public good would be served by such deposition.

Some say th at the Corps of Engineers has been sidling into ecological wisdom 

somewhat reluctantly and with a nostaligic eye to the simplistic past when 

dams, dikes, dredges and draglines seemed to be every thing. But the Corps is 

a grea t organization with great technical competence and a capacity to learn. 

It is d emonstrat ing th at it can make Section 404 work. We urge this Committee 

and the Congress to reje ct all amendments to Section 404 and give the Corps 

a chance to make it work for the public welfare and in the National interest.
218

P r e p a r e d b y j W es t C o n tr a C o e ta C o n s e r v a t i o n L e ag u e

10 1 5 L e n ev e P la c e 

R ic h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 5 3 0

X 7Vetl<z«-cU (fafaAtnifi&e, —

*7hc 't'U'U'fyht * rffttencttKestt

A b s t r a c t

On J u n e 3 , 1 9 7 6 t h e U .3 . H ouse o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 

a d o p te d t h e W r ig h t- B r e a u x am en dm en t t o t h e 1 9 7 6 'C le a n 

W a te r ' f u n d in g b i l l , H .R . 9 5 6 0 .

I f i t b e c o m e s la w , t h i s am en dm en t w i l l l e a v e m o et 

o f t h e N a t i o n 's r e m a in i n g w e tl a n d s u n p r o t e c t e d u n d e r 

S e c t i o n 4 0 4 o f PWPCA, an d s e r i o u s l y r e d u o e p r o t e c t i o n 

o f t h e N a t i o n 's w a t e r s u n d e r t h e 1 8 9 9 R i v e r s & H a r b o r s 

A c t.

C o rp s o f K r g in e e r « r e g u l a t i o n s , S e c t i o n 4 0 4 o f PWPCA, 

a n d H ouse am en d m en ts t o i t a r e r e p r i n t e d an d r e v ie w e d 

i n t h i s r e p o r t .

T h e m a t t e r i s no w b e f o r e t h e U .3 . S e n a t e . T he 

W r ig h t- B r e a u x am en d m en t h a s b e e n a d d e d t o 3 . 2 7 1 0 , a n d 

H .R . 9 5 6 0 li a s b e e n t a b l e d .

CONTENTS

I n t r o d u c t i o n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

E x c e r p ts fr o m e x i s t i n g C o rp s o f E n g i n e e r s

r e g u l a t i o n s ( R e f . 4 0 F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r ,

J u l y 25 1 1975 • PP< 3 1 3 2 0 -3 1 3 4 4 ) an d co m m en ts - - - 5

The B re a u x am en d m en t a n d com m ents - - - - - - - - 7

The C le v e la n d - H a r s h a am en dm en t a n d co m m en ts - - - 7

The W rig h t am en dm en t a n d co m m en ts

( a l s o c a l l e d t h e W r i g h t- 3 r e a u x am en d m en t) - - - - 8

S e c t i o n 404 o f t h e F e d e r a l W a te r P o l l u t i o n

C o n tr o l A c t (FWPCa ) , (3 3 U .S .C . 1 3 4 4 ) - --------- 9

H ouse v o t i n g r e c o r d o n t h e W rig h t am endm ent - - - 10

( 6 / 7 6 )
219

Introduction

In a little publicized action, the House of Representatives on June 3, 1976 voted to amend the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWFCa ) in various ways.

To many conservationists, hunters and fishermen, the most 

serious amendment — the Wright amendment — is one which 

drastically reduces the area of jurisdiction of the Corps 

of Engineers and other federal agencies under Seotion 404 

of FWPCA and the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act over the nation's streams, lakes, marshlands and estuaries.

It is the purpose of this report to bring key documents bearing on the matter together, and to provide an 

analysis of problems seen in them.

The impact of passage of the Wright amendment on federal regulation in the nat ion’s wetlands is not yet known. 

However, one agency's estimate Btates that if the similar 

and previously introduced "Breaux amendment" were to become 

law, only 10 million of the 70 million acres remaining in 

the contiguous 48 States would still be protected. The 

60 million acres difference would be left with no significant federal protection.

Of the original 127 million acres of wetlands in the 

nation, 57 million acres (45 percent) hod been destroyed 

as wildlife habitat through reclamation by 1950 according 

to agency figures, and between 1955 and 1975 another 6 million acres were lost. The latter figures average to loss 

of 300,000 acres of wetlands per year.

The Breaux amendment (introduced by Rep. John B. Breaux 

(D-La.)) would re-define 'navigable waters' under a highly 

restrictive and archaic formula. It would thereby prevent 

application of environmental controls under Section 404 of 

FWPCA and the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act to the wetland acres thus removed from jurisdiction. The Breaux 

amendment was adopted by the House Public Works and Transportation Committee at a little known meeting held on April 

13, 1976 by a 22-to-13 vote.

But even more, the Breaux amendment would prohibit the 

Corps of Engineers from oxercising authority under the familiar 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act beyond the same narrow 

definition of 'navigable waters'. This amounts to a revolution in the method of administration of the 1899 Act, and 

in many ways sets back the jurisdiction of the United States 

in water-ways by over a century.

76-161 0 - 76 - 15
220

-3 -

Public rights in waterways are guaranteed by many state

and federal statutes and the Constitution, and have been

the subject of judicial rulings in the highest oourte of

both the United States and England. She Breaux amendment

curiously tries to replace several hundred years of rulings

and precedent by a statement merely 76 words long.

Since the Wright amendment includes the same definition

of 'navigable waters' given in the Breaux amendment, the

former suffers from the some debility as the latter.

On June 3, 1976 the matter of FWPCA amendments was taken up on the House floor. According to testimony printed

in the Congressional Record (Vol. 122, No. 84, pp. H5229-

H5288), Breaux withdrew his amendment for the reason that-

- "the main thing that was lacking was votes", and endorsed the amendment introduced by Rep. James C. Wright, Jr.

i

D-Texas). The Wright amendment was introduced hastily

some Congressmen didn't even get a copy), but after a

short heated debate was passed on a 234-to-121 vote.

The Wright amendment includes all the language of the

Breaux amendment, but adds other features as well. Wetlands

that are "adjacent" to navigable waters (as defined by Breaux) would be included in the Section 404 jurisdiction.

In addition, "normal" farming, ranching and silviculture

operstione would not require permits, nor would most maintenance work on dams, dikes, etc. Furthermore, Federal

projects or Federally assisted projects approved by Congress

would not require permits if an environmental impact statement or assessment has been "submitted to Congress". However, on this point nothing is stated about the adequacy of

the BIS, or its review and approval by state and federal

agencies or the public. The Wright amendment would also

allow the Corps to delegate its authority over "adjacent

wetlands” to a state, and to sign revokable agreements with

State Governors on other wetlands that both agree are important to protect.

A third major amendment to Section 404, the "ClevelandHarsha amendment", was also discussed on June 3, but never

voted upon. It had the support of the Administration, some

conservation groups and many Congressmen. It would not redefine navigable waters, but would exempt normal farming,

maintenance work, etc., and provide for "general permits"

to be issued to cover possibly thousands of small projects

having "minimal" cumulative environmental impact. The general permit concept had already been introduced by the Corps,

and some draft public notices are now being prepared.

Heated controversy over what is fact and what is nonsense has obscured the real 3ection 404 issues considerably.

For example, as recently as May 13 and persistently prior

to that date, Congressman Wright has claimed that every

"farmer wanting to deepen an irrigation ditch or plow a
221

-4-

field" would have to apply for a Corpe permit, even though

hie claim had been denied repeatedly by high officials

since nearly a year ago on July 15, 1975.

Another example: Rep. Harold T. Johnson (D-Calif.) at

the June 3 hearing stated that "California is in support

of the Wright amendment", yet the State Administration in

April stated "we strongly oppose this (Breaux) amendment."

It has also been claimed that full implementation of

the 404 program will result in a fourfold increase in the

annual number of Corps permit applications, yet citing

recent Corps estimates, Aset. Secretary of the Army Victor

Veysey stated in a June 3 letter: ".Frankly, I just don't

believe we are going to see that kind of an effect", adding "my own belief io that the General Permit concept will

reduce the number of permits processed substantially."

Indeed, in California it is expected that one general permit for small forestry industry road stream crossings and

culverts will cover an estimated 15,000 such operations

performed annually.

Corps and EPA regulations dealing with requirements

under Section 404 were published in "interim final" form

on July 25, 1975 (40 Federal Register, pp. 31320-31344).

In arriving at the regulations, the Corps held four major

nationwide public hearings as well as dozens of local hearings on the program. According to the Corps, by laet July

"over 4,500 comments were received" in response to earlier

proposed regulations for the program. Court reporters

were employed to provide transcriptions of the larger hearings, so that an extensive record is available for gauging

the public interest in the program. Unfortunately, there

is no indication that Congress examined this huge record

before taking action on April 13 and June 3, 1976.

This failing brings us face to face with the key deficiency in the recent deliberations on the 404 issue. The

Breaux amendment was adopted by the House Public Works and

Transportation Committee without testimony by the EPA, the

Dept. of Interior, the Corpe of Engineers, or citizen groups

of various persuasions. Furthermore, the matter was referred neither to the Conservation, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee (Wm. S. Moorhead, Chan.), nor to the Fisheries & Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Subcommittee (Robt. L. Leggett, Chmn.). Both Subcommittees and their

staffs have long experience in the matter of Corpe regulation of activities in the nation's priceless wetlands heritage.
B x c . r p t a fro m e x i n t i n g

C o r p . H e g u la tlo n a .

(d) Definition*. For the purpose of Issuing or denying authorization* under 

this regulation.

(1) “Navigable watera of the United

■ Statee.” The term, “navigable waters of

the United States." la administratively 

defined to mean waters that have been 

used In the past, are now used, or are 

susceptible to use as a means to transport 

Interstate commerce landward to their 

ordinary high water mark and up to the 

head of navigation as determined by the 

Chief of Engineers, and also watera t hat 

are subject to the ebb and flow of the 

tide shoreward to their mean high water 

mark (mean higher high water mark on 

the Pacific Coast). Bee 33 CFR 209 250 

(EH 1163-2-302) for a more definitive 

explanation of this term.

(2) “Navigable watera'’. (1) The term, 

“navigable waters," as used herein for 

purpose* of Section 404 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. Is administratively defined to mean • 'aters of the 

United States including the territorial 

seas with respect to the disposal of fill 

material and excluding the territorial 

seas with respect to the disposal of 

dredged material and shall Include the 

following waters:

- (a) Coastal waters that are navigable

waters of the United States subject to 

the ebb and flow of the tide, shoreward 

to their mean high water mark (mean 

higher high water mark on the Pacific

- 5 - D i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n e x i s t i n g Co r-p e

r e g u l a t i o n s an d t h e l a n g u t g t o f th e

b r i g h t - B r e a u x am en d m en t p a s s e d by

H ouse o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on - 6 /3 / 7 6 .

j

" N a v ig a b le w a te r s o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s " 

a r e t h o s e t h a t t h e C o rp s h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y 

m anag ed u n d e r t h e 1 8 9 9 R i v e r s a n d H a r b o r s 

A c t. T h ey a r e d e f i n e d i n a g r e e m e n t w ith 

j u d i c i a l r u l i n g s a n d p r e c e d e n t b a s e d on 

E n g l i s h Common Law th r o u g h c o l o n i a l c h a r t e r s 

o f t h e o r i g i n a l t h i r t e e n S t a t e s . Som e 

p u b l i c r i g h t s i n w a t e r s d a t e b a c k t o t h e 

M ag na C a r t a o f 12 15*

The W rig h t- B r e a u x am en d m en t d e l e t e s a l l 

h i s t o r i c a l l y n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s a n d r e p l a c e s 

a l l j u d i c i a l h i s t o r y w ith a 7 6 -w o rd d e f i n i ­

t i o n .

H i s t o r i c a l l y n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s n o t in c lu d e d i n 

i n t h e W r ig h t- B r e a u x am en d m en t,

coast); 5

(b) All coastal wetlands, mudflats, 

swamps, and similar areas that are contiguous or adjacent to other navigable 

waters. "Coastal wetlands" include® 

marshes and shallows and means those 

areas periodically inundated by S3llne or 

brackish waters and that are normally 

characterized by the prevalence of salt 

or brackish water vegetation capable of 

growth and reproduction;

(c) Rivera, lakes, streams, and artificial water bodies tha t are navigable waters of the United States up to th eir headwaters and landward to their ordinary 

high water mark:

id) All artificially created channels 

and canajs used for recreational or other 

navigational purposes tha t are connected 

to other navigable waters, landward to 

’th eir ordinary high water mark;

(e) All tributaries of navigable waters 

of the United States up to their headwaters and landward to their ordinary 

high water mark;

</) Interstate waters landward to their 

ordinary high water mark and up to their 

headwaters;

(g) Intrast ate lakes, rivers and 

streams landward to their ordinary high 

water mark and up to their headwaters 

that are utilized:

(/) By Interstate travelers for waterrelated recreational purposes;

(2) For the removal of fish that are 

sold In Interstate commerce; '

(J) For Industrial purposes by Industries In Interstate commerce; or

(4) In the production of agricultural 

commodities sold or transported In Interstate commerce;

(A) Freshwater wetlands Including 

marshes, shallows, swamps and. similar 

areas tha t are contiguous or a djacent to 

other navigable waters and th at support 

freshwater vegetation. "Freshwater wetlands" means those areas th at are periodically Inundated and that ars 

normally characterized by the prevalence 

of vegetation that requires saturated soli
223

-6-

Bxcerpts from existing Com men to

Corps Re gulations.

conditions for growth and reproduction;

and

U) Those other waters which the District Engineer determines nece ssitate

regulation for the protection of water

quality as expressed-In the guidelines (40

CFR 230). For example, in the case of Interm itten t rivers. ‘Streams, tributaries,

and perched wetlands that are not contiguous or adjacent to navigable waters

Identified In paragraphs (a )-( h ). a decision on Jurisdiction sha ll be made by the

Distr ict Engineer.

(11) The following additional terms

are defined as fo llow s:

(a) “Ordinary high water marie” with

respect to Inland fresh water means the

line on the shore established by analysis

of all dally high waters. It Li established as that point on the shore that is

Inundated 25% of the time and Is derived by a flow-duration curve for the

particular water body that Is based on

available water stage data. It may also

be estimated by erosion or easily recognized charactcrtlstics such as shelv ing,

change In the character of the soil,

destruction of terrestrial vegetation or its

inability to grow, the presence of Utter

and debris, or other appropriate means

tha t consider the charac teristics of the

surrounding area;*

< <b) "Mean high water mark" with respect to ocean and coastal waters means

the line on the shore established by the

average of all high tides (aU higher high

tides on the Pacific Coast). It Is esta blished by survey based on available tidal

data (preferably averaged over a period

of 18.6 years because of the variations in

tid e). In the absence of such data, less

precise methods to determine the mean

high water mark may be used, such as

physical markings or comparison of the

area In question with an area having

similar physical character istics for which

tidal data are already available;

/ (c) “Lakes" means natural bodies of

water greater than five acres In surface

area and all bodies of standing water

create d by the Impounding o f navigable

waters Identified In paragraphs (a )- (h ),

above. Stock watering ponds and set tling

basins that are not created by such impoundments are not Included; •

. - td l' "Headwaters" means the point on

the stream above which the flow is normally less than 5 cubic feet per.secon d;

provided, however, the volume of flow,

point and nonpoint source discharge

charac teristics of the watershed, and

other factors that may Impact on the

water quality of waters of the United

Sta tes will be considered In determining

this upstream limit; and

<e) “Primary tributaries" means the

main stems of tributaries directly connecting to navigable waters of the

United States up to their headwaters

and does not Include any additional

tributaries extending off of the main

stems of these tributaries.

(3) "Ocean waters”. The term "ocean

waters." as defined In the Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972 (PL. 92-532. 86 Stat. 1052).

means those waters of the open seas lying

seaward of the base line from which the

territorial sea is measured, as provided

In pr epa rin g the Regu lation s, the Cor ps

has reco mmende d rea dil y measur eab le size

limits for lakes a nd stre ams by bal anc ing

the two confli cti ng noti ons : (l) if lake

size and stream f low limi te are too small,

a f ar too exp ensi ve and ove r-r egu lat ory

system woul d result , and (2) if the lake

and stream limits are too large, then

downstr eam wa ter q ual ity and wil dli fe ha bi ­

tat values could be ser iou sly affected.

By lim iti ng Cor ps jurisdi cti on only to

waters that can be used ae a mea ns to tr ansport int erstate and for eig n commerce, the

jJright-dreaux a men dme nt deg rad es the na tional wat er qua lit y and wil dli fe goals and

pol ici es giv en in Sec tion 101 of PWPCA.
2 2 4

- 7

B r e a u x A m e n d m e n t

C o n g . R e o . 6 / 3 / 7 6 , p . H 5 2 6 6

T he Cler k re a d os f oll o w *: 

m u n r s r o a x »r oo n > o a n u m a t c x x a l

t c 1 7. S e cti o n 4 0 4 of t h » F e d er al W at er 

P oll u ti o n C o ntr ol A ct 0 3 O 3 C . 1 3 4 4) l a 

a m e n d e d b y a d dt nf at t h e e n d t h er e of t h e 

f oll o wi n g n e w a u bt e ctl o n a:

“ ( d ) T h e t er m n a vi g a bl e w at er s’ a a u s e d I n X 

t hi s s e cti o n s h all m e a n all w at er s w hi c h ar e 

pr e s e ntl y u s e d, or ar e s u s c e pti bl e t o u s e I n 

t h e n n at ur al c o n diti o n or b y r e a s o n a bl e I m ­

pr o v e m e nt a e a m e a n s t o tr a n s p ort I nt e r st a t e 

or f or ei g n c o m m er c e, s h or e w ar d t o t h ei r o r din ar y hi g h w at e r m ar k. I n cl u di n g all w at er s 

w hi c h ar e s u bj e ct t o t h e e b b a n d fl o w of t h e 

ti d e s h or e w ar d t o t h eir m e a n hi g h w at er 

m a r k ( m e a n hi g h er hi g h w at er m a r k o n t h e X 

w e st c o a st).

“ ( a ) T h e di s c h ar g e of dr e d g e d or fill m at eri a l I n w at er s ot h e r t h a n n a vi g a bl e w at er s i s 

n ot pr o hi bit e d b y or ot h er wi s e s u bj e ct t o 

r e g ul ati o n u n d er t hi a A ct, or s e cti o n 9. s ecti o n 1 0. or s e cti o n 1 3 of t h e A ct of M ar c h 

3. 1 8 9 9.“.

C o m m e n t s

T h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v i g a b l e w a t e r e " l a r g e l y 

p a r a l l e l s a b r o a d e r d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v i g a b l e 

w a t e r e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s " g i v e n b y t h e 

C o r p s i n 3 3 C F R 2 0 9 . 1 2 0 ( d ) ( l ) ( s e e 4 0 F . R . 

3 1 3 2 4 , J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 ) , b u t o m i t s " w a t e r e t h a t 

h a v e b e e n u s e d i n t h e p a s t " f o r n a v i g a t i o n , 

a n d a l s o o m i t s n o t i n g t h a t s u c h w a t e r s a r e t o 

b e t a k e n " u p t o t h e h e a d o f n a v i g a t i o n " .

T h e C o r p s ' d e f i n i t i o n ( s u p r a ) r e f e r s t o a 

m o r e d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t g i v e n i n 3 3 C F R 

2 0 9 . 2 6 0 , w h i c h i s b a s e d u p o n a t h o r o u g h r e ­

v i e w o f j u d i c i a l r u l i n g s h a v i n g r o o t s i n 

E n g l i s h o o m m o n l a w , M a g n a C a r t a , e t c .

T h e B r e a u x a m e n d m e n t d e f i n e s n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s 

a b o u t a e r e s t r i c t i v e l y a s g i v e n o v e r a c e n ­

t u r y a g o i n t h e c a s e : T h e D a n i e l B a l l ( l 8 7 l ) .

C l e v e l a n d - H a r e h a A m e n d m e n t

C o n g . R e o . 6 / 3 / 7 6 , p . H 5 2 6 6

A m r n d r n s nt off er e d b y Mr. l c v k l a w b O n 

p w e 9 1 of t h e bill, stri k e o ut all of S e cti o n 

11 aft e r t h e c ol o n o n li n e 1 3 a n d s u b stit ut e 

I n li e u t h er e of t h e f oll o wi n g:

“ ( d ) N o p e r mit s h all b e r e q uir e d u n d er 

t hi s s e ctl c n. or s e cti o n 4 0 2 of t hi s A ct. f o r 

di s c h ar g e s cf dr e d g e d or 011 m at eri al.

( 1 ) r e s ulti n g fr o m n or m al f ar mi n g, all vlc ult u r «, a n d r a n c hi u g a cti viti e s, s u c h a e 

pl o wi n g, c ulti v ati n g, s e e di n g, a n d h ar v e sti n g. f or t h e pr o d u cti o n of f o o d, fi b er, a n d 

f or e s t pr o d u ct s.

( 2 ) pl a c e d f o r t h e p ur p o s e of m ai nt e n a n c e. 

I n cl u di n g e m er g e n c y r e c o n str u cti o n of r ec e n tl y d a m a g e d p art s, of c u rr e ntl y s er vi c ea bl e str u c t ur e s s u c h a s di k e s, d a m s, l e v e e a, 

gr oi n s, ri pr a p, br e a k w at er s, c a u s e wa y s, a n d 

bri d g e a b ut m e n u or a p pr o a c h e s, a n d tr a n sp o rt a ti o n str u ct u r e s: or

( 3 ) pl a c e d f or t h e p ur p o s e o f c o n s tr u cti o n 

or m ai n t e n a n c e of f ar m a n d st o c k p o n d s a n d 

Irri g ati o n dit c h e s a n d t h e m ai n t e n a n c e of 

dr ai n a g e dit c h e s.

“ ( e )( 1 ) C o n si st e nt wi t h t h e r e q uir e m e nt 

of s u b s e cti o n s ( a )-( c ) of t hi s s e cti o n t h e 

S e cr et a r y of t h e Ar m y a cti n g t hr o u g h t h e 

C hi ef of E n gi n e er s m a y L v u e g e n er al p er mit s 

f or di s c h ar g e s of dr e d g e d or fill m at eri al 

w h er e s u c h a cti viti e s ar e si mil a r I n n at ur e, 

c a u s e o nl y mi ni m al a d v er s e e n vir o n m e nt al 

I m p a ct w h e n p erf or m e d s e p ar at el y, a n d will 

h a v e o nl y a mi ni m al a d v er s e c u m ul a ti v e ef ­

f e c t o n t h e e n vir o n m e n t. S u c h p er mit s s h all 

c o nt ai n s u c h c o n diti o n s a s n e ce s s ary t o 

a c hi e v e t h e p ur p o se s of t hi s A ct a n d s h all b e 

f o r a m a xi m u m p eri o d of fi v e y e ar s. A g e ner al p e r mit m a y b e r e v o k e d or m o difi e d if it 

l a d et e r mi n e d t h at t h e c u m ul ati v e eff e ct s of 

t h e p e r mitt e d a cti viti e s ar e s u c h t h at i n divi d u al p e r mit tr e at m e n t l a r e q uir e d: Pr ovi d e d. T h at n o g e n er al p e r mit s h all b e r ev o k e d or s u b st a nti all y m o difi e d wit h o u t o pp o rt u nit y f or p u bli c h e ari n g s.

“ ( e )( 2 ) T h e S e cr et ar y s h all di s tri b ut e 

t hr o u g h n or m al p u bli c n oti c e pr o c e d ur e s, 

n oti c e of all c at e g ori s e o f a cti viti e s pr o p os e d 

f o r pr o c e ssi n g b y m e a n s cf g e n er al p er mit s.

“ (f) T h e S e cr et a r y s h all s u b mi t a d et ail e d 

r e p or t t o t h e C o n gr e ss, o n or b ef or e D e c e mb er 3 1. 1 9 77. o n t h e I m pl e m e nt ati o n t o s u c h 

d at e b y t h e D e p a rt m e nt of t h e Ar m y of t h e 

pr o vi si o n s of t hi s s e cti o n. T hi s r e p o rt, w hi c h 

s h all b e pr e p ar e d I n c o nj u n cti o n wit h t h e 

A d mi ni s tr a t or of t h e E n vir o n m e nt al Pr ot e cti o n A g e n c y, s h all d et ail t h e pr o gr es s m a d e 

I n i m pl e m e nti n g t h e r e q uir e m e nt s of t hi s 

s e cti o n a n d t h e o bj e cti v e s of t hi a a ct.

I t s ho ul d , b e n o t e d t h a t " t h e A c t o f M a r c h 3 , 

1 8 9 9 " i s i n f a c t t h e 1 8 9 9 R i v e r a a n d H a r b o r s 

A c t . T h i a 3 u b e e c t i o n o f t h e B r e a u x a m e n d m e n t 

t u r n s b a c k t h e s c o p e o f C o r p e j u r i s d i c t i o n 

u n d e r t h e 1 8 9 9 A c t t o T h e D a n i e l B a l l , o r 

e v e n f u r t h e r . J u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 4 0 4 

o f F W T C A w o u l d b e e q u a l l y n a r r o w .

B l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i v i t i e e n o t e d i n S u b - 

e e o t i o n ( d ) f r o m r e q u i r e m e n t s t o o b t a i n 

K P D K S p e r m i t s u n d e r S e c t i o n 4 0 2 o f F W P C A 

m a y p r o v e t o b e a n u n w i s e e x e m p t i o n t h a t 

c o u l d o p e n t h e d o o r t o i n d u s t r i a l o r o t h e r 

s u b s t a n t i a l e x e m p t i o n s .

W h a t i s " n o r m a l f a r m i n g " t o t h e s m a l l f a r ­

m e r u s u a l l y d o e s n o t i n v o l v e t h e s a m e k i n d 

o r B c o p e o f o p e r a t i o n s u s e d b y l a r g e c o r ­

p o r a t e f a r m i n g f i r m s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s ­

c r e t i o n m a y b e n e e d e d t o t a k e s u c h d i f f e r ­

e n c e s i n t o a c c o u n t .

A t t i m e s , w h a t c a n b e c i t e d a s " m a i n t e n ­

a n c e w o r k , i s i n f a o t m a j o r n e w w o r k . A t 

p r e s e n t , t h e C o r p s r o u t i n e l y m a k e s r u l i n g s 

o n w h e t h e r o r n o t a p r o p o s e d o p e r a t i o n i s 

m e r e l y " m a i n t e n a n c e " o r i s " n e w w o r k " .

I t m a i n t e n a n c e i s t o b e e x e m p t e d b y s t a t u t e , 

t h e n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n i s n e e d e d t o 

p r e v e n t a b u s e s .
225

Wright amendment

(also called Wrig ht -B re au x)

Cong. Reo. 6/3/76, p. H 5267

-8- Con nen ta

Amendment offered by Mr. W ii g h t a* a 

substitute for the amendmen t offered by 

Mr. Cle veland :

Pag© S I. strtk«*out Unas 11 to 25. Inclusive, 

and Insert In lie u thereof the following:

See. 17. (a) 8ub>ection (a) of section 404

mediately after "uavtf'abls waters** the fo llowing: "and adjacent wetlands'*.

fb) Such section 404 is fu rther amended 

by adding at th e end thereof th e following 

new subsections:

" (d )(1 ) Th e term ‘navigable waters* as « 

used In this section shall mean all waters 

which are presently used, or are susceptible 

to use In th eir na tural condition or by 

reasonable Imp rov ement as a means to transport inters tat e or foreign commerce shoreward to their ordinary high water mark. 

Including all waters which are sub ject to the 

ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their 

mean high water mark (mean hig her high 

water mark on the west coa st).

"(2 ) Th e ter m 'adjacent wetlands’ as used * 

In this section shall mean (A) those < 

wetlands, mudflats, swamps, marshes, sha llows. and those areas periodically inundated 

by saline or brackish waters th at are normally characterized by the prevalence of salt 

or brackish water vegetation capable 

growth and reprodu ction, whic h are contiguous or adjacent to navigable wa ter subject 

to the ebb and flow of the tide, and (B) 

those fres hwater wetlands Includ ing 

marshes, shallows, swamps, and sim ila r areas 

th at are contiguous or adjacent to other 

navigable waters, th at support freshwater 

vegetation and th at are periodically inun ­

dated and are normally characterized by the 

prevalence of vegetation th at requires saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction.

“(e) Except as provided In subsection if ) 

of thia section, th e discharge of dredged or 

Oil material In waters oth er than navigable 

waters or adjacent wetlands is uot prohibited 

by or otherwise subject to regulatio n und er 

tills Act. or section 0. section 10. or section 

13 of the Act of March 3. 1099

“(f ) I f the Secretary of the Army , acting ■ 

through the Ch ief of Engineers, and the 

Governor of a State enter Into a Joint agreement th at the discharge of dredged or Oil 

material in waters oth er than navigable 

waters or adjacent wetlands of such Stale 

should be regulated because of the ecological and env ironmental Importance of such 

waters, the Secretary, acting through the 

Chief of Engineers, may regulate such discharge pursua nt to the provisions of this 

■action. Any Joint agreement entered into 

pursua nt to tills subjection may be revoked. 

In whole or In part, by the Governor of the 

State who entered Into such Joint agreem ent 

or by the Secretary of the Army , acting

_ through the Chief o f Engineers.

“(g) In carrying out bis functions relating to the discharge of dredged or flit material under thia section, the Secre tary of 

the Army, acting thro ugh the Ch ief of Engineers. la authorize d to ism ic thane general 

permits which he determine* to be in the 

public Interest.

’Mb) The discharge of dredged or fill mate ri a l-

"(1 ) from normal farming, silviculture, 

and ranching activities. Including, bu t not 

lim ited to, plowing, terracing, cultivating, 

seeding, and harvesting for the production 

of food, fiber, and forest products;

“ (2) for the purpose of maintenance of 

curren tly serviceable structures, including.

y

k

bridge abu tments and approaches, a nd other 

transportation structures (In cludin g emergency reconstruction); or

“(3) for the purpose of construction or 

maintenance of far m or stock ponds and lrrig at Ion ditches.

In not prohibited by or otherwise sub ject to 

regulation under th is Act. .• v

Add s "adj acen t wet lan ds" to "na viga ble

waters " to giv e the tot al area of Cor ps

juris dic tio n u nd er Sec. 404 of FWPCA .

Note that the Wrigh t-B rea ux ame ndm ent does

not incl ude lak ee les s than 5 acres, str eam s

and tributa rie s "up t o the ir h ead wat ers ",

and bot h coa sta l and fre shw ate r wetla nds u nless they are navigab le in t he res tri cte d

Wright- Bre aux sense, or are "ad jace nt" to

suc h n avi gab le waters. (see als o pp. 5-6)

Thi s def ini tion of "nav igab le wate rs" is

the same as that giv en in the Bre aux am en dment, and suffer s fro m the same problems .

See Introdu cti on and com men ts on p. 7.

This d efi nition of "adjacent wet lan ds" has

be en com pil ed from lang uag e in exi sti ng

Corps regul ati ons (see p. 5), but doe s not

cov er such a w ide area because the d ef in itio n of "nav iga ble waters" is con sid era bly

di ff er en t.

Thi s pro hib ition aga ins t exerci se of ju risdiction b y the Corps under b oth Sec. 404

and the 189 9 Rive rs and Harbo rs Act is the

same as tnat gi ven in the Bre aux amendm ent

(see p. 7).

No goa ls or standar ds are giv en to guide

the for m of th ese pos sib le agree men ts be ­

tween the Cor ps and the States. As a r esult, each agr eem ent wi th differe nt states

would pro bab ly be con sid era bly d iff ere nt as

a result . The Cor ps could n ot thu s pro vid e

a consi ste nt po li cy a cro ss the nation, and

the Cor ps would have dif fer ent sta nda rds to

follow in tre ati ng per mit app lic ati ons for

wor k wit hin a gi ve n state.

This "general perm it" langua ge is n ot suf fici ent ly spe cif ic to prev ent abu ses or inconsis ten t actio ns acr oss the nation. The

lan gua ge for gene ral per mit s given in the

Cleveland-rtarsha ame ndm ent is mu ch mo re sa tisf act ory in t his res pec t (Bee p. 7).

Thi s lan gua ge is nearly, but not exactly,

the same ae for the "normal farm ing " and

mai ntena nce exe mption gi ven in the Cleveland- Harsha am endmen t. As not ed on pag e 7

for the latter , adm ini str ati ve dis cretion

by the Dis tri ct Engi ne er is nee ded for the

pur pose of determining what is cited as ma in ­

ten anc e or "norm al" is not "new work" .
220

W rig h t an en d m » n t ( o o n t . ) -9 - C om m en ts

as part of ths construction, alteratio n,

repair of a Federal or federally aaiLsted project authorized by Congress Is not prohibited

. by or otherwise subject to regulation under

this Act if the effects of such discharge bate

been Included in an environ mental Impact

statement or environmental

such project pursuant to the provisions «

the National Environmental Policy

1949 and such environmental impact i

me nt or environmental assessment

submitted to Co eg revs in connection

the authoriza tion or funding of i

set.

“ (JJ Ths Secretary of the Army, acting

tl^rough the Chief of Engineers, is authorised to delegate to a State upou Its requmt

all or any part of those functio ns vested in

him by this section relatin g to the adjacent

wetlands in th at State If he determines (A)

th at such State has the au thority, responsib ility. and capability to carry out such

func tions, and <B> th at such delegation is

in the public Interest. Any such delegation

shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary. In ­

cluding. but not limited to. suspension end

revocation for cause of such a delegation.*4

u i» w n e n t for

p provisions of

PoUcy Act of f

Impact stats* I

msnt baa been I

lunectlon with. I

of such proj- y

T h ie ne w p r o p o s a l w o u ld a l lo w " F e d e r a l o r 

f e d e r a l l y a s s i s t e d " p r o j e c t s t o p r o c e e d 

w ith o u t t h e c o o r d i n a t e d r e v ie w now e m p lo y e d 

i n t h e C o rp s p e r m it p r o c e s s . I t d o e s n o t 

g iv e s t a n d a r d s a s t o w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a 

" f e d e r a l l y a s s i s t e d " p r o j e c t , n o r d o e s i t 

s p e a k t o t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e S I S , w h ic h 

m e r e ly m u st b e f i l e d w ith C o n g r e s s . L o c a l 

s t a n d a r d s f o r r e v ie w a n d t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g 

o p t i o n a r e l o s t a s w e l l . S u ch a s y s te m i s 

o p e n t o s u b s t a n t i a l a b u s e .

T h i s d e l e g a t i o n o f " a d j a c e n t w e tl a n d s " j u r i s ­

d i c t i o n t o t h e s t a t e s g i v e s n o s t a n d a r d s o f 

p e r f o r m a n c e , n o r d o e s i t r e c o g n i z e t h e n e e d 

f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n a c r o s s s t a t e b o u n d a r i e s a s 

n e e d e d i n m i g r a t o r y w a te r f o w l h a b i t a t p l a n ­

n in g f u n o t i o n s , f o r e x a m p le , a n d now p r o v i d ­

ed by t h e U .S . F i s h & W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e . I t 

w o u ld l e a d t o a v a r i e t y o f s t a n d a r d s o f p e r ­

fo rm a n c e i n t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e s .

T e x t o f S e c t i o n 4 04 o f t h e F e d e r a l W a te r P o l l u t i o n 

C o n t r o l A c t, a n d t h e e x i s t i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f i t s a r e a 

o f j u r i s d i c t i o n g iv e n i n S e c t i o n 502 ( 7 ) ,

N o te : T he b r e a u x , W r ig h t, an d C le v e la n d - H a r s h a am en d m en ts

a l l a d d a d d i t i o n a l s u b s e c t i o n s t o t h e la n g u a g e sh ow n b e lo w . 

The W rig h t am en d m en t a l s o am en d s s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) s l i g h t l y .

“r rxMiTa roa oaraorn cm n u . m a t s u i.

“S zr. 404. (a ) The Secretary o f the A rm y, acting through the C hief

of Engineers, ma y issue permits, after notice and opportu nity for

public hearings fo r the discharge of dredged or fill material into the

navigable waters at specified disposal sites.

“ (h ) Subject to sulisection (e ) of this section, each such disposal

sitoahall lie s|>eeified fo r each such perm it by the Secretary of the Anny

(1 ) through the app lication of guidelines developed by the Ad ministra tor, in eoniunetion with the Secretary of the Arm y, which guidelines shall be based upon criteria comparable to the criteria npplicahle

to I ho territo ria l seas, t lie contiguous zone, and the ocean under section

40.1(c), and (2 ) in any case where such guidelines under clause (1 )

alnno would prohibit the specification of a site, through the application additionally of the economic impact of the site on navigation and

anchorage.

“ (c ) Th e Ad ministrator is authorized to prohibit the specification

(including the withdraw al of specification) of any defined area as a

disimsal site, and lie is authorized to deny or restrict the. use of any

defined area for a|<erifiratinn (inclu ding the withdraw al of specification ) ns a ilis|iosnl site, whenever he determines, afte r notice and opportun ity for public hearings, tlint the discharge of such materials into

such area w ill have an iiiinereptnhle adverse effect on municipal water

supplies, shellfish licds and fishery areas (including spawning and

breeding areas), wild lif e, or recreational areas. Before mnlcing such

determination, the Ad ministrator shall consult with the Secreta ry of

the Army . Th e Ad ministr ato r shall set forth in writin g and make

public Ins findings and hia reasons for making any determ ination

under this suliaeetion.

M o il ,, , hea ring

opportu nity*

D is p osa l s i t s , 

sp s o lf lo a tlo n 

pro h ib it io n #

Fin di ngs of

A d v ln lr tr sto r,

p u b ll o a tl o n .

fcur.xEiLtig DKnxmoxM

“Six4

. M»2. Except ns otherwise specifically provided, when rn nl in

this A H :

“ (7 ) Th e term 'navigable waters' menus the waters of the United

.States, including the territor ial seas.
227

Senator Gravel. Our next witness will be Mr. William McCredie, 

National Forest Products Association.

STATEMENT OF WILLIA M H. McCRED IE, NATIONAL FOREST 

PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

Mr. McCredie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. My name is William McCredie. I am a professional 

forester for the National Forest Products Association in Washington, 

D.C. We have a written statement we wish to submit for the Tecord 

which reflects the views of timber growers throughout the United 

States and discusses more fully our concerns with the section 404 

program.

To summarize this statem ent, we would like to discuss with you 

the massive coverage of the section 404 program so tha t you can see 

why we think Congress should adopt corrective legislation.

Our two major concerns are the geographical coverage and the 

number of activities of minor environmental significance covered by 

the section 404 program. Across the way is a NASA photo of the 

State of Georgia. If you look at this photo closely, you can see the 

dense network of large and small streams interlacing nearly the entire 

area. Under the current section 404 regulations, all streams on this 

photo with a normal flow of 5 cubic feet per second or more are subject to the corps’ jurisdiction. We also, as part of our statement, have 

maps put together by the Savannah District of the Corps of Engineers, 

known as exhibits VI and VII, which show the corps’ own determination of the streams and wetlands which would fall under their jurisdiction. They claim tha t the district would now regulate over 14,000 

miles of streams and over 2 million acres of wetlands.

We have also a map of two counties in the State of Oregon which 

show a shocking expansion of the corps’ regulatory coverage as would 

occur in many other forest regions in the United States. On this map 

phase 1 waters are shown in blue, the traditional navigable waters. 

Phase 2 waters are shown in yellow, which are very difficult to see. 

Phase 3 is the red. We have other examples in our written statem ent.

The corps estimates its new jurisdiction in the United States for 

rivers has expanded from 50,000 miles to over 3.5 million miles and 

for lakeshore line from 50,000 miles to 4.7 million miles. This concerns 

us very greatly because adjacent to these waters lie millions of acres 

of forestlands which are poorly drained or have a high water table 

and hence could come under the definition of wetlands as defined by 

the Corps of Engineers.

In the region tha t runs geneially from Virginia to Texas, there are 

over 33 million acres of productive forestlands located on so-called 

wetlands.

The inclusion of wetlands and the impossible task of identifying this 

whole definition of navigable waters on the ground will cause much 

more controversy, confusion and uncertainty to millions of people subject to the section 404 regulations.

In our statem ent are photos of specific forestry activities th at would 

be subject to regulation under the section 404 program. In the areas 

of waters and wetlands just described, virtually all roads constructed 

by anyone would require section 404 permits, where they crossed a
228

stream or where the y were in wetlands as defined in the regu lations . 

Th is is because they are constructe d by the pla ceme nt of earth which 

the Cor ps regards as a discha rge of filled ma terial.

In the south, forest roads and areas w ith high wrater tables are sometimes built by digging two parallel ditche s and placing the exc ava ted 

ma terial betw een the ditches to provide a raised roa dbed. That photo 

is being passed around to you.

Fo r the same reason, con struction of wa ter con trol ditche s also 

requires a permit. This pictu re shows the kind of ditch used in ma ny 

regions for con trol of excess rain and flood wa ter s which imp rove 

con ditions for ref orest ati on and fore st growth.

Wh enever a forest road crosses a stream, brid ges or culve rts are 

installed to provide for normal flow of the wa ter. These str uc tures 

invo lve the pla ceme nt of ea rth or rock in a portion of the stream 

channel. This pic tur e show s a stream crossing consisting of a culve rt 

and a small brid ge. If the str eam has a nor mal flow of 5 cubic feet or 

more, the culve rt or brid ge req uires a permit.

We believe th at the re are ma ny othe r fores try act ivities th at are 

also subje ct to permits. We are no t fully co vered under the exem ption, 

now laid ou t in the Co rps’ regulation s, which sup posedly exe mpts all 

nor mal forestry activities .

Hu ndred s of tho usands of p erm its will be req uir ed fo r fo restry alone. 

Mo reover, the Co rps’ pe rm it procedure is very complex, costly and 

time-co nsuming. Needless duplication and unn ece ssa ry delays are 

threate ne d at all levels of gov ernme nt.

Fo r exam ple, to tie in with the photo of Georgia, we hav e a map 

which shows the proposed are a for which the S ta te of Georgia will plan 

un de r the ir coastal zone ma nageme nt planning process. Th e Corps 

would duplicate this coverage. Ev ery section 404 pe rm it in this area 

would have to be reviewed by the costal zone agen cy.

Th e Corps, recognizing this prob lem, has proposed to issue general 

permits. The general pe rm it concept, if carried ou t to effect a general 

exemption of minor act ivities, serves no useful purpose . This would 

only add anoth er ele me nt of confusion and un ce rta inty as to when an 

ac tiv ity was “m ino r”—he nce, coming under the general pe rm it— or 

when the ac tiv ity req uir ed an ind ividual permit.

Th e general perm its for forest road culve rts alr eady developed by 

several Corps distr ict s in Idaho and the St ate of Wa shington provide 

th at when the ins taller comp lies with the req uir em ents of a given 

St at e law, he would satisfy the general perm it con ditions of section 

404. This we can only view as waste and ove rlap of the worst kind .

We urge the comm itte e to ad op t a pra ctical legislative solu tion to 

thi s serious dile mm a ra th er than leaving i t to the cou rts. We basically 

su pp ort an a me ndme nt to section 404 th at restore s it s original con cep t; 

nam ely, to require the Corps to tak e wa ter q ua lit y con sideration s into 

account in carry ing ou t its ma intenance pro gra ms in the tru ly na vigable waters.

Th an k you.

Senator Grav el . Tha nk you very much, Mr. McC redie.

Se nator D omenici. W ha t would you consider, or describe for us, 

wha t are nor mal activ itie s of your pa rti cu lar indu str y? W ha t is 

normal?

Mr. M Cre die. Senat or, we believe th at all the act ivities rela ted to 

the growing of tree crops are normal, including the building of roads
229

and including the building of water control ditches to remove excess 

water and to supply water when it is needed. In addition they include 

harvesting and the many other forest management practices that are 

carried out over the long life required to grow these forest stands.

Senator Domenici. Tha t wouldn’t vary?

Mr. McCredie. The individual practices would vary in every 

State and region, by soil conditions and by many other variables, 

particularly rainfall.

Senator Domenici. But the normal activities tha t you have described would have a varying impact depending upon where you were 

doing them, wouldn’t they?

Mr. McCredie. Yes; it varies throughout the regions. Some 

regions have one type of forest practice or logging method, for instance, 

cable logging. Some regions build roads on steep slopes and other 

regions build roads on flat slopes and carry out their logging in a 

much different way.

Senator Domenici. This area you have described as coming within 

their purview as being wetlands, I assume you were saying tha t 

within the original notion of the wetlands they weren’t supposed to 

be in there. Is tha t what you are saying? And I am asking you are 

there any forest activities tha t are taking place tha t are normal in 

nature tha t might occur within wetlands whether it be your original 

definition or this one?

Mr. McCredie. The definition as the Corps now has it laid out in 

their regulations would include approximately 100 million acres of 

productive forestlands that are used now for growing timber. These 

are primarily hardwood bottomlands, of which there is a great num ber 

in the South. Harvesting and roadbuilding activities are carried out 

on these hardwood bottomlands tha t would come under the definition 

of wetlands.

Senator Domenici. How many acres would have been included 

within the concept as you are telling us to adopt it with reference 

to the definition of wetlands? You have mentioned the figure 100 

million acres. How many would be under what you construe to be the 

Corps’ original jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters?

Mr. McCredie. I cannot give you a specific answer on that, Senator. All I can say is th at the industry was not bothered by having to 

get those kinds of permits under their traditional jurisdiction programs.

Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Buckley. I am a little disturbed about the phrase, “The 

drainage to take off excess waters.” Does this not suggest tha t the 

drainage of wetlands to create conditions where trees can be grown 

where otherwise these trees would not be grown? Is there a destruction 

of wetlands tha t takes place or has taken place in expanding the area 

in which you can grow trees?

Mr. McCredie. I would say in forestry tha t this is n ot the case. 

We are usually not converting wetlands in the connotation of marsh 

lands or lands tha t are under shallow water to growing timber. The 

wetlands tha t seem to creep in under the Corps’ definitions are lands 

on which trees already are growing and in which we are trying to 

sustain tha t growth.

For instance, in hardwood bottomlands where they are periodically 

inundated by floodwaters from the adjacent waterways.

Senator Buckley. You said usually. Is it ever the case?
230

Mr. cCredie. I personally am not aware of one where they have 

converted but it could be possible. But I don’t know of any.

Senator Buckley . You would agree that it is reasonable to make 

sure th at that wouldn’t take place?

Mr. McCredie. I don’t think it is a feasible activity.

Senator Buckley . Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chaiiman.

Senator Burdick. I haven’t read the Supreme Court cases fully, 

but I understand for these purposes the jurisdiction over navigable 

streams extends to the smallest tributary. Is tha t correct?

Mr. McCredie. In the case NIIDC v. Callaway, the court asked the 

Corps to go back or ordered them to go back and expand their definition to the maximum extent permissible under the commerce clause. 

This is apparently what the Corps has done.

Senator Burdick. How much of the river system does it include?

Mr. McCredie. It includes all tributaries up to the point where 

they flow normally, 5 cubic feet per second.

Senator Burdick. And you are suggesting to go back to the trad itional navigation definition. What was that?

Mr. McCredie. That in itself is a complex definition, Senator.

Senator Burdick. I understand.

Mr. McCredie. But it is primarily those waters which have been, 

are used, or could be used for navigation; in fact, those tha t are 

capable of carrying commerce interstate and foreign commerce.

Senator B urdick. T hat is hazy, “or could be used”. “Could be used” 

could be a large part of the system, couldn’t it?

Mr. McCredie. It could be. And tha t also is the case, if I might 

add, in the definition in section 16 of S. 2710, where they would 

change the defintion to those waters which are now used or are susceptible to being used. We feel tha t the term “susceptible” has a 

major expansion opportunity tha t would include most of the traditional navigable waters.

Senator Burdick. I think you put your finger on a problem of 

definition right now.

Mr. McCredie. Yes.

Senator Burdick. Thank you.

Senator G ravel. Senator Hart.

Senator Hart. I t seems to me th at the quarrel is not for a permanent 

program, but Congress’ efforts to protect the wetlands. Is tha t right or 

not?

Mr. McCredie. I am no t sure how to take that, Senator.

Senator Hart. You are talking about 100 million acres of wetlands 

in the South tha t you don’t want the corps to have anything to do 

with. It doesn’t seem to me that your problem here is with the corps’ 

permit program.

You say you don’t want the Congress to enact legislation which in 

any way does not protect tha t territory, is th at right?

Mr. McCredie. I am concerned about the productive forestland 

tha t would fall under this very broad definition of wetlands. The 

forest industry supports the concept of preserving those wetlands t hat 

are truly the breeding grounds and the spawning grounds for important 

fish and shellfish resources.

Senator Hart. But tha t is not the 100 million acres in the South?

Mr. McCredie. No, sir.
231

Senator H art . Thank you.

Senator Gravel. Senator Morgan?

Senator Morgan. N o questions.

Senator Baker. As I look over this panel, which represents a considerable range of interests and points of view, it seems to me that it 

might be useful in our considerations to figure out where we got where 

we are. Senator Domenici is entirely right, we ended up there because 

the courts put us there and the Corps of Engineers, I think, has valiantly and honorably tried to carry out the requirements of that initial 

decree as confirmed in the appellate system.

Mr. Speth, I think, found a logical theory th at he was convinced the 

corps were correct and we find ourselves then, in the case of water, in 

the same situation we found ourselves, Mr. Chairman, this morning at 

8 o’clock on the floor of the Senate, with air. T hat is a situation tha t 

this committee, I suspect, did not realize it was creating a t the time it 

created it.

I am not particularly fond of self-criticism, but I think we of the 

committee need to accept part of the responsibility for it and maybe 

confess tha t in the past some of our legislation has been more poetic 

than it has been precise.

I think tha t careful attention needs to be given to how we express 

our national aspirations and roles in the field of air legislation; b ut by 

the same token, the court should understand, as I am sure all the litigants before the court will understand, tha t statutes are not to be 

tortured into national policy. So maybe we all need to do this together.

I propose, Mr. Chairman, and I think tha t is the essence of much of 

the testimony tha t has appeared here, tha t we not stand on narrow 

legal issues, that we not try to compete for favor or advantage on the 

basis of what happened serendipitously, b ut ra ther we set about trying 

to establish a national policy for wetlands, for agriculture, for forestry, 

and tha t we legislate it.

We are going to do tha t under the gun here, b ut in this particular 

case it may be necessary to go back and pick up the stitches a little 

later.

I do urge that all of us think on the proposition tha t whatever 

legislation we adopt should be carefully and totally worded to meet 

the particular exigencies of this circumstance and tha t we save in 

reserve until a later day a further refinement and statement of our 

national goals and aspirations.

I guess the burden of these remarks is meant to say I am willing to 

do whatever we need to do to remedy a decision in section 404, but 

I am not willing in what is probably the last 3 weeks of this session 

to try to restate the general policy of the Government of the United 

States on both air and water.

It may be just because I am tired from having to come in at 8 

o’clock this morning and trying to explain wdiat the Congress meant 

with the Air Quality Amendments of 1970, and end at 8:30, trying to 

say what the Congress meant about the Water Quality Act. Someplace 

along the way, we need to help the corps resist temptation to legislate 

for us, and I pledge myself to tha t end.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, Senator Baker.

Most difficult discipline is to discipline yourself. That is what you 

are really saying, isn’t it?

Senator B aker. That is right.
232

Senator Randolph . We will try to do it here.

Senator B aker. It reminds me of the fellow who came in my office. 

He said, “I have a little extra money. Do I have to hire an extra 

lawyer?” I was tempted to say, “You don’t need another lawyer, you 

better hire yourself some witnesses.”

Senator Randolph . It is a night for stories. We had a candidate 

in West Virginia who came to me a few days ago and was very frustrated. He said, “They are telling lies about me in this campaign.” 

And the trouble is they have proven some of them.

If all the skies were parc hment, if all the seas were ink, if all the reeds were 

pens, and all the men could write, they still could not match the red tape of this 

government.

These words were written in the 14th century, directed at the 

Roman Government. So we have been doing it for a long while.

[Mr. McCredie’s statem ent follows:]
233

TATEMENT

of th e

FOREST IN DU ST RY

to the

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WO RK S

UNITED ST AT ES SE NA TE

Jul y 28, 19 76

O n th e Im pact of Co rps of En gi neers

Re gu lations for Discharge of Dredged or Fi ll

Material Is su ed un der Section 404 of the

Fe de ral Water Pollution Control Ac t Am endments of 1972

Su bm itted by

W i l liam H. McCredie

Di rector of In dustrial Fo restr y

Na tional Forest Products Associ ation

P ro d u c t Aaa ociatlo n

American Paper Institute, inc

ifliu Massachusetts Avenue N W. Washington. D C 20036

(Xttl 007 MTI

Forest Industries Building • 1819 Massachusetts Avenue NW 

Washington. D C 20038 • 202/332-1060
234

National Forest 

Product* Association

Foraat Induatnaa Building ■ IS IS Massachusetts Avenus. N W

/1J 

Washington, O.C 20036 • 20 2/ 33 2-10 50

American Paper Institute, inc

IBIO Massa, h usr ns Avenue. N W . W ash ington. DC. 20036 

(3021 6 6 7 88 78

S T A T E M E N T O F 

W IL LIA M H. M cC R ED IE

FO R T H E

F O R E S T IN DUST RY 

B E F O R E TH E

C O M M IT T E E ON PU B L IC WO RK S 

U N IT ED ST A T E S SEN A TE

JU L Y 28 . 1976

HEA RIN G ON SEC TIO N 40 4 O F TH E 

F E D E R A L W A TER P O L L U T IO N C O N T R O L A C T A M END M EN TS O F 19 72

M r. C h a ir m a n an d M e m b e rs o f th e C o m m it te e :

M y n am e is W il li a m H. M c C re d ie an d I am D ir e c to r of I n d u s tr ia l F o r e s tr y 

fo r th e N ati o n al F o r e s t P r o d u c ts A ss o c ia ti o n , b ase d in W a sh in g to n , D. C . I 

h o ld a d e g re e in f o r e s t e n g in e e rin g fro m O re g o n S ta te U n iv e rs it y an d h av e w o rk ed 

in a ll p h a se s of f o r e s t m a n a g e m e n t fo r o v e r tw en ty y e a r s . A p p e a rin g w it h m e at 

th is h e a rin g on b e h a lf of th e in d u s tr y a r e H a r r ie t B . M a rp le , E n v ir o n m e n ta l 

A tt o rn e y , In te rn a ti o n a l P a p e r C o m p a n y , New Y o rk , an d D av id C . N ic h o ls o n , 

A s s is ta n t D ir e c to r of E n v ir o n m e n ta l R e s o u r c e s , W e y e rh a e u s e r C o m p an y , T aco m i 

W ash in g to n . B oth a r e in d u s tr y le a d e r s who h av e b ee n w o rk in g fo r o v e r th e p a s t 

y e a r on th e S ecti o n 40 4 is s u e .

I a p p e a r h e r e to d ay on b e h a lf of th e N ati o n al F o r e s t P r o d u c ts A ss o c ia ti o n , 

its m e m b e r a s s o c ia ti o n s an d c o m p a n ie s , an d th e A m e ric a n P a p e r In s ti tu te . 

T o g e th e r we r e p r e s e n t m o re th a n 2 ,0 0 0 m e m b e r c o m p a n ie s . W e b e li e v e th a t 

th is s ta te m e n t r e f le c ts th e v ie w s of th e e n tir e f o r e s t in d u s tr y - - p u lp , p a p e r, 

lu m b e r, ply w ood , an d f o r e s tr y - - in c lu d in g th e 4 1 /2 m ill io n in d iv id u a ls who ow n 

f o r e s tl a n d s in th is c o u n tr y .
e a p p la u d y o u r re c o g n it io n of th e c h a o ti c s it u a ti o n w h ic h s u rro u n d s 

§4 04 of P . L. 9 2 -5 0 0 b ro u g h t on by g r e a tly ex p an d ed in te r p r e ta tio n s by both 

th e c o u rts a n d th e r e g u la to r y a g e n c ie s a d m in is te r in g th e p r o g r a m . T h e 

p eo p le w ho w il l be a d v e rs e ly a ffe c te d by th e A rm y C o rp s o f E n g in e e rs c u r r e n t 

40 4 p r o g r a m h a v e tr i e d in c o m m e n ts an d h e a rin g s to co n v in ce th e C o rp s it 

sh o u ld ad o p t a m o r e p r a c tic a l an d w o rk a b le p r o g r a m . T o d a te th e C o rp s h as 

n o t a c te d to c o r r e c t th e s it u a ti o n . T h e r e f o r e , w e u r g e th e C o n g re s s to ta k e 

c o r r e c tiv e le g is la tiv e a c ti o n an d th a n k you fo r th is o p p o rtu n it y to p r e s e n t o u r

v ie w s.

T h is s ta te m e n t w il l re v ie w th e h is to r y an d p u rp o s e of § 40 4 an d sh ow ho w 

th e C o rp s h a s e x p a n d ed it s ju r is d ic tio n f a r bey o n d th e in te n t of 404, e v e n as 

in te r p r e te d by th e c o u r t in ND RC v. C a ll a w a y , ( 7 ER C 17 84 ), an d f a r beyond 

th e b ounds of r e a s o n . We a ls o o u tl in e in c o n s id e r a b le d e ta il th e b u rd e n s 

im p o se d on o u r in d u s tr y an d th e a ffe c te d p u b li c by th e 404 p r o g r a m . We ex p la in 

ho w th e C o r p s ' p r o g r a m d u p li c a te s e x is ti n g re g u la to r y p r o g r a m s . F in a lly , w e 

d is c u s s th e m o s t p ro m in e n t of th e le g is la tiv e a lte r n a tiv e s to th e s o lu ti o n an d 

ex p la in w hy w e s u p p o rt § 16 of S. 27 10 a s p a s s e d by th e H o u se of

R e p r e s e n ta ti v e s a s an a c c e p ta b le s o lu ti o n to th e p ro b le m .

T h is s u b m is s io n is a c c o m p a n ie d by a co py of o u r c o m m e n ts (E x h ib it 1 

r e f e r r e d to h e r e a f te r a s ’C o m m e n ts ”) on th e C o r p s ' in te r im fi n a l r e g u la ti o n s 

p ro m u lg a te d J u ly 25 , 197 5. A s e x p la in e d in th e C o m m e n ts , th e C o rp s ' 

r e g u la ti o n s f a r e x c e e d th e s ta tu to r y m a n d a te .

H is to ry an d P u r p o s e of §404

F o r o v e r 7 5 y e a rs th e C o rp s h a s b ee n re s p o n s ib le fo r k eep in g th e n a tio n 's 

n a v ig a b le w a te r s open fo r w a te rb o r n e c o m m e r c e . F o r th is r e a s o n th e 

C o n g re s s g av e th e C o rp s a u th o rit y u n d e r th e 18 99 R iv e r an d H a rb o r A ct to 

re g u la te d re d g in g an d d is p o s a l of d re d g e d s p o il s in th e n av ig ab le w a te rs .
236

The stated objective of P. L» 92-500 was to resto re and maintain the

Integrity of the nation's wa ter s. Our reading of the legislative history

of §404 leads us to believe that the prim ary purpose of §404 was to insure

that the Corps would give proper consideration to water quality in disposing

of dredged spoils. For instance, during the debate on the Conference

Committee bill. Senator Muskie, the principal architect of the 1972

amendments, submitted the following statement regarding §404:

'The Conferees were uniquely aware of the proce ss by which the

dredge and fill permits are presently handled and did not wish to

create a burdensome bureaucracy in light of the fact that a system

to issu e permits already existed . At the same time, the Comm ittee

did not believe there could be any justificatio n for permitting the

Secretary of the Army to make determination as to the environmental

implications of either the site to be selected or the specific spoil to

be disposed of in a site. Thue, the Conferees agreed that the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should have the

veto over the selection of the site for dredged spoil disposal and over

any spec ific spoil to be disposed of in any selected site.

'The decision is not duplicative or cumbersome because the permit

for review will set forth both the site to be used and the content of

the matter of the spoil to be disposed. The Conferees expect the

Administrator to be expeditious in his determination as to whether

a site is acceptable or if specifi c spoil material can be disposed of

at such site.

"At the same time, the Committee expects the Administrator and the

Secretary to move expeditiously to end the process of dumping dredged

spoil in water to limit to the greates t extent possible the dispo sal of

dredged spoil in the navigable inland waters of the United States

including the Great Lakes to identify land-based site s for the

dispo sal of dredged spoil and, where land-based dispo sal is not

feasible, to establish diked are as of such disposal. "

The foregoing seems to indicate cle arly that 404 was intended as a program

to curb the Corps - - to require the Corps to consider water quality objectives

in carryin g out its own maintenance programs in the navigable wa ter s. Dredged

spoils were cle arly the focus. Apparently 404 was only intended to be

coextensive with the Cor ps' jurisdic tion . (For further discussion, we refer

you to pages 14-16 of the Comments. )
237

he 404 reg u la ti o n s no w in fo r c e b ear little re la ti o n to th e o rig in a l 

w a te r q u a li ty o b je cti v e. C o n g ress e x p r e s s ly sa id in $ 101 (b) o f P . L. 9 2 -5 0 0 

th at th e s ta te s hav e th e p rim ary ri ght and r e sp o n sib il it y to pl an th e d e v elo p ­

m en t an d u s e of land r e so u r c e s. H ow ev er, in r e a li ty , und er 404 a s 

in te r p r ete d by th e C o rp s, m an y m il li o n s o f a c r e s a r e bei ng su b je cte d to 

fe d e r a l la nd u se co n tr ol; and th is co n tr o l is b ei n g e x e r c is e d by th e A rm y C orp s 

o f E n g in e e r s.

Ho w di d th is ha pp en ? Whe n th e H ouse and Sen at e p a ss ed th e b il ls th at 

u lt im a te ly b eca m e P . L. 9 2 -5 0 0 , bot h b il ls d ef in ed th e term 'h avig ab le 

w a te rs" t o m ea n 't he n avig ab le w a te rs of th e U nit ed S ta te s." The Sen ate 

b il l in cl ud ed tr ib u ta rie s of n avig ab le w a te r s . The C o n fe re n ce C om m it te e 

red efi n ed 'h a v ig a b le w a te rs" to m ea n 't h e w a ters o f th e U ni te d Sta te s" .

B ec a u se th e te r m 'h avig ab le w a te rs" i s u se d in 4 0 4 , th is u lt im a te ly 

re su lt e d in a m a s s iv e ex pansi on of th e C orp s ju ris d ic tio n .

In ad dit io n , h o w ev er, th e C orp s (and to so m e ex te n t th e E PA ) hav e 

g r o s s ly co m pounded th e p ro ble m by ap pl yi ng th e 40 4 p ro gra m to non poi nt 

s o u r c e a c t iv it ie s , co n tr a ry to P . L. 9 2 -5 0 0 (se e C o m m e n ts pp. 1 2 -1 8 ). 

S il v ic u lt u r a l, a g ric u lt u ra l, and co n str u cti o n a c tiv it ie s a re so m e o f th e m ajo r 

non poi nt s o u r c e s under th e A ct [$ 304(e ) an d §20 8( b)(2) ] to be co n tr o ll ed to 

th e exte n t p ro vid ed in th e A ct by "p ro ce du re s an d m et h od s (incl udin g land 

u s e req u ir em en ts (" ad op te d purs uant to $2 08 . P r a c tic a l co n tr o l of non poi nt 

s o u r c e s in fo r e s tr y ca n b est be a ch ie v ed by p o sit iv e in ce n ti v es to en co u ra ge 

th e ap p li ca ti o n of go od land m an agem en t p r a c tic e s .

Exp an de d S cop e of G eo gr aphic C o v era g e

T h ere w a s no p rob le m w ith 40 4 fo r th e f ir s t fe w y e a r s aft er p a ssa g e of 

th e A ct b eca u se th e C orp s in te r p r ete d 404 as apply in g on ly to it s tr a d it io n a l 

ju ris d ic ti o n . H o w ev er, in M ar ch , 1975, a s a r e su lt of th e co u rt d e c is io n in
238

NR DC v. C all aw ay , th e C o rp s w as o r d e r e d to re d e fin e th e te r m 'h a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " in it s re g u la ti o n s . It is th is ne w d e fi n it io n of n a v ig a b le w a te r s w h ic h 

h a s b ee n one of th e p rin c ip a l c a u s e s o f o u r p ro b le m s .

In th e C all aw ay c a s e th e c o u r t s a id , in e s s e n c e , th a t th e te r m 'h a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " c o u ld n o t m e a n one th in g in on e p a r t of th e A ct an d a n o th e r th in g in 

a n o th e r p a r t of th e A ct. T h is b ein g th e c a s e , w e w ould h av e e x p e c te d th e 

C o rp s of E n g in e e rs to a d o p t th e d e fin it io n of n av ig ab le w a te rs w h ic h th e 

E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o te c tio n A gency h ad ad o p te d s e v e r a l y e a rs e a r l i e r (though 

th e EPA d e fi n it io n it s e lf is p ro b a b ly to o b ro a d ). (S ee C o m m en ts a t pp . 

2 6 -3 2 . )

H o w e v er, a sto n is h in g ly , th e C o r p s ' d efin it io n w en t f a r bey o n d th e w a te rs 

d efin ed a s n av ig ab le by E P A to in c lu d e a ll c o a s ta l an d f r e s h w a te r w e tl a n d s 

'A d ja cen t" o r 'C o n ti g u o u s" to su c h w a te r s . We b e li e v e th a t th e in c lu s io n of 

w etl an d s e x c eed s th e C o rp s ' s ta tu to r y a u th o rit y to th e e x te n t th a t "w etl an d s" 

in c lu d e s la n d a r e a s n o t w it h in th e b o u n d a rie s of w a te r b o d ie s. M o re o v e r, 

th e C o rp s d efi n ed w e tl a n d s so b ro a d ly , an d so im p r e c is e ly , th a t th e te r m 

ev en c o v e rs so m e la n d s w h ic h m e r e ly h av e a h ig h w a te r ta b le . In d eed , th e 

C o rp s s u g g e s ts in a r e c e n t a n a ly s is th a t "ad ja c e n t w e tl a n d s " a s d efi n ed in 

§16 m a y c o v e r d ry a g r ic u ltu r a l la n d b eh in d d ik e s. A ls o , th e te r m "a d ja c e n t" 

w e tl a n d s r e f e r s to w e tl a n d s w h ic h a r e n e a r , b u t n o t a c tu a ll y c o n n e c te d w it h , 

w a te r b o d ie s.

We a r e su b m it ti n g a t th e h e a rin g a s a te llite im a g e o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia 

ta k e n fro m an a lt it u d e o f 570 m ile s (E x h ib it 2).^ It sh o w s in g r e a t d e ta il th e 

v a s t n e tw o rk of r iv e r s an d s tr e a m s in te r la c in g G e o rg ia . T h is is ty p ic a l of 

m o s t s ta t e s . It a ls o sh o w s a la r g e w h it is h a r e a , p re d o m in a n tl y f a r m la n d , 

la c e d w it h s m a ll s tr e a m s w h ic h w o u ld d o u b tl e s s b e 5 c fs o r m o re an d h en c e 

c o v e re d by th e 40 4 p r o g r a m .

A/ NASA LANDSAT-1 s a t e l l i t e im ag e m o sa ic , 

a t th e h e a r in g en d r e tu r n e d to w itn e s s . S t a t e o f G e o rg ia , e x h ib ite d
239

The sh o ck in g s c o p e of th e C o r p s ' r e g u la to r y c o v e ra g e in o th e r s ta te s 

is a ls o v iv id ly il lu s tr a t e d in a tta c h e d M ap s (E x h ib it s 3 ,4 , an d 5). We hav e 

s e le c te d c o u n ti e s in th e s ta te s of O reg o n , W e st V ir g in ia , an d M ain e to sh ow 

ho w th e C o rp s w il l ex p an d its ju r is d ic tio n bey ond tr a d it io n a ll y n a v ig a b le

w a te rs .

T he c o lo r e d li n e s r e p r e s e n t o u r e s ti m a te of th e ex p a n sio n s u n d e r P h a s e s 

U an d lH fo r r i v e r s , s tr e a m s , an d la k e s b a s e d on d is c u s s io n s w it h th e C o rp s 

an d U .S . G e o lo g ic a l S u rv ey m a p s (S cale 1 :2 5 0 ,0 0 0 ). O nl y a s m a ll p o rti o n 

of th e a r e a s th a t co u ld be c la s s if ie d a s ’W e tl a n d s " u n d e r th e C o rp s 40 4 

d e fin it io n a r e sh ow n on th e U. S . G. S . m a p s (i . e . , m a r s h e s an d sw a m p s).

T h e C o r p s ' d e fin it io n of te r m s u s e d in its c o n s tr u c ti o n of 'h a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " a r e v e r y im p r e c is e (e . g. , 'h e a d w a te r s " , ' t o a s t a i w e tl a n d s , " a nd 

" fre s h w a te r w e tl a n d s" ). It w il l be a n a lm o s t im p o s s ib le ta s k fo r th e C o rp s 

to a c tu a ll y id e n ti fy on th e g ro u n d o r ev en on m a p s its ju r is d ic tio n a l a r e a .

O u r e x p e rie n c e to d ate is th a t e a c h of th e 37 C o rp s D is tr ic ts w il l i n t e r p r e t 

th e r e q u ir e m e n ts q u it e d if fe re n tl y . A ddi ng to th e c o n fu sio n is th e la r g e 

n u m b e r of d if f e re n t 'W etl an d s" d e fin it io n s c u r r e n tly u s e d by f e d e r a l an d 

s ta te a g e n c ie s .

E x h ib it s 6 an d 7 a r e m a p s p r e p a r e d by th e S av an n ah , G e o rg ia , C o rp s 

D is tr ic t sh ow in g a p r e lim in a r y d e te r m in a ti o n of its ju r is d ic ti o n r e la te d to 

d ra in a g e s an d w e tl a n d s re s p e c tiv e ly .

The S av an n ah D is tr ic t, w h ic h in c lu d e s th e m a jo r p o sit io n of w e tl a n d s in 

G e o rg ia , e s tim a te s th a t its new ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r P h a s e s Q an d II I w il l in c lu d e 

1 4 ,2 0 0 m ile s o f s o - c a lle d n a v ig a b le w a te rs an d 2 ,0 1 0 ,0 0 0 a c r e s of w e tl a n d s . 

T h e re a r e m a n y d if fe rin g d efin it io n s of w e tl a n d s in u s e by fe d e ra l an d s ta te 

a g e n c ie s .
or ex a m p le , th e F ie h and W il d li fe S er v ic e , D ep ar tm en t of In te rio r ,

has esti m a te d th ere a re 5. 9 m il li o n a c r e s of w et la nds in the sta te of G eorg ia

(C ir cu la r 39 b The F o r e s t S e r v ic e , US DA , e sti m a te s that 4 1 /2 m il li o n

a c r e s of G e o r g ia 's pro d ucti ve fo restl a n d s a re c la ss if ie d as w etl a n d s.

T h erefo re, we a re g re a tl y co n cern ed th at th e C or ps' ne w d efi n it io n of w et la nds

w il l ca u se w id e-s p r ea d con fu si on and uncer ta in ty as to whe n p erm it s a re

re q u ir ed . This sit u a ti o n co uld r e su lt in a d m in is tr a ti v e d ela y s an d c o s tly

li ti g a ti o n .

T his con fu si on w il l be fu rt h er co m po un de d b eca u se of o v erla p w ith th e

1

C o a st a l Zon e M anag em en t plann in g p r o c e ss . Exh ib it 8 sh ow s th e are a

p ro pose d by G eo rg ia fo r it s CZ M plan ni ng to p ro te ct w etl a n d s. A s yo u ca n

s e e , the C or ps' 40 4 p ro gra m d u p li ca te s th is co v e ra g e. U nd er th e 40 4

reg u la ti o n s the sta te s CZM a g en cy m u st re vie w ea ch 40 4 p erm it .

Th e C or ps e s tim a te s th at , th ro ugh ou t th e U. S. , it s ne w ju ris d ic ti o n

fo r riv e r s has ex pan de d fr om 50 , 00 0 m il e s to co v e r 3. 5 m il li o n m ile s ,

and fo r la ke sh o r e li n e s, fr om 5 0 ,0 0 0 m il e s to 4 .7 m il li o n m ile s . We do

not kno w ho w m an y a c r e s of w etl an d s w il l be co v ered , but w e do kn ow that

m an y sta te s hav e su b sta n ti a l w et la n d a cr e a g e . In F lo rid a , fo r in sta n c e ,

w et la nds co n sti tu te so m e 35 p erc en t o f th e sta te .

We a re g re a tl y co n cern ed ab ou t th e C orp s' ex pa nd ed d efi n it io n of

w et la n d s b eca u se at le a s t 84 m il li o n a c r e s of pro d ucti ve fo restl a n d s

li e ad ja ce nt to th ese r iv e r s and la k es and a re ch a ra c te riz ed by poo r

d ra in age or a hig h w a te r ta b le (S o il C o n se rvati on S erv ic e 197 5 La nd U se

In vento ry). T his ty pe of land ap p ears to be w ithin th e C orp s' d efi n it io n of

'W etl an ds".

Th e F o r e s t Surv ey co m p il ed by th e U. S. F o r e s t S erv ic e in d ic a te s that

21. 5 p ercen t, or 3 1 /2 m il li o n a c r e s , of F lo r id a 's pro duct iv e fo restl a n d

is gr ow in g on w etl a n d s. In G eo rg ia 18 p ercen t, or 4 1 /2 m il li o n a c r e s ,

1 / G e o r g ia 's c o a s t , w e tl e n d s and g e o lo g ic r e s o u r c e s , e x h ib ite d 

a t th e h e a r in g an d r e tu r n e d to w itn e s s .
241

also 18 perc ent, or 2 1/2 m illi on acr e* . In the regi on that rune gener ally

fro m Vi rgini a to Te xas there are over 33 mil lio n ac re s of productive

fore stlan ds loca ted on wetland s.

Fo re stry Ac tiv iti es Cover ed

The second prin cipal cause of our prob lems is that in its new regulations

the Co rp s com plet ely ign ores the fact that $404 does not apply to nonpoint sou rces

includ ing s ilv icu ltu ra l a ct iviti es . We would like to des cri be some of the spe cif ic

for es t indu stry ac tiv itie s that, under the Co rp s' inte rpre tation, would require

404 per mits if ca rr ied out in this vas t drainage and wetland area. Al l of

these activitie s should be cont rolle d only in the manner and to the extent

provided in $208 plan s.

Vi rtu all y all roads cons tructed by the for est ind ust ry, or for that

mat ter by anyone in this ar ea , would require 404 pe rm its . This is because

they are constru cted by the place ment of ear th, which the Corps rega rds

as a 'di sch arge of fi ll ma ter ial". In the South for est roads through areas

with high water tables are som etim es built by digging two par alle l di tch es --

for wate r con tro l--a nd cas tin g the excavate d ma teria l in between for the

roadbed. This is illu str ate d in Exhibit 9. The sid ecast mate ria l is

regarded as a dis charg e of dredged ma teria l.

Fo r the sam e rea son , cons truc tion of ditch es for any purpose requ ires

a per mit. Exhi bit 10 shows the kind of wate r cont rol ditch used in many

regions for cont rol of exc ess rain and floo dwa ters . This impro ves

conditions for refore sta tion and for est growth.

Whenever a for es t road cr os se s a str ea m, brid ges or cul ver ts are

install ed to provide for normal flow of the water . The se structure s involve

the place ment of ear th or rock in a portion of the str eam channel.

Exhi bit 11 shows a stream cro ssi ng con sisting of a culve rt and a sm all

bridge . If the stream has a norm al flow rate of 5 cubi c feet per second or
242

mo re, the stru ctur e requi re* a perm it for placem ent of the earth or rock

fi ll . Exhibit 12 is intended to give an idea of what a 5 cfs stream looks like.

Pr iva te for est landowners alone con struct or rec onstruc t about 45,000 miles

of road a year with stre am cro ssin gs averaging four per m ile . A larg e

perc entag e of the 180,000 cr os sin gs would require a 404 per mit .

The Corps requ ires perm its for many other act ivi ties if done within its

jur isd ict ion , such as the installatio n of underground pipe or util ity lines or

the placem ent of erosion cont rol str uctur es.

Burdens Imposed by the Pro gra m

We have trie d to show you the vas t acrea ge involved in the 404 program

and the numerous sm all da y-t o-d ay activitie s which are subject to this

pro gra m. The Corps has gr os sl y unde restimated the number of perm its

required for the for est industry alone.

Mo reo ver , the Co rps' regulation s provide for a ver y com ple x, co stl y,

and tim e-co nsu min g perm it proc edure. Needless duplication and unneces sary

delay s are threatened at al l lev els of government. (The unn ecessary burdens

and duplication cause d by the regulations are outlined at pages 4-8 of the

Co mm ent s. Al so attached as Exh ibit 13 is an ana lysis and cha rt showing the

numero us steps involved in getting a 404 per mit . )

Co ngres s gave cle ar dir ect ion in § 101(f) that the proc edures used in

implem entation of the Ac t should:

'tencourage the dra stic min imi zation of paperwork and interagency

dec isio n pro ced ure s, and the best use of availab le manpower ind

fund s, so as to prevent nee dle ss duplication and u nne ces sar y delays

at all leve ls of gove rnme nt. "

Als o, as Senator Muskie sai d, in the statement quoted above:

''The Co nfe ree s were uniquely aware of the pro cess by which the

dredge and fil l perm its are presently handled and did not w ish to

cre ate a burdensome bur eau cra cy in light of the fact that a system

to iss ue perm its already ex is te d. "
We f e e l c e r ta in C o n g ress co uld not hav e co n te m p la te d th e m a s s iv e 40 4

pro gra m u nder ta ken by th e C orp s.

A ll fo r e str y a c tiv it ie s a re no np oi nt s o u r c e s a s th e term is p rop erly

in te r p r ete d . T h ey eit h e r do no t req u ir e re gu la ti on or a re a lr ea d y su b je ct

to so m e oth er fo rm o f re gu la ti on . P la n s a d d r essin g no np oi nt so u r ce p ollu ti on

a re bei ng ad op te d under § 20 8 of th e A ct. P u rs u ant to th e C o a st a l Zon e

M an age m en t A ct , 30 sta te s a re in th e p r o c e ss of ad op ting pla ns r e str ic tin g

th e u s e of w etl a n d s. Man y sta te s hav e fo r e s t p ra cti ce a cts and oth er la w s

d esig n ed to p ro te ct w a te r quali ty . The h a rv esti n g o f ti m b er on fe d era l la nds

is s tr ic tly reg u la te d in th is regard .

E xe m ption fr o m th e on er ou s 40 4 p ro g ra m is e s p e c ia ll y im p ort an t to th e

4. 5 m il li o n p riv a te In div id uals who ow n 60 p ercen t of th is co u n tr y 's p ro d ucti ve

ti m b erla n d s. W hile m o st of th ese p eo p le ow n on ly 40 to 80 a c r e s ea ch , th ey

pro duce 52 p ercen t o f ou r w oo d. Th e w oo d fi b er n eed s of th is co untr y ca nnot

be m et w ithou t th eir ou tp ut . The 40 4 p ro gra m is a re a l d is in cen ti v e to s m a ll

la n d o w n ers. M o r eo v er, it is co n tr a ry to th e fed era l p oli cy of en co u ra gin g

sm a ll la ndow ner s to gr ow ti m b er , as e x p r e ss e d in th e fe d era l F o r e str y

In cen ti ve P r o g ra m (1 6 U. S. C. 150 1 -1 5 1 0 ).

G enera l P e rm it A ppro ac h

The C o rp s, reco g n iz in g th e fa ct th at it s 40 4 p ro gra m w ou ld fa ll of it s

ow n w ei ght if in d iv id u al p erm it s w ere req u ir ed , h as p ro pose d to is s u e g en era l

p e r m it s. Th e le g a li ty of g en er a l p erm it s u nder §4 04 is hig hly q u est io n ab le

b eca u se 40 4 sp ea k s of p erm it s fo r d is c h a r g e '^at sp e c if ie d d is p o sa l sit es" .

H o w ev er, ev en if g en er a l p erm it s w e r e le g a li z e d , th e cu rren t 40 4 pro gra m

as in te rp rete d by th e C orp s w ou ld s t ill be o b je cti o n a b le b eca u se it:

- - g iv e s th e A rm y C orp s o f E n g in eers co n tr o l ov er land u se d e c is io n s

on m il li o n s o f a c r e s of p riv ate and pub lic la nds in d er ogati on of sta te s'

ri ghts an d r e sp o n sib il it ie s;
244

 put* an ag en cy w ith no re le v a n t ex p er ie n ce in ch arge of re g u la ti n g the 

fo rea t, a g ric u lt u re, ro ad co n str u cti o n , and bui ld in g in d u str ie s; and

- - req u ir es re g u la ti o n of a c tiv it ie s w hic h sh ou ld be tr ea te d as no np oi nt 

s o u r c e s no t re qu ir in g reg u la ti o n und er fo r e s t p ra cti ce a c ts , fis h and 

gam e la w s, floo d pla in m an agem en t la w s, §2 08 p la n s, c o a s ta l zo ne 

m an agem en t p la n s, and oth er la w s and re gu la ti on s to o n um ero u s to 

m en ti on.

Th e F ed era l W at er P o ll u ti o n C ontr ol A ct is no t a fed era l la nd u s e a ct.

A s m en ti oned b efo re. C o n g ress re co g n iz ed in § 10 1(b) of th e A ct th at land 

u s e is p rim a r il y th e ri ght and r e sp o n sib il it y of th e sta te s . F e d e ra l land u se 

b il ls hav e bee n d efe ate d in C o n g r ess in recen t y e a r s.

Nor is §404 a w et la n d s p ro te cti o n m e a su r e . C o n g ress did p a ss a 

w et la n d s p ro te ct io n a ct on ly n in e day s a ft er it p a ss ed th e F e d e r a l W at er 

P o ll u ti o n C on tr ol A ct A m en dm en ts o f 19 72. T his w as th e C o a st a l Zon e 

M an age m en t A ct, w hic h p ro v id es fed era l fi n a n cia l su ppor t fo r sta te land 

u s e plann in g in th e c o a sta l zo n e. It is im p ort an t to n ote th at in th is la ndm ark 

le g is la tio n C o n g ress co ntinued to r e co g n iz e th e p rim a ry ri ght an d 

re sp o n sib il it y of th e sta te s to co n tr o l la nd u se .

In fl ation Im pa ct

On M ar ch 30 , 19 76 , ov er 7 m on th s a ft er th e C orp s had im p le m en te d th e 

new 40 4 p ro gra m , it su bm itte d a 5 0 -p a g e In fl ati on ary Im pa ct S ta te m en t (US) 

to th e C ou nci l on W ag e and P r ic e S ta b il it y , pur su an t to E xecu ti ve O rd er No . 

11 82 1. The C or ps di d no t even a tt em p t to a s s e s s th e m ajo r c o s ts im p o sed 

u nder th e 40 4 p ro g ra m , st ati n g:

"A lth ough w e b e li e v e a ll of th e m a jo r im p a cts of th e re g u la ti o n have 

bee n id en ti fi ed , w e h ave b een unab le to qua ntify th em . Q uantifica tion 

is im p o ssib le b eca u se of th e natu re of the pro gra m it s e lf w hic h 

p rovid es fo r c a s e - b y - c a s e public in te r e st evalu ati on s o f in div id ual 

(o r, in so m e c a s e s , g en er a l c la s s e s of ) p erm it a p p li ca ti o n s."

(E m p hasi s a d d e d .)
245

The Corps said that its own costs for the program would be $24-$53 million;

it ducked the issu e of cost to the affected public saying in essence the benefits

would outweigh the costs because the Corps would decide each permit application

on the basis of the public interest. Of cou rse, if this were the tes t for

determining whether a program would have an inflationary impact, there would

be no point in having any agency write an US, since the government presumably

always acts in the public interest.

There are numerous major criticis ms of the Corps ' IIS;

- - The Corps gave no hard data about the geographic

scope of its program even though, as demonstrated by

this statement, such data was available to the Corps.

-- The Corps erroneously assumed that 404 was a w etlands preservation measure and included in the

'benefits" of the program the preservation of

wetlands. If the Corps is correct, then the wetlands

will have to be ’^reserved" by prohibiting or re stricting act ivities thereon. The costs of such prohibitions

or restrictions imposed on the owners of such wetlands

should have been asses sed . If timber cannot be cut

because, say, a road construction permit is denied,

there is a real, measurable economic loss.

- - The Corps should have discounted the benefits claimed

for the program to the extent that its 404 program

duplicates existing regulatory mechanism s.

- - The Corps assumed in its US that general permits were

legal. If this is not so, the cost of the 404 program

would be much higher than $24-$53 millio n, because individual permits would be required.
246

— The C o rp * a s to n is h in g ly c la im s in its US th a t th e c o s t 

to a d m in is te r th e 404 p r o g r a m is p ro b a b ly th e m o s t 

s ig n if ic a n t ec o n o m ic im p a c t of th e p r o g r a m . T h is 

c o m p le te ly ig n o re s th e v e ry s u b s ta n ti a l c o s ts , d ir e c t 

an d in d ir e c t, to th e p r iv a te s e c to r of co m p ly in g w it h th e 

40 4 p ro g ra m .

A lt e rn a ti v e L e g is la ti v e S o lu ti o n s

We hope th e C o m m it te e w il l c o n s id e r le g is la tiv e s o lu ti o n s to th is s e rio u s 

d il e m m a r a th e r th a n le a v in g it to th e c o u r ts . We s til l s u p p o rt th e B re a u x - 

T o w er ty p e of a m e n d m e n t to 40 4 b e c a u se it r e s to r e s 40 4 to w h at w e 

p e rc e iv e a s its o r ig in a l co n c e p t — n a m e ly , to a s s u r e th a t th e E P A w il l n o t 

in t e r f e r e w it h th e C o rp s in it s p r o g r a m s to m a in ta in n a v ig a b le w a te r s w h il e 

re q u irin g th e C o rp s to ta k e w a te r q u a li ty c o n s id e ra ti o n s in to a c c o u n t in 

c a rr y in g out th e s e p r o g r a m s . N e v e r th e le s s , w e th in k th a t §16 o f S. 27 10 as 

p a s s e d by th e H o u se of R e p r e s e n ta ti v e s is an a c c e p ta b le a p p ro a c h to th e 

p ro b le m .

S ecti o n 16 of S. 2710

S ecti o n 16 w o u ld d efi n e n a v ig a b le w a te rs fo r 40 4 p u rp o s e s a s :

"all w a te rs w h ic h a r e p re s e n tly u s e d , o r a r e s u s c e p ti b le to u s e 

in th e ir n a tu r a l c o n d it io n s o r by r e a s o n a b le im p ro v e m e n t a s a 

m e a n s to tr a n s p o r t in t e r s ta t e o r fo re ig n c o m m e rc e s h o re w a rd 

to th e ir o r d in a r y hig h w a te r m a r k , in clu d in g a ll w a te rs w h ic h 

a r e s u b je c t to th e eb b an d flow of th e ti d e s h o re w a rd to th e ir 

m e a n h ig h w a te r m a r k (m e a n h ig h e r h ig h w a te r m a r k on th e w e s t 

c o s t ) . 11

T h is w ould co n fi n e th e 40 4 p r o g r a m e s s e n ti a ll y to th e C o rp s ' tr a d itio n a l 

ju r is d ic ti o n , w h ic h is c u r r e n tly d efi n ed in th e C o rp s ' re g u la ti o n s 

[§ 209 . 12 0( d) (1 )] a s :

" w a te rs th a t h av e b ee n u s e d in th e p a s t, a r e no w u s e d , o r a r e 

s u s c e p ti b le to u s e a s a m e a n s to tr a n s p o r t in te r s ta te c o m m e rc e 

la n d w a rd to th e ir o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m a r k an d up to th e h e a d
247

of n a v ig a ti o n a s d e te rm in e d by th e C h ie f of E n g in e e rs , an d a ls o 

w a te r s th a t a r e s u b je c t to th e eb b an d flow of th e ti d e s h o r e w a r d 

to th e ir m e a n h ig h w a te r m a r k (m e an h ig h e r h ig h w a te r m a r k on 

th e P a c if ic C o a s t) . S ee 33 C F R 20 9. 26 0 (E R 1 1 6 5 -2 -3 0 2 ) fo r a 

m o re d e fin it iv e e x p la n a ti o n o f th is t e r m . "

In a d d it io n , § 16 w ould ad d to th e C o r p s ' ju r is d ic tio n c o v e ra g e of 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t o r co n ti g u o u s to tr a d itio n a lly n a v ig a b le w a te rs . B e fo re 

th e C a ll a w a y c a s e , th e C o rp s n e v e r c la im e d ju r is d ic tio n o v e r w e tl a n d s , 

e x c e p t in s o f a r a s th e y w e re w it h in w a te r b o d ie s , i. e . , s u b je c t to ti d a l a c ti o n 

o r bel ow th e o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m a r k . (S ee §2 09 . 26 0 a s in e ffe c t p r io r to 

C a ll a w a y . ) T h e d e fin it io n o f w e tl a n d s c o n ta in e d in § 16 is c o n s id e ra b ly 

b r o a d e r , an d to th a t e x te n t c o n s ti tu te s an ex p a n sio n of th e C o rp s ' tr a d itio n a l 

a u th o rit y . W e r e g a r d th is a s a re a s o n a b le c o m p ro m is e .

S e c ti o n 16 w o u ld a ls o e x e m p t n o r m a l s ilv ic u ltu r a l, a c ti v iti e s fro m 40 4 

re g u la ti o n . T h is a c tu a ll y m e r e ly r e s ta te s w h at th e F e d e r a l W a te r P o ll u ti o n 

C o n tr o l A ct a lr e a d y p ro v id e s (a s in d ic a te d ab o v e ), th a t 40 4 sh o u ld n o t c o v e r 

s ilv ic u ltu r a l a c tiv itie s b e c a u s e th e y a r e n o n p o in t s o u r c e s .

L ik e §16, th e C o r p s ' r e g u la ti o n s p u r p o r t to e x e m p t n o rm a l s ilv ic u ltu r a l 

a c tiv itie s . H o w e v e r, th e C o rp s h a s in te r p r e te d th is ex e m p ti o n so n a r r o w ly 

th a t it is v ir tu a lly a d ea d l e tte r . T h e H o u se flo o r d e b a te on §16 in d ic a te s 

th a t th e in te n t w as to tr u ly ex e m p t a ll n o r m a l f o r e s tr y a c tiv itie s , in c lu d in g 

ro a d c o n s tr u c ti o n .

F in a lly , §16 d o es p ro v id e a m e th o d fo r th e S e c r e ta r y of th e 

A rm y an d a G o v e rn o r to in c lu d e a d d it io n a l w a te rs th a t sh o u ld b e r e g u la te d 

u n d e r 40 4.

R ep e al of §4 04

We u n d e r s ta n d th e C o m m it te e is c o n s id e rin g r e p e a l of §4 04 . T h e r e 

a r e s e v e r a l p ro b le m s th a t w ould h a v e to b e d e a lt w it h in an y le g is la tio n 

r e p e a li n g §4 04 .
248

F ir s t, b eca u se of th e q u est io n s ab ou t th e m ea nin g of 'p ol lu ta nt" a nd 

't>oint so urce " w ith rela ti o n to ord in ary ea rth -m o v in g a c tiv it ie s d is c u ss e d 

ab ove, sim p le re p e a l of §4 04 co u ld hav e th e eff ec t of m e r e ly tra n sferrin g 

at le a s t par t o f th e o v er reg u la ti o n p ro b le m to th e EPA under §4 02 .

Sec on d, EPA w ou ld req u ir e 40 2 p erm it s fo r so m e d re dge an d fil l 

a c tiv it ie s as poi nt s o u r c e s . T h e C orp s wou ld reta in it s tr a d it io n a l 

p erm it p ro g ra m s. D red g ers w ou ld have to ap pl y to tw o a g en cie s 

fo r p erm it s on a sin g le op erati on .

T hir d, th e R iv er and H ar bor A ct an d th e R ef u se A ct a r e ol d sta tu te s, 

v er y vagu el y dra w n. If §4 04 w e r e rep ea le d , en vir onm enta l gro ups m ig h t 

tr y to g et th e co u rts to in te r p r et th ese la w s as giv in g th e C orp s th e sa m e 

ty pe o f au th or ity th ey cla im u nder §4 04 . T his w ou ld c a u se g re a t co n fu si on 

an d w ou ld no t r e so lv e th e is s u e . Of co u r se , th is p ro b le m co u ld be dea lt 

■with b y pro per le g is la tiv e a cti o n or by cle a r le g is la tiv e h is to r y .

In vie w of th e fa ct th at re p e a l le g is la tio n is no t a v a il a b le fo r co m m en t, 

and du e to th e p ro b le m s m en ti on ed ab ove, w e ca nnot su pport re p e a l of 

§4 04 at th is ti m e.

S. 1843

S. 18 43 , in tr oduce d by S en ato r D o le , con ta in s an in te r esti n g su ggest io n: 

it d e le te s fil l m a te r ia l fr o m §4 04. If , as w e hav e su g g e ste d , n eit h er 402 nor 

40 4 p erm it s w e r e in te nded to be re qu ir ed fo r ord in ary u nco nta m in ate d fil l 

and ea rth -m o v in g a c tiv it ie s , on e so lu ti on to th e 40 4 p ro ble m w ou ld be to 

d ele te fil l m a te r ia l fr om §404. H ow ev er, in o rd er to av oid tra n sfer of the 

p ro b le m to EPA und er §4 02 a s d is c u ss e d ab ove, th e le g is la tiv e h is to ry 

sh ou ld c le a r ly s p e ll ou t th at fo r s il v ic u lt u r e , a g ric u lt u re, an d co n str u c ­

ti on th ese a re no np oi nt s o u r c e a c tiv it ie s su b je ct on ly to th e p ro v is io n s 

of ap pli ca b le §2 08 p la n s. A lt ern a ti v ely , th e d ef in it io n o f 'd is c h a r g e of
249

pollutant" should be amended to make cle ar that it does not cov er the plac ement of ordin ary uncont aminated fil l mate ria l and other eart h-m ovin g

activ itie s for sil vic ul tu ra l purpos es.

The for es t industr y could support this appr oach.

Har t (S. 3663)

Thi s bil l would exempt normal sil vic ultur al ac tiv itie s and gives

autho rity for iss uin g gen era l pe rm its . It would not lim it the geograp hica l

scope of the Co rp s' juris dic tio n. The exemption in the bil l is no broad er

than the exemption in the existin g regulation s for sil vic ul tu re . As we have

dis cu sse d, the Co rp s' cur ren t 404 regulations would subject hundreds of

thousands of nonpoint fo re stry ac tiv itie s to perm it requ irem ents in our

indu stry alone. The total imp act on all affe cted ind ustr ies and landowners

would be enor mou s.

Fo r these re as on s, pa rti cular ly the lack of narrowing the Co rps'

geograph ic juris di cti on , which is ess ential for reducing both u nnecessary

over regula tion and potential for litigat ion , we find this approach unac ceptable.

Con clusion

We support §16 of S. Z710 because it rep rese nts a leg isla tion soluti on

which is a pr ac tic al comp romi se. Any solution to the proble m should re af ­

firm the following bas ic prem ise s of the Federal Water Pollution Co ntr ol Ac t:

(1) Silvicu ltu ra l ac tiv itie s are nonpoint sou rce s and should be

exempt from per mit requ irem ents under 402 and 404.

(2) The sta tes have the prima ry righ t and res pon sibility to cont rol

use of land re so ur ce s. The Co as tal Zone Management Ac t and

existin g state and loc al laws adequately provide for the protection of

wetl ands .

(3) Paperw ork and inte ragency dec isio n proc edures should be
dr ai tic al ly mi nim ize d, to prevent nee die st duplication and u nne cess ary

delay at all leve ls of government. The Corps should be red irec ted to

fulfill its orig inal mandate to meet water quality object ives in dispo sing

of dredge spo il. It should not be permi tted to subvert 404 by expanding

Its jur isd icti on into are as alre ady adequately regul ated else whe re.
251

TATEMENT OF 

WILLIAM H. McCREDIE

F OR TH E

F OREST IN DU STR Y 

BEFORE TH E

COMMITTEE ON PU BLIC WORKS 

UNITED STAT ES SENATE

JULY 28, 19 76

HE ARING ON SE CTION 404 OF TH E 

FEDERAL W A T E R POLLUTION C ONTROL ACT A M ENDMENTS OF 19 72

Liat of Exhibits

1. Forest Industry Co mments on Se ction 40 4 Regu lat io ns to th e

Corps of Engine er s, Oct o b e r 23, 19 75 •

2. Not A t tached - 1: 500 ,0 00 Sca le NASA Sa tellite Im ag e Mosaic 

of th e State of Georgia Submitted to th e Sen ate Pub lic Wor ks 

Committee

3. Map of Kan a w h a Co un ty , W est Virginia

4. Map of Kennebec Co un ty , Ma ine

5. Ma p of C u r r y & Josephine C o u n t i e s , O regon

6. Corps of Engineers M ap of Sa vannah District Dr aina ge

7. Corps of Engineers Map of Sa vannah District Wetlan ds

8. Not Att a c h e d - 1: 250 ,0 00 Sc ale Ma p of Georgia Coa st Sho wing 

Proposed C oastal Zo ne M a nagement Area Submitted to th e Se nate 

Public Works Committee

9. P h otograph of Southern Forest Ro ad Construction in Poorly 

Drained L and

10. Photograph of a M inor Forestry Drainage Dit ch

11. P h otograph of a Low Water Bridge Sh owing Cul vert an d Br idge 

Placement

12. P h otograph of a Ty pical 5 Cu bic Fee t Pe r Se cond Stream

13. C hart S h owing Time Requirements an d St ep s in Co rp s' 404 

Permit Pr ocess

76-161 0 - 76 - 17
252

X H Ib IT 1

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

SECTION 40 4 REGULATIONS - P.L.92 -5 0 0

PUBLISHED JULY 25 , 1975

Forest Ind ustry Comments

Prepared By:

National Forest Products Assn. X /VII

American Paper Instltutw

October 23, 1975
253

•Ip * 0 Hodge*. Jr.

Eaecuhva vice Pres.Jem

National Forest 

Products Association

Forest Industries Buildmo • ,619 Massachusetts Avenue. N W 

Washington. O.C. 20036 • 20 2/ 33 2-10 50

O cto ber 23 , 1975

L ie ute nant G eneral W il li am G. G rib b le , Jr.

C hie f of E n g in eers

F o r r e sta l B uildin g

W as hi ng to n, D. C. 20 31 4

A tt en ti on : D A EN -C W O -N

D ear L ie ute nant G en eral G ri bble :

On behalf o f the N ational F o r e st P rodu ct s A ss o c ia ti o n and th e A m e r ­

ic an P ap er In st it ute and th eir m e m b e r s, we h ereb y su bm it com m en ts on th e

" in te ri m fi nal " reg u la ti o n s is su ed by th e C orp s o f E n g in eers un der S ecti on 40 4

of th e F e d e r a l W at er P oll u ti on C ontr ol A ct . T h ese final regu la ti on s d if fe r

sig n if ic a n tl y fr om th e o rig in a l May 6 p ro p o sa l. In vie w o f th e g r ea t public

and C o n g r e ssio n a l in te r e st in th e S ecti on 404 p ro g ra m and th e s e r io u s q u e s ­

ti on s r a is e d a s to th e p rop er sc op e of th e p rogram , we b e li e v e th at th e s e reg u ­

la ti on s sh ould hav e been publish ed as prop ose d r e g u la ti o n s, to giv e th e public

ad eq uat e opport unit y to com m ent.

Our su b m is sio n c o n s is ts of th ree p arts . P art I d e s c r ib e s th e a r e a s

to w hic h th e S ecti on 404 p rogram , as p r e se n tly str u ctu red , ap p li es an d th e

ty p es o f fo r e s t in d u st ry a c tiv it ie s w hic h we b e li e v e w il l req u ir e p e r m it s n otw it hst andin g th e C orp s' att em pt to exem p t c er ta in sil v ic u lt u r a l a c tiv it ie s . It

a ls o d is c u s s e s th e d u p li cati on of eff o r t r esu lt in g fr o m th e o v e rly br oa d reach

of th e reg u la ti o n s, su ch a s th e ov erla p w it h U. S. F o r e st S er v ic e p r o g r a m s.

We b e li e v e P art I a m p ly d em o n str a te s th e va st bre adth of th e Sec ti on 40 4 p r o ­

gr am and it s p ote n ti al fo r d is rupti ng th e flow o f ti m b er and ti m b er pro du ct s

to th e m ark et, at g r ea t c o st and bu rd en to th e public and w ith ou t c o r r e la ti v e

en vir on m en ta l b en efi t.

In th e vi ew o f th e fo r e s t pro du ct s in d u st ry, th e F ed eral W ater P oll u ti on

C on tr ol A ct p r o v id e s pla in ly th at no np oi nt so u r ce a c tiv it ie s , in cl udin g th ose

in volv in g s il v ic u lt u r e , a g r ic u lt u re and co n str u c ti o n , in so fa r as th ey m ig h t

cau se su b sta n ti al w a te r q u ality con tr ol p r o b le m s, a r e to be co n tr o ll ed w h ere

ap p ro p ri ate th ro ugh p ro g ra m s un de r S ecti on 20 8 of th e A ct ad op te d and ad m in ­

is te r e d by pl an ni ng o rg a n iz a ti o n s d esig n ate d by th e S ta te s. Non po in t s o u r c e

poll uti on is no t su b je ct to reg u la ti on by fe d e r a ll y is su e d p er m it s un de r th e

Acouatlcal and Board Product* Aaaociation • Alaska Loggers Aaaociation • American Institute ot Timber Construction • American Plywood Aaaociation • American Wood 

Preservers Institute • Appalachian Hardwood Manulacturera. Inc. • California Redwood Aaaociation • Canadian Wood Council • Federal Timber Purchasers Aaaociation 

• Fate Hardwoods— American Walnut Association • Hardwood Dimension Manufacturers Association • Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers Association • Industrial 

Forestry Aaaociation • Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association • National Oak Flooring Manulacturera Association • National Particleboard Association • National 

Woodwork Manutacturara Association • North American Wholesale Lumbar Association • Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association. Inc • Northern Hardwood 

and Pina Manulacturera Association. Inc • Aed Cedar Shingle & Hand spill Shake Bureau • Southern Cypresa Manulacturera Association • Southern Foreet Products 

Association • Southam Hardwood Lumber Manulacturera Association • Western Wood Moulding and Millwork Producers • Western Wood Products Aasocfabon.
c t. We a ls o b e li e v e it is c le a r th a t th e A c t c o n fe rs on th e fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t 

j u ris d ic tio n o n ly o v e r c e r ta in w a te r s , and d o e s n o t c o n fe r on th e C o rp s th e 

b ro a d p o w e rs o v e r la nd a r e a s c la im e d in th e S ecti o n 40 4 re g u la ti o n s . F in a ll y , 

we th in k th a t th e S ecti o n 40 4 p ro g r a m w as o n ly in te n d ed to a p p ly to d is c h a r g e s 

o f p o ll u te d m a te r ia ls and n o t to e a rth m o v in g a c tiv itie s .

T he e ffe c t of th is u n a u th o riz e d e x p a n sio n o f th e C o rp s ' ju r is d ic tio n w il l 

be to m a k e m il li o n s of s m a ll la n d o w n e rs s u b je c t to a p e r m it p r o g r a m w hic h 

w il l be c o s tl y an d b u rd e n s o m e fo r th e m to co m p ly w it h. It w il l r e s u lt in n e e d ­

le s s d u p li c a ti o n of e ffo rt and u n n e c e s s a ry d e la y , a s n u m e ro u s fe d e ra l a g e n c ie s 

w il l be re q u ir e d to c o n s id e r m a tte r s (m any of an in s ig n if ic a n t n a tu re ) w hic h 

h av e a lr e a d y b e en c o n s id e re d an d p a s s e d on by s ta te and lo c a l a g e n c ie s . We 

fi nd it d if fic u lt to b e li e v e th a t th is p ro g r a m w ould hav e b e en a u th o riz e d had it s 

e co n o m ic and in fla ti o n a ry im p a c ts b e e n c a r e f u ll y e v a lu a te d in a c c o rd a n c e w it h 

OMB C ir c u la r A - 107 an d E x e c u ti v e O r d e r No. 11 82 1.

In P a r t II o f. o u r s u b m is s io n w e d is c u s s th e A ct, its le g is la tiv e h is to r y , 

and th e a p p li c a b le c a s e la w . We sh ow th a t in o r d e r to c a r r y o ut th e m e a n in g 

of th e A c t and th e in te n t o f C o n g r e s s , th e A rm y C o rp s sh o u ld r e v is e th e S ecti o n 

40 4 re g u la ti o n s to m ak e c le a r th a t:

1. S ecti o n 404 p e r m its a r e re q u ir e d o n ly fo r p o in t s o u rc e 

d is c h a r g e s , and a r e n o t r e q u ir e d fo r n o n p o in t s o u rc e a c tiv itie s 

in clu d in g th o se in volv in g s ilv ic u ltu r e , a g r ic u ltu r e an d c o n s tr u c tio n .

2. The S e c ti o n 404 p r o g r a m a p p li e s only to p o in t s o u rc e 

d is c h a r g e s o f d re d g e d o r fi ll m a te r ia l a t d is p o s a l s ite s s p e c if ie d by 

th e C o rp s w ith th e a p p li c a ti o n of th e c r i t e r i a m e n ti o n e d in S e c ti o n 

403(b ) and s u b je c t to vet o by th e U. S. E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o te c tio n 

A g en cy . P o in t s o u rc e d is c h a r g e s o f d re d g e s p o il s o r o th e r p o ll u ta n ts 

in to th e n a v ig a b le w a te r s a t o th e r p la c e s do n ot r e q u ir e S e c ti o n 40 4 

p e r m its ; th ey do re q u ir e S e c ti o n 40 2 p e r m its a n d m a y r e q u ir e p e r m its 

u n d e r th e R iv e rs an d H a rb o rs A ct o f 18 99 .

3. The t e r m "n a v ig a b le w a te r s " in c lu d e s la n d s o n ly in s o fa r 

a s th e y a r e s u b je c t to th e eb b an d flow of th e ti d e o r a r e w it h in th e 

o r d in a r y hig h w a te r m a rk o f c o v e re d w a te r b o d ie s. It d o e s n o t in ­

c lu d e la n d s w h ic h a r e n o t p a r t of w a te r b o d ie s an d a r e o n ly p e r io d ic a lly in u n d ate d .

4. The t e r m "n a v ig a b le w a te r s " d o e s n o t in c lu d e w a te r s 

w h ic h h a v e no p o te n ti a l fo r in v o lv e m e n t in c o m m e rc e by w a te r t r a n s ­

p o rta ti o n a s a li n k in th e c h a in o f in te r s ta te o r fo re ig n c o m m e rc e .
Joo

5. S e c ti o n 40 4 d o e s n o t a p p ly to fil l m a te r ia l w h ic h is n o t 

a " p o ll u ta n t" a s d e fi n e d in S e c ti o n 502( 6) o f th e A ct.

In P a r t II I o f o u r s u b m is s io n w e hav e s e t fo rth o u r s p e c if ic r e c o m ­

m e n d a ti o n s r e g a rd in g th e re g u la ti o n s , s e c ti o n by s e c ti o n .

We w is h to c o m m e n t h e r e on th e c o n c e p t o f th e " g e n e ra l p e r m it" .

We fe e l th a t th e g e n e r a l p e r m it a p p ro a c h m u s t n o t be u se d a s an e x c u s e o r 

s u b s ti tu te fo r r e v is io n of th e S e c ti o n 40 4 p r o g r a m to c o n fo rm to th e s ta tu to r y 

m a n d a te . A s m e n ti o n e d in th e r e g u la ti o n s , th e r e a r e n u m e ro u s f e d e r a l la w s 

w h ic h a p p ly w hen a f e d e r a l p e r m it is to be is s u e d . T hus to th e e x te n t th a t 

th e S e c ti o n 40 4 p r o g r a m is u n n e c e s s a rily b ro a d , it r e s u lts in d u p li c a ti o n of 

e ffo rt, b u rd e n s o m e p a p e rw o rk , and u n n e c e s s a r y d e la y w hic h e an b e re li e v e d 

only to a v e ry li m ite d e x te n t by g e n e r a l p e r m its .

M o re o v e r, w e u n d e rs ta n d th a t th e g e n e r a l p e r m it a p p ro a c h m ig h t be 

u sed to a u th o riz e c e r ta in f o r e s tr y a c tiv itie s if c a r r ie d o u t in a c c o rd a n c e w it h 

th e s ta n d a r d s s e t fo r th in th e g e n e r a l p e rm it. W ha t th is a m o u n ts to is r e g u ­

la ti o n o f s ilv ic u ltu r a l a c tiv itie s , s o m e th in g w h ic h is a lr e a d y p ro v id e d fo r in 

s ta te f o r e s t p r a c tic e s a c ts an d in U. S. F o r e s t S e rv ic e re g u la ti o n s , and w hic h 

w il l be c o v e re d a s n e e d e d in S ecti o n 20 8 p la n s. T h is o v e rla p is u n n e c e s s a ry 

a s w ell a s u n a u th o riz e d . The s e n s ib le w ay to d e a l w it h th e s e p ro b le m s is to 

av o id th e m in th e f i r s t p la c e by p r o p e r ly d e fi n in g th e sc o p e of th e S e c ti o n 40 4 

p ro g r a m . W it hin th e c o n te x t of a p r o p e r ly d ra w n S e c ti o n 40 4 p r o g r a m , th e 

f o r e s t p ro d u c ts in d u s tr y sta n d s re a d y to w o rk w it h yo u to d e v elo p g e n e r a l 

p e r m its .

We w ould g r e a tly a p p r e c ia te th e o p p o rtu n it y to d is c u s s th e s e c o m m e n ts 

w it h you and y o u r s ta ff.

Y o u rs s in c e r e ly .
250

PART I

IMPACT OF THE SECTION 40 4 REGULATIONS

ON THE FOREST INDUSTRY

T h is P a r t w i l l d e s c r ib e in g e n e r a l te rm s th e la n d 

a r e a s and w a te rs to w hi ch th e §4 04 r e g u la ti o n s w i l l a p p ly , 

th e ty p e s o f f o r e s t r y a c t i v i t i e s wh ich a re o r c o u ld be re g a rd e d 

a s in v o lv in g d is p o s a l o f d re d g ed o r f i l l m a t e r i a l un de r 

th e r e g u l a t i o n s , an d th e bu rd en so m e p a p er w o rk , n e e d le s s 

d u p l ic a ti o n o f e f f o r t an d u n n e c e ss a ry d e la y s t h a t w i l l be 

in v o lv e d in co m pl yi ng w it h th e r e g u la ti o n s . As P a r t I I 

w i l l sho w, th e §4 04 r e g u la ti o n s c o n s t i t u t e an u n a u th o ri z e d 

a s s e r t i o n o f f e d e r a l r e g u la to r y c o n tr o l o v er many d a y - to - 

da y a c t i v i t i e s o f th e f o r e s t in d u s t r y . Th ey w i l l i n t e r f e r e 

an d o v e r la p w it h e x i s t i n g f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s a c t s an d o th e r 

pr og ra m s r e l a t i n g to s i l v i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s .

A. A re as Cov er ed

The d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in th e C o rp s' 

r e g u la ti o n s i s o v e rly b ro a d . I t i s n o t l im ite d to c o a s ta l 

an d f r e s h w a te rs b u t in c lu d e s many la n d a r e a s . T h is i s 

b e ca u se th e C o rp s, w as hi ng to co v er w e tl a n d s , h a s in c lu d e d 

in th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " a l l " a r e a s " t h a t 

a r e " p e r i o d i c a l l y in u n d a te d " an d a re c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p re v a le n c e 

o f " s a l t o r b r a c k is h w a te r v e g e ta ti o n " o r " v e g e ta tio n t h a t 

r e q u ir e s s a t u r a t e d s o i l " . The e f f e c t i s to c o v e r " la n d s " 

t h a t a re "w et " b u t t h a t a re n o t "w e tl a n d s" in th e se n se 

mos t p e o p le th in k o f . As d is c u s s e d in P a r t I I , p p . 1 9 - 2 6 , 

t h i s i s n o t o n ly u n a u th o r iz e d , b u t a ls o u n n e c e s s a ry , b e ca u se 

m os t tr u e w e tl a n d s a re c o v e re d by o th e r c la u s e s o f th e d e f i n i t i o n 

o f " n a v ig a b le w a te r s " .

The p e r io d ic in u n d a ti o n t e s t i s use d w it h o u t r e s t r i c t i o n 

o r d e f i n i t i o n . I t a p p e a rs to c o v er an y fl o o d in g w hi ch o c c u rs 

w it h some fre q u e n c y . (On ce a y e a r? on ce e v e ry f i v e y e a rs ? )

In an y a re a w he re th e w a te r ta b l e i s n a t u r a l l y h ig h , th e r e 

i s l i k e l y to be a p re v a le n c e o f v e g e ta tio n t h a t r e q u ir e s 

s a t u r a t e d s o i l ; th e n a l l i t ta k e s i s a fl o o d in g to make 

th e a re a a "w e tl a n d " w ith in th e m ea ni ng o f th e r e g u l a t i o n s .

T her e a re a b o u t 50 0 m il lio n a c r e s o f co m m er ci al 

f o r e s t la n d in th e U n it e d S t a t e s . In many r e g io n s , s i z e a b le

1 . An u n u su a l a s p e c t o f th e f o r e s t in d u s tr y i s t h a t o v er 

13 6 m il lio n a c r e s o f th e s e la n d s a r e ma nag ed by th e p u b li c 

s e c t o r , in c lu d in g 92 m il l io n a c r e s man age d by th e U .S . 

F o r e s t S e rv ic e an d 21 m il l io n man age d by th e S t a t e s .
257

a r e a s o f p r o d u c ti v e f o r e s tla n d a re fo un d on a c re a g e t h a t 

has poo r d ra in a g e o r sl ow p e r c o l a t i o n . T her e a r e m illio n s 

o f a c r e s o f b o tt o m la n d hardw ood f o r e s t s in th e S outh a lo n e .

Und er th e C o rp s' d e f i n i t i o n , th e la n d b o rd e ri n g m os t r i v e r s , 

la k e s an d s tr e a m s , s in c e i t i s s u b je c t to f lo o d in g , w i l l 

be re g a rd e d as w e tl a n d s w he re ver th e v e g e ta tio n t e s t i s 

m et . To u n d e rs ta n d th e f u l l im pac t o f t h i s , i t m us t be 

rem em be red t h a t th e Cor ps a s s e r t s j u r i s d i c t i o n up to th e 

h e ad w a te rs o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs an d t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s — 

h ead w a te rs b e in g d e fin e d a s th e p o in t a t whi ch fl ow i s n o rm all y 

l e s s th a n 5 c f s (a v e ry sm a ll am ount o f f l o w ). In sum, 

th e C or ps has a s s e r t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v er m il l io n s o f a c r e s 

o f la n d .

M ore over , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

c o n ta in s a c la u s e a u th o r iz in g th e D i s t r i c t E n g in eer to d e s ig n a te 

as " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " o th e r a r e a s su ch a s " i n t e r m i tt e n t 

r i v e r s , s tr e a m s , t r i b u t a r i e s and p e rc h ed w e tl a n d s t h a t a re 

n o t c o n ti g u o u s o r a d ja c e n t to n a v ig a b le w a te r s ." F i n a ll y , 

a s we d is c u s s mo re f u l l y in P a r t I I , pp. 2 6 - 3 2 , th e Cor ps has 

im p ro p e rl y ex pa nd ed th e d e f i n i t i o n o f "w ate rs " to in c lu d e 

c e r t a i n i n t r a s t a t e w a te rs .

B. A c t i v i t i e s C ov er ed

T he re a r e fo u r p ri m ary ty p e s o f f o r e s t r y a c t i v i t i e s 

t h a t , under th e p r e s e n t r e g u la ti o n s , w i l l in v o lv e th e " d is c h a rg e 

o f d re d g ed o r f i l l m a te r ia l" , and th u s r e q u ir e a p e rm it 

i f c a r r i e d o u t in th e la n d a r e a s o r w a te rs d e s ig n a te d as 

" n a v ig a b le w a te r s " :

1. Roa d C o n s tr u c ti o n . C o n s tr u c ti o n o f ro a d s 

i s an ongoin g and im p o rt a n t p a r t o f f o r e s t m an ag em en t.

Ro ad s a r e e s s e n t i a l fo r h a r v e s tin g , f i r e p r o t e c ti o n , and 

some ty p e s o f r e f o r e s t a t i o n . Many f o r e s t ow ne rs p e rm it 

th e p u b li c to us e t h e i r la n d s fo r r e c r e a t i o n , and ro ad s 

a re n e c e s s a ry f o r t h i s p u rp o s e , to o .

The ty p e o f f o r e s t ro ad b u i l t w i l l de pe nd on th e 

t e r r a i n an d th e u se to whi ch i t w i l l be p u t. Some a re r e l a t i v e l y 

per m an en t and may be h a r d -s u r f a c e d . O th e rs a re te m pora ry 

an d may be made by b u lld o z e r . In th e S o u th , a common way 

to b u il d f o r e s t ro a d s i s to d ig two p a r a l l e l d ra in a g e d itc h e s 

s e p a ra te d by an a re a th e w id th o f a ro a d . The e x ca v ate d 

e a r t h i s p i le d i n to th e sp ace be tw ee n th e d i tc h e s . T h is 

s e rv e s th e d u a l f u n c ti o n o f p ro v id in g d ra in a g e an d b u il d in g 

a ro a d .

In an y c a s e wh er e s o i l i s tr u c k e d in to c r e a te 

a ro ad b ed , o r whe re e a r t h i s p la c e d ar ound a c u lv e r t in 

a " n a v ig a b le w a te r " , t h i s i s t r e a t e d a s a " d is c h a rg e o f 

f i l l " under th e r e g u la ti o n s . Eve n whe re e a r t h i s n o t b ro u g h t
258

in from a n o th e r a r e a , ear th m o v in g a c t i v i t i e s a r e c o v e re d ' 

under th e r e g u la ti o n s . In a l e t t e r to NFPA d a te d A ug us t 

2 5 , 1 9 7 5 , th e C h ie f o f E n g in e e rs s t a te d t h a t " th e c o n s tr u c tio n 

o f i r r i g a t i o n and d ra in a g e d itc h e s in w e tl a n d s a r e a s whe re 

th e e x c a v a te d m a te r ia l to c r e a te th e d itc h i s d is c h a rg e d 

in a w e tl a n d a re a or o th e r w a te r^ o f th e U n it ed S ta te s " wo uld 

be a d is c h a r g e o f f i l l m a t e r i a l. In vi ew o f th e e x p a n s iv e

d e f i n i t i o n o f "w et la n d s" an d " w ate rs o f th e U n it ed S ta te s " 

in th e r e g u la ti o n s , a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f p e rm it s w i l l 

be r e q u ir e d .

In W es te rn S t a te s ro a d s m us t be c a r e f u ll y e n g in e e re d 

du e to th e s te e p n e s s o f th e t e r r a i n . H er e, a s in th e r e s t 

o f th e c o u n tr y , m os t ro a d s w i l l r e q u ir e p e rm it s b e cau se 

so o n e r o r l a t e r th ey c r o s s s tr e a m s , an d wh en ev er an y ro ad 

c r o s s e s a " n a v ig a b le w ate r" a p e rm it w i l l be re q u ir e d fo r 

p la c in g f i l l over c u l v e r t s , c o n s tr u c tio n o f b rid g e ab u tm en ts 

an d p i e r s , pla cem en t o f r i p - r a p to p re v e n t str e am ba nk e r o s io n 

an d th e l i k e . P r iv a te f o r e s tla n d ow ne rs a lo n e c o n s tr u c t 

o r r e c o n s t r u c t an e s ti m a te d 4 5 ,0 0 0 m il e s o f ro ad e v ery y e a r , 

eac h m il e h avin g an av era g e o f 4 str e am c r o s s in g s r e q u ir in g 

a c u l v e r t or b rid g e . In th e P a c if i c N o rt h w est and c e r t a i n 

o th e r a r e a s , st re am c r o s s in g s a re more f r e q u e n t.

I t must be re me mb ere d t h a t g o v ern m en ta l f o r e s t 

manag em en t a g e n c ie s , su ch as th e U .S . F o r e s t S e r v ic e , w i l l 

be s u b je c t to t h i s p e rm it re q u ir e m e n t. In f a c t , on e o f 

th e m os t s t a r t l i n g a s p e c ts o f th e 40 4 r e g u la tio n s i s t h a t

a lm o st e v ery m il e o f ro ad c o n s tr u c te d in th e U n it ed S t a t e s ,

w h eth er by th e f e d e r a l g o vern m ent, by S t a te s , by l o c a l i t i e s

o r by p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s , w i l l r e q u ir e a §4 04 p e rm it b eca u se

i t i s s u re to c r o s s a st re am o r go th ro u g h a "w et" la n d 

a r e a re g a rd e d as a " n a v ig a b le w ate r" un de r th e C o rp s’ re g u ­

l a t i o n s .

2 . D ra in ag e D it c h e s an d D ik e s. In many r e g io n s 

f o r e s t s mus t be d ra in e d to be h a rv e s te d o r to a c h ie v e t h e i r 

op tim um g ro w th . C o n s tr u c ti o n o f d ra in a g e d itc h e s o r c a n a ls 

in p o o rly d ra in e d f o r e s t s i s c o v ere d by th e r e g u la ti o n s , 

a s m en ti oned above. M ain te nan ce d re d g in g o f e x is ti n g d itc h e s 

o r c a n a ls w i l l r e q u ir e a p e rm it i f th e e x ca v ate d m a te r ia l 

i s p la c e d in a " n a v ig a b le w a te r" . (Th e no rm al p r a c t ic e 

i s to p la c e th e e x ca v ate d m a te r ia l in th e v i c i n i t y o f th e 

d i t c h , so a s u b s t a n t i a l num ber o f p e rm it s w i l l be r e q u ir e d 

u n le s s th e m a te r ia l i s tr u c k e d e ls e w h e r e .) Once a g a in , 

th e s t a r t l i n g c o n c lu s io n i s t h a t an yone, p u b li c o r p r i v a t e ,

who c o n s t r u c t s or m a in ta in s a d ra in a g e d i tc h o r c a n a l in

2 . The same vi ew i s ta k e n as to " d is c h a rg e s o f dre d g ed 

m a te r ia ls " r e s u l t i n g fro m c o n s tr u c tio n o r m ai n te n an ce o f 

c a n a ls in w e tl a n d s , in th e pre am b le to th e r e g u la ti o n s . 

40 F .R . 31 32 1 (J u ly 2 5 , 1 9 7 5 ).

3 . Fn . 2 , s u p r a .
259

th e no rm al C as hi on w i l l r e q u ir e a p e rm it i f , a s i s l i k e l y ,

th e d r a in a g e d i tc h o r c a n a l i s in a "w et " la n d a r e a t h a t

q u a l i f i e s a s a " n a v ig a b le w a t e r ." We ha ve no way o f e s ti n i a t i ng 

th e p o t e n t i a l num ber o f p e r m it s in v o lv e d h e r e , b u t i t m us t 

be s t a g g e r i n g . C o n s tr u c ti o n o f d i k e s , c au se w a y s, an d c a n a l/ r o a d 

c o m b in a ti o n s a r e a l l c o v e re d .

3 . W ate r S upp ly an d Log P onds. W ater su p p ly 

po nd s a r e c o n s tr u c te d t o p ro v id e d r in k in g w a te r , w a te r f o r 

i n d u s t r i a l p u rp o s e s an d w a te r f o r f i r e p r o t e c t i o n . Log 

s to r a g e po nd s w hi ch e i t h e r imp oun d " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " o r 

a r e l o c a te d in "w et " la n d a r e a s t h a t q u a li f y a s " n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " un de r th p r e g u la ti o n s a r e c o v e re d . A ls o in c lu d e d 

a r e c le a n in g o f e x i s t i n g p o n d s, w he re th e d re d g ed m a t e r i a l 

i s p la c e d in th e s e "w et " la n d a r e a s an d f i l l i n g in o f an y 

po nd w hi ch im po un ds o r i s lo c a te d in su ch a r e a s . The num ber 

o f po nds c o n s tr u c te d ea ch y e a r i s n o t kno wn, b u t i t i s 

p ro b a b ly in th e th o u s a n d s .

4 . S i t e P r e p a r a t io n . Many s i t e s us ed f o r b u il d in g 

w i l l ha ve lo w -ly in g a r e a s w hi ch a r e "w et " la n d s o r th ro u g h 

w hi ch o th e r " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " r u n . In su ch a r e a s th e r e g u la ti o n s 

co v er i n s t a l l a t i o n o f u n d e rg ro u n d p ip e o r u t i l i t y l i n e s , 

in ta k e o r d is c h a r g e p ip e s an d th e l i k e . A g ai n , t h i s i s 

n o t lim i te d to th e f o r e s t in d u s tr y — e v e ry p u b li c o r p r i v a t e 

la nd ow ne r who i n s t a l l s a u t i l i t y l i n e o r u n d e rg ro u n d p ip e

in a "w et " la n d re g a rd e d a s a " n a v ig a b le water* * w i l l ne ed

a §4 04 p e rm it to do s o .

C. U n n e ce ss ar y B ur de ns an d D u p li c a ti o n 

Cau se d by th e R e g u la ti o n s

C o n g re ss ga ve c l e a r d i r e c t i o n in 5 1 0 1 ( f ) t h a t 

th e p ro c e d u re s us ed in im p le m e n ta ti o n o f th e A ct sh o u ld :

"e n c o u ra g e th e d r a s t i c m in im iz a ti o n o f pap er w or k 

an d in te r a g e n c y d e c is io n p r o c e d u r e s , an d th e b e s t 

us e o f a v a i l a b l e man pow er an d f u n d s , so a s to 

p r e v e n t n e e d le s s d u p l ic a ti o n an d u n n e c e s s a ry d e la y s 

a t a l l l e v e l s o f g o v e rn m e n t. "

S e c ti o n 1 0 1 (b ) s t a t e s t h a t :

" I t i s th e p o li c y o f th e C o n g re ss to r e c o g n iz e , 

p r e s e r v e , an d p r o t e c t th e p ri m a ry r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 

an d r i g h t s o f S t a t e s to p r e v e n t , r e d u c e , an d 

e lim in a te p o l l u t i o n , to p la n th e dev el o p m en t and 

u se (i n c lu d in g r e s t o r a t i o n , p r e s e r v a t i o n , an d
260

enhancement) of land and water resources, and 

to consult with the Administrator in the exercise 

of his authority under this Act."

Any attempt to implement the Congressional intent underlying 

$404 must recognize these policies.

The interim final regulations not only require 

very complex, costly, burdensome, and time-consuming procedures 

for permit granting, but also result in needless duplication 

and unnecessary delays at all levels of government. All 

of this is unnecessary insofar as it applies to nonpoint 

source activities, activities in land areas not within water 

bodies, and all other activities for which the regulations 

as currently drafted improperly require a permit. By covering 

these activities, the regulations have unnecesarily increased 

the administrative and economic drain many-fold, to a point 

which is unjustifiable to the applicant, the Corps, and 

the taxpayers, and which could not have been contemplated 

by Congress.

All applications for permits to carry out covered 

activities would have to satisfy a series of major procedural 

requirements. The burdens (especially on small landowners) 

of complying with the regulations for each of the numerous 

activities covered by the regulations will become apparent 

on reading, as will the potential for delay:

1. Permit Application. Each application for 

a permit must include a complete description of the 

proposed activity; its location, purpose and use; schedules; 

names and addresses of adjoining property owners; all 

other federal, state, and local agency approvals required;, 

the type, source, composition, quality, and transportation 

method of the materials involved; and any other information 

requested by the District Engineer. 33 C.F.R. Section 

209.120(h).

2. Public Notice, Comments, and Hearing. The 

District Engineer must give public notice of the 

application; allow an opportunity for and consider 

public comments; hold a public hearing, on the request 

of any person having an interest which may be affected 

by the issuance of the permit; base his decision on 

the record of the hearing; and advise the applicant

in writing of the reasons for any denial. 33 C.F.R.

$209,120 (i) (1) .

3. $401 Certification. Pursuant to $401 of the 

Act, any applicant for a federal permit to conduct
261

an y c t i v i t y w h ic h may “r e s u lt in a d is c h a rg e in t o

n a v ig a b le w a te rs m ust o b ta in a c e r t i f i c a t i o n fr o m

th e s ta te th a t th e d is c h a rg e w i l l com ply w ith th e a p p lic a b le 

e f f lu e n t lim i t a t i o n s and s ta n d a rd s . We b e li e v e th a t 

S40 1, l i k e §404, a p p li e s o n ly to p o in t s o u rc e s . (The 

C o rp s ' p o s it io n on t h is q u e s tio n is n o t c le a r to u s .)

U n le ss th e S ta te ha s is s u e d an y n e c e s s a ry §401 

c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r ha s f a ile d to a c t on a re q u e s t th e r e fo r 

w it h in th re e m o nth s, no p e rm it under th e C o rp s ' §404 

r e g u la tio n s w i l l be g ra n te d . 33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (i) (2 ) ( i ) .

4. C o a s ta l Zone Ma nageme nt C e r t if ic a t i o n . P u rs u a n t 

to §307 ( c ) ( 3 ) o f th e C o a s ta l Zone Ma nage me nt A c t,

16 U .S .C . § 1 4 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , an y a p p lic a n t f o r a fe d e ra l

p e rm it to c o n d u c t an a c t i v i t y a f f e c t in g la n d o r w a te r 

us es in a c o a s ta l zo ne m ust fu r n is h a c e r t i f i c a t i o n 

th a t th e pro p o se d a c t i v i t y w i l l com ply w ith th e S ta te 's 

c o a s ta l zo ne ma nageme nt p ro g ra m . ( A l l t h i r t y e l i g i b le 

c o a s ta l S ta te s a re now in th e p la n n in g ph as e o f pro gra m 

d e v e lo p m e n t. ) Und er th e C o rp s ' r e g u la tio n s , an a p p lic a tio n 

fo r a §404 p e rm it fo r an a c t i v i t y in a c o a s ta l zone 

m ust in c lu d e such a c e r t i f i c a t i o n fr o m th e a p p lic a n t, 

and no p e rm it w i l l be g ra n te d u n le s s th e S ta te (o r 

S e c re ta ry o f Com merce) c o n c u rs in th e c e r t i f i c a t i o n 

o r f a i l s to a c t w it h in s ix m o nth s. 33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( i ) (2 ) 

( i i ) .

5 . E n v ir o n m e n ta l Im p a ct S ta te m e n t. P u rs u a n t 

to § 1 0 2 (2 )(C) o f th e N a tio n a l E n v ir o n m e n ta l P o lic y 

A c t, 42 U .S .C . §43.32 (2 ) (C) , a l l fe d e r a l a g e n c ie s m ust 

p re p a re an e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p a ct s ta te m e n t (E IS ) fo r

a l l m a jo r fe d e r a l a c tio n s ( in c lu d in g is s u a n c e o f p e rm it s ) 

s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t in g th e q u a lit y o f th e human e n v ir o n ­

m e nt. Su ch E IS 's a re o fte n co m p le x, d e t a ile d , v o lu m in o u s , 

an d e x p e n s iv e to pre’ p a re . Und er th e C o rp s ' r e g u la tio n s , 

th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r mus t d e te rm in e w h e th e r an-E IS 

is n e c e s s a ry f o r th e p a r t ic u la r p e rm it a p p lic a tio n ; 

an d i f i t i s , i t m ust be co m p le te d p r io r to an y p u b lic 

h e a rin g on th e a p p lic a tio n . 33 C .F .R . § § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( i ) ( 1 ) ( iv ) 

and 209.1 20 ( 1) .

6. C orp s D e c is io n -M a k in g . In m akin g a d e c is io n 

on th e a p p lic a t io n , th e C orp s m ust a p p ly a co m ple x 

and le n g th y s e r ie s o f g e n e ra l an d s p e c if ic p o lic ie s , 

in c lu d in g th e fa c t o r s and c r i t e r i a m e n tio n e d in th e 

r e g u la tio n s , th e EPA g u id e lin e s d e ve lo p e d p u rs u a n t

to §4 04 (b) o f th e A c t, and p o lic ie s under nu merou s 

o th e r s ta t u te s . The C orp s m ust a ls o en ga ge in s u b s ta n tia l 

in te ra g e n c y c o n s u lta tio n and c o o r d in a tio n . 33 C .F .R .

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (f) an d ( g ) .

7 . EPA R evie w . F in a lly , p u rs u a n t to §404 ( c)
262

f th e A c t, EPA has a v e to po we r o v er an y p e rm it a p p li c a t io n 

i f i t d e te rm in e s , a f t e r c o n s u l ta t io n w it h th e C o rp s, 

t h a t th e d is c h a rg e pro p o se d w i l l ha ve an u n a c c e p ta b le 

a d v e rs e e f f e c t , a s s p e c if ie d in t h a t s e c ti o n . The 

re a s o n s and f in d in g s u n d e rly in g an y su ch d e te r m in a ti o n 

m us t be s e t f o r th in w r itin g .

A ll o f th e ab ov e re q u ir e m e n ts a re in a d d it o n 

to a p p li c a b le s t a t e and lo c a l re q u ir e m e n ts , whi ch may in c lu d e 

co m p li an ce w it h s t a t e e n v ir o n m e n ta l p o lic y a c t s , s t a t e f o r e s t 

p r a c t i c e s a c t s , s t a t e or lo c a l la n d use law s and §2 08 p l a n s , 

to name a fe w. Many o f th e re q u ir e m e n ts m en ti oned ab ov e 

come i n to p la y s o le ly beca use a f e d e r a l p e rm it i s in v o lv e d , 

e . g . , th e §4 01 c e r t i f i c a t i o n , th e C o a s ta l Zone Manag ement 

c e r t i f i c a t i o n , th e f e d e r a l E IS , EPA re v ie w and a num ber 

o f th e in te ra g e n c y c o n s u lti n g p ro c e d u re s . A ls o , in s p e c if i c 

c a s e s th e r e w i l l be a d d it i o n a l o v e r la p s . Fo r in s ta n c e , 

p e rs o n s who p u rc h ase s ta n d in g ti m b er from th e U .S . F o re s t 

S e rv ic e m us t comp ly w it h F o re s t S e rv ic e r u l e s re g a rd in g 

p ro p e r lo g g in g p r a c t i c e s , su ch a s ro ad c o n s tr u c tio n .

We e s ti m a te th e tim e re q u ir e m e n t fo r co m p le te 

p ro c e s s in g o f a §4 04 p e rm it i s bet w ee n 6 mon ths an d 24 m onth s, 

d ep en d in g on th e p ro c e d u ra l s te p s r e q u ir e d . Fo r mos t p r i v a t e 

f o r e s t ow ne rs or m an ag er s t h i s r e q u ir e s a p la n n in g p ro c e s s 

fo r o p e r a tio n s t h a t i s im p r a c tic a l an d i n f l e x i b l e . A ll 

f o r e s t e n t e r p r i s e s — s m a ll , l a r g e , p r i v a t e , o r p u b li c — 

d e a l w it h th e ma nag em ent o f v a r i a b l e s . The whims o f w eat h er 

c o n d it io n s ca n r e s t r i c t o p e r a tio n s in a r e a s t h a t we re, e x p e c te d 

to be a v a i l a b l e . The m ar ket fo r t r e e s p e c ie s o r lo g s i z e s 

ca n ch an ge r a p id ly , r e q u ir in g ch an g es in lo g g in g p la n s .

The se e v e n ts r e q u ir e maximum f l e x i b i l i t y in w ee k- to -w ee k 

h a r v e s t o p e r a ti o n s and a tt e n d a n t sp u r ro ad c o n s tr u c tio n .

The m ar ket can n o t be p r e d ic te d 6 to 24 m on ths ah ead , no r 

ca n th e in d u s tr y p r e d ic t th e f lo o d s an d st o rm s t h a t r e q u ir e 

em er ge nc y flo o d damage r e p a i r s o r em er ge nc y s a lv a g e o p e r a tio n s .

In th e p a s t 40 y e a r s , th ro u g h a m aj or j o i n t e f f o r t 

o f C o n g re ss , f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s , s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s and a g e n c ie s , 

s o i l c o n s e rv a tio n d i s t r i c t s , and fa rm an d f o r e s t ow ner s, 

a g r e a t d e a l o f e x p e ri e n c e has go ne i n to th e a p p lic a tio n 

o f im pr ov ed fa rm in g and f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s , b o th to in c r e a s e 

p r o d u c ti o n o f c ro p s an d to p r o t e c t th e b a s ic s o i l r e s o u r c e .

The pro gra m s dev el o p ed by th e s e g ro u p s ha ve p ro v id ed te c h n i c a l 

a s s i s t a n c e , b a s ic and a p p li e d r e s e a r c h , and e d u c a ti o n to 

p ro v id e fa rm an d f o r e s t ow ne rs th e in fo rm a ti o n ne ed ed to 

do a b e t t e r jo b .

Many 6 t a t e s ha ve f o r e s t p r a c t ic e s a c ts which 

p ro v id e o p e r a ti n g g u id e lin e s fo r su ch a c t i v i t i e s as h a r v e s tin g ,
263

regeneration, fire protection, road construction and logging 

slash disposal. These are regulatory acts which have enforcement 

provisions. Some states require activity permits and others 

notification only. They are administered by state forestry 

agencies with staffs of knowledgeable professional foresters. 

These state agencies have a practical understanding of

day-to-day forest management activities because they manage 

state forestlands and carry out technical assistance programs.

The Corps has considerable expertise and a high 

reputation in the areas with which it has traditionally 

concerned itself, but it is not experienced with respect 

to forestry and there is no reason to believe it can do 

a better job than the States.
264

a rt I I

PROPER SCOPE OF THE S40 4 PROGRAM

The f o r e s t p ro d u c ts in d u s tr y b e li e v e s t h a t th e 

in te r im f in a ^ r e g u la tio n s p ro m u lg ate d by th e Army C or ps 

o f E n g in e e rs 1 2 ex ce ed th e a u th o r i t y g ra n te d un de r S4 04 o f 

th e F e d e ra l W ate r P o llu tio n C o n tr o l Ac t in fo u r re g a rd s : 

f i r s t , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e o f dre dged o r f i l l 

m a te r ia l" sh o u ld in c lu d e o n ly d is c h a rg e s fro m p o in t so u rc e s ; 

se c o n d , th e r e g u la tio n s sh o u ld ap p ly o n ly to su ch d is c h a r g e s 

when made a t d is p o s a l s i t e s s p e c if ie d by th e Cor ps in a c ­

c o rd an c e w it h §4 04 ; t h i r d , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " sh o u ld n o t in c lu d e la n d a re a s e x ce p t in s o f a r as 

th e y a re w it h in w ate r b o d ie s , no r sh ould i t in c lu d e i n t r a s t a t e 

w a te r b o d ie s whi ch a re n o t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d 

in com me rce by w ate r tr a n s p o r ta ti o n ; and f o u r th , " f i l l m a te ria l 

sh o u ld be d e fin e d to e x c lu d e m a te ria l which i s n o t a " p o llu ta n t 

a s d e fin e d in § 5 0 2 (6 ) o f th e A ct.

OVERVIEW

A. Majo r F e a tu re s o f th e Ac t

The o v e r rid in g o b j e c t iv e o f th e A ct, a s s t a te d 

in 5 1 0 1 ( a ) , i s to r e s t o r e an d m a in ta in th e i n t e g r i t y o f 

th e N a ti o n 's w a te r s . To t h i s en d , th e Ac t s e t s f o r t h c e r t a i n 

g o a ls , to be ac co m p li sh ed by a d iv is io n o f la b o r among th e 

f e d e r a l g over nm en t, th e S t a te s and lo c a l o r g a n iz a tio n s .

T he se g o a ls a r e to be me t w it h in th e fra me wo rk o f s t a t e d 

p o l i c i e s , on e o f th e m os t im p o rt a n t o f whi ch ( 5 1 0 1 (b ) ) 

s t a t e s th a t:

" i t i s th e p o lic y o f th e C ongre ss to re c o g n iz e , 

p re s e rv e and p r o t e c t th e p ri m ary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 

an d r i g h t s o f S t a te s to p r e v e n t, re d u c e , an d 

e lim in a te p o l l u t i o n , to p la n th e dev el opm en t 

and use (i n c lu d in g r e s t o r a t i o n , p r e s e r v a tio n , 

and en han ce m en t) o f la n d an d w ate r r e s o u r c e s , 

and to c o n s u lt w it h th e A d m in is tr a to r in th e 

e x e r c is e o f h i s a u th o r i t y un de r t h i s A c t. "

1 . 33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 , 40 F .R . 31 32 2 (J u ly 2 5 , 1 9 7 5 ).

2 . The A ct, a s ame nded in 1 9 7 2 , 86 S t a t . 8 1 6 , i s s e t o u t 

a t 33 U .S .C . §1 25 1 f f . S e c ti o n 40 4 i s a t 33 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 4 .
265

regeneration, fire protection, road construction and logging 

slash disposal. These are regulatory acts which have enforcement 

provisions. Some states require activity permits and others 

notification only. They are administered by state forestry 

agencies with staffs of knowledgeable professional foresters. 

These state agencies have a practical understanding of

day-to-day forest management activities because they manage 

state forestlands and carry out technical assistance programs.

The Corps has considerable expertise and a high 

reputation in the areas with which it has traditionally 

concerned itself, but it is not experienced with respect 

to forestry and there is no reason to believe it can do 

a better job than the States.
266

a rt I I

PROPER SCOPE OF THE $40 4 PROGRAM

The fo r e s t p ro d u c ts in d u s tr y b e li e v e s th a t th e 

in te r im f i n a | r e g u la tio n s p ro m u lg a te d by th e Arm y C orp s 

o f E n g in e e rs 1 2 exce ed th e a u t h o r it y g ra n te d under §404 o f 

th e F e d e ra l W ate r P o llu t io n C o n tro l A c t in fo u r re g a rd s : 

f i r s t , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f "d is c h a rg e o f dre dged o r f i l l 

m a te r ia l" sh o u ld in c lu d e o n ly d is c h a rg e s fr o m p o in t s o u rc e s ; 

seco nd, th e r e g u la tio n s s h o u ld a p p ly o n ly to su ch d is c h a rg e s 

wh en made a t d is p o s a l s it e s s p e c if ie d by th e C orp s in acc o rd a n ce w ith §404; t h i r d , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f "n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " sh o u ld n o t in c lu d e la n d a re a s e xce p t in s o fa r as 

th e y a re w it h in w a te r b o d ie s , no r sh o u ld i t in c lu d e in t r a s t a t e 

w a te r b o d ie s w h ic h a re n o t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d 

in comme rce by w a te r t r a n s p o r ta tio n ; and fo u r th , " f i l l m a te r ia l 

s h o u ld be d e fin e d to e x c lu d e m a te r ia l w hic h i s n o t a " p o llu t a n t 

as d e fin e d in §502(6 ) o f th e A c t.

OVERVIEW

A. M a jo r F e a tu re s o f th e A c t

The o v e r r id in g o b je c tiv e o f th e A c t, as s ta te d 

in § 1 0 1 (a ), is to r e s to r e an d m a in ta in th e in - t e g r ity o f 

th e N a tio n 's w a te rs . To t h i s end, th e A c t s e ts f o r t h c e r ta in 

g o a ls , to be a cco m p lish e d by a d iv is io n o f la b o r among th e 

fe d e r a l g o ve rn m e n t, th e S ta te s and lo c a l o r g a n iz a tio n s .

Th es e g o a ls a re to be met w it h in th e fram ew ork o f s ta te d 

p o lic ie s , on e o f th e m ost im p o rta n t o f w h ic h (§ 1 0 1 ( b ) ) 

s ta te s t h a t :

" i t is th e p o lic y o f th e C ongre ss to re c o g n iz e , 

p re s e rv e and p r o te c t th e p rim a ry r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s 

an d r ig h t s o f S ta te s to p re v e n t, re d u c e , an d 

e lim in a te p o ll u t i o n , to p la n th e d e velo pm ent 

an d us e ( in c lu d in g r e s t o r a t io n , p r e s e r v a tio n , 

an d enha nc em en t) o f la n d and w a te r re s o u rc e s , 

an d to c o n s u lt w ith th e A d m in is tr a to r in th e 

e x e rc is e o f h is a u t h o r it y under t h i s A c t."

1 . 33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 , 40 F .R . 31 322 (J u ly 25, 1 9 7 5 ).

2 . Th e A c t, as amended in 1972, 86 S ta t. 816, is s e t o u t 

a t 33 U .S .C . §1 251 f f . S e c ti o n 404 is a t 33 U .S .C . §1344.
267

r e g e n e r a tio n , f i r e p r o t e c ti o n , ro ad c o n s tr u c tio n and lo g g in g 

s la s h d i s p o s a l . The se a re r e g u la to r y a c t s whi ch ha ve e n fo rc e m e n t 

p r o v is io n s . Some s t a t e s r e q u ir e a c t i v i t y p e rm it s an d o t h e r s 

n o t i f i c a t i o n o n ly . The y a re a d m in is te re d by s t a t e f o r e s t r y 

a g e n c ie s w it h s t a f f s o f know le dgea ble p r o f e s s io n a l f o r e s t e r s . 

The se s t a t e a g e n c ie s ha ve a p r a c t i c a l u n d e rs ta n d in g o f

d a y -to -d a y f o r e s t ma nagem ent a c t i v i t i e s b ecau se th e y ma nag e 

s t a t e f o r e s t la n d s an d c a r r y o u t te c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e p ro g ra m s.

The C or ps h as c o n s id e r a b le e x p e r t is e and a h ig h 

r e p u ta ti o n in th e a r e a s w it h whi ch i t h as t r a d i t i o n a l l y 

c o n cern ed i t s e l f , b u t i t i s n o t e x p e ri e n c e d w it h r e s p e c t 

to f o r e s t r y an d th e r e i s no re a s o n to b e li e v e i t ca n do 

a b e t t e r jo b th a n th e S t a te s .

76-161 0 - 76 - 18
268

P a rt I I

PROPER SCOPE OF THE $4 04 PROGRAM

The f o r e s t p ro d u c ts in d u s tr y b e li e v e s t h a t th e 

in te r im f i n a | r e g u la tio n s p ro m u lg ate d by th e Army C or ps 

o f E n g in e e rs 1 2 ex ce ed th e a u th o r i t y g ra n te d un de r §4 04 o f 

th e F e d e ra l W ate r P o llu tio n C o n tr o l Ac t in fo u r re g a rd s : 

f i r s t , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e o f d re dged o r f i l l 

m a te r ia l" sh o u ld in c lu d e o n ly d is c h a rg e s fro m p o in t s o u rc e s ; 

se c o n d , th e r e g u la ti o n s sh o u ld a p p ly o n ly to su ch d is c h a r g e s 

when made a t d is p o s a l s i t e s s p e c if i e d by th e Cor ps in a c ­

c o rd a n c e w it h $4 04 ; t h i r d , th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " sh o u ld n o t in c lu d e la n d a r e a s ex ce p t in s o f a r a s 

th e y a r e w it h in w ate r b o d ie s , no r sh ould i t in c lu d e i n t r a s t a t e 

w a te r b o d ie s which a re n o t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d 

in com me rce by w ate r tr a n s p o r ta ti o n ; and f o u r th , " f i l l m a te ria l" 

sh o u ld be d e fin e d to ex clu d e m a te r ia l which i s n o t a " p o llu ta n t" 

a s d e fin e d in $ 5 0 2 (6 ) o f th e A ct.

OVERVIEW

A. M ajor F e a tu re s o f th e Ac t

The o v e r rid in g o b je c tiv e o f th e A c t, as s t a te d 

in $ 1 01 ( a ) , i s to r e s t o r e an d m a in ta in th e i n t e g r i t y o f 

th e N a tio n 's w a te rs . To t h i s en d , th e A ct s e t s f o r t h c e r t a i n 

g o a ls , to be ac co m p li sh ed by a d iv is io n o f la b o r among th e 

f e d e r a l gover nm en t, th e S t a te s an d lo c a l o r g a n iz a tio n s .

The se g o a ls a re to be met w it h in th e fra me wo rk o f s t a te d 

p o l i c i e s , on e o f th e mos t im p o rt a n t o f whi ch ($ 1 0 1 ( b ) ) 

s t a t e s th a t:

" i t i s th e p o li c y o f th e C ongre ss to re c o g n iz e , 

p re s e rv e an d p r o t e c t th e p ri m ary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 

an d r i g h t s o f S t a t e s to p r e v e n t, re d u c e , and 

e li m in a te p o l l u t i o n , to p la n th e dev el opm en t 

an d use (i n c lu d in g r e s t o r a t i o n , p r e s e r v a tio n , 

an d en han ce m en t) o f la n d an d w ate r r e s o u r c e s , 

an d to c o n s u lt w it h th e A d m in is tr a to r in th e 

e x e r c is e o f h is a u th o r i t y un de r t h i s A c t. "

1 . 33 C .F .R . $ 2 0 9 ,1 2 0 , 40 F .R . 31 32 2 (J u ly 2 5 , 1 9 7 5 ).

2 . The A ct, as amend ed in 1 9 7 2 , 86 S t a t . 8 1 6 , i s s e t o u t 

a t 33 U .S .C . $1 25 1 f f . S e c ti o n 40 4 i s a t 33 U .S .C . $ 1 3 4 4 .
269

The Ac t ma kes a d i s t i n c t i o n be tw ee n " p o in t s o u rc e * 

d is c h a r g e s an d "n o n p o in t so u rc e" p o l l u t i o n . The f e d e r a l 

gov er nm en t i s to e s t a b l i s h a p e rm it sy st em a d m in is te re d 

by th e E n v ir o n m en ta l P r o te c tio n Agenc y f o r c o n tr o l l in g 

p o l lu t i o n fro m " p o in t so u rc e d is c h a r g e s " , w hi ch may be ta k e n 

o v er by q u a lif y in g S t a t e s . W ith r e s p e c t to "n o n p o in t so u rc e" 

p o l l u t i o n , th e f e d e r a l gov er nm en t h as no d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 

fo r c o n tr o l; r a t h e r , i t s r o le i s lim ite d to is s u in g in fo rm a ti o n , 

ma king g r a n ts and a p p ro v in g §2 08 p la n s . Un de r S 208 , th e 

p la n n in g o r g a n iz a tio n s d e s ig n a te d by eac h S ta te m us t d ev elo p 

" e f f e c t iv e a re a w id e w ast e tr e a tm e n t ma nagem ent p la n s " fo r 

eac h a r e a w it h in th e S ta te whi ch h as s u b s t a n t i a l w ate r q u a li t y 

c o n tr o l p ro b le m s. The se p la n s mus t in c lu d e a p ro c e s s to 

i d e n t i f y , i f a p p r o p r i a te , n o n p o in t so u rc e s o f p o l lu t i o n , 

in c lu d in g th o s e in v o lv in g a g r i c u l t u r e , s i l v i c u l t u r e and 

c o n s t r u c t i o n , an d mus t s e t f o r t h m et ho ds and p ro c e d u re s 

to c o n tr o l th em .

The d i s t i n c t i o n be tw ee n p o in t s o u rc e s and n o n p o in t 

s o u rc e s i s n o t al w ay s c l e a r . The U .S . E n v ir o n m en ta l P r o te c tio n 

Ag enc y i s w or ki ng on a d e f i n i t i o n a t t h i s ti m e , and a s th e r e 

a re p o s s ib le a r e a s o f d is a g re e m e n t among e n v ir o n m e n ta li s ts , 

th e EPA, an d a f f e c te d mem bers o f th e p u b lic , we w i l l l i m i t 

our d is c u s s io n in t h i s p r e s e n ta tio n to c e r t a i n g e n e ra l p r i n c i p l e 

" P o in t so u rc e" i s d e fin e d in $ 5 0 2 (1 4 ) as ;

"any d i s c e r n i b l e , c o n fi n e d and d i s c r e t e co nv ey an ce 

in c lu d in g b u t n o t lim ite d to an y p ip e , d i tc h , 

c h a n n e l, tu n n e l, c o n d u it , w e ll, d i s c r e t e f i s s u r e , 

c o n ta i n e r , r o l l i n g s to c k , c o n c e n tr a te d an im al 

fe e d in g o p e r a tio n , o r v e s s e l o r o th e r f l o a t i n g 

c r a f t , fro m wh ich p o l l u t a n t s a r e o r may be d is c h a rg e d .

"N on po in t so u rc e" i s n o t d e fin e d in th e A c t. I t i s g e n e r a ll y 

a g re e d t h a t " p o in t so u rc e" in c lu d e s d is c h a r g e s o f i n d u s t r i a l 

an d m u n ic ip a l w a s te , fo r w hi ch i t makes se n se to ha ve a 

p e rm it c o n ta in in g e f f l u e n t l i m i t a t i o n s under $3 01 o f th e 

A ct. (U nd er $ 3 0 1 , e f f l u e n t l i m i t a t i o n s a r e bas ed on a p p li c a ­

t io n o f s p e c if i e d ty p e s o f c o n tr o l te c h n o lo g y to re d u ce 

o r e li m in a te d is c h a r g e s o f p o l lu t a n ts ; e f f l u e n t l im i ta t io n s 

im pl y m o n it o ri n g re q u ir e m e n ts , f o r th e r e i s g e n e r a ll y no 

way to d e te rm in e w het her a l i m i t a t i o n i s b e in g me t w it h o u t 

p e rf o rm in g t e s t s . ) N onp oi nt so u rc e p o l l u t i o n , on th e o th e r 

han d, i s g e n e r a lly re g a rd e d as co m p ri si n g d i f f u s e s o u rc e s 

o f p o l l u t i o n fo r whi ch c o n tr o l by a p e rm it sy st em o r e f f l u e n t

3 . $ 4 0 2 .

4 . $ $ 1 0 5 ( b ) , 2 0 8 , and 3 0 4 .
270

im i t a t i o n s do es n o t make s e n s e . N on poin t so u rc e p o l lu t i o n 

i s b e s t c o n tr o lle d by " p r o c e s s e s , p ro c e d u re s and m etho ds " 

su ch a s go od ma nag em ent p r a c t i c e s . The d e f i n i t i o n o f p o in t 

so u rc e m us t be lo oked a t in t h i s l i g h t : th u s f o r ex am ple , 

th ough th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " p o in t so u rc e" in c lu d e s " d itc h e s " , 

i t wo uld n o t make se n se to r e q u ir e a p e rm it w it h e f f l u e n t 

l i m i t a t i o n s fo r ev er y d ra in a g e d i t c h .

Un der th e A ct n o n p o in t so u rc e a c t i v i t i e s in c lu d e 

th o s e in v o lv in g s i l v i c u l t u r e , a g r i c u l t u r e an d c o n s tr u c tio n . 

As s t a t e d in an EPA p u b lic a tio n on th e s u b je c t:

" P o ll u ti o n c o n tr o l in f o r e s t r y does n o t c o n s i s t 

o f r e c t i f i c a t i o n and tr e a tm e n t o f p o llu te d e f ­

f l u e n t s im m ed ia te ly p r i o r to d is c h a rg e to an 

e n v ir o n m en ta l r e c e p to r , e . g . , a st re am o r la k e . 

P o llu ti o n fro m f o r e s t la n d s i s n o n p o in t in o r i g in 

an d th u s d e f ie s tr e a tm e n t in th e c o n v e n ti o n a l 

s e n s e . The tr e a tm e n t an d c o n tr o l m et hod olo gy, 

t h e r e f o r e , i s p r i n c i p a l l y th e f o r e s t ma nagem ent 

sy st em —a co m b in a ti o n o f p r a c t ic e s an d m et ho ds 

em ploy ed in th e h a r v e s t o f tr e e s ; lo g tr a n s p o r t; 

r e f o r e s t a ti o n ; f o r e s t p r o te c tio n ( f i r e , d i s e a s e , 

i n s e c t s , wee d t r e e s ) ; an d gr ow th p ro m o ti o n — a d ap te d 

a s n e c e s s a ry to a c h ie v e en v ir o n m en ta l g o a ls in 

u n io n w it h r e a l i z a t i o n o f o th e r g o a ls , whi ch in c lu d e

5 . 5 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( F ) an d (H) ; 53 04 ( e ) . EPA s t u d i e s t h a t a d d re s s

n o n p o in t s i l v i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s in c lu d e :

Meth ods fo r I d e n ti f y i n g an d E v a lu a ti n g th e N atu re 

an d E x te n t o f N onpoin t S o u rc es o f P o l l u ta n t s , 

E P A -4 3 0 /9 -7 3 -0 1 4 , W as hin gto n, D .C ., O cto b er 1 9 7 3 .

P r o c e s s e s , P ro c e d u re s , an d M etho ds to C o n tr o l 

P o llu ti o n R e s u lt in g from S i l v i c u l t u r a l A c t i v i t i e s , 

E P A -4 3 0 /9 -7 3 -0 1 0 , W as hin gto n, D .C ., O cto b er 1 9 7 3 .

Lo gg ing Ro ads and P r o te c tio n o f W ate r Q u a li ty ,

Reg io n X S i l v i c u l t u r e P r o j e c t , E P A -9 1 0 /9 -7 5 -0 0 7 , 

S e a t t l e , W as hin gto n, Ma rch 1 9 7 5 .

F o re s t H a rv e s t- R e g e n e ra ti o n A c t i v i t i e s and P r o te c tio n 

o f W ate r Q u a li ty ( d r a f t ) , Reg io n X S i l v i c u l t u r e 

P r o j e c t , S e a t t l e , W as hin gto n.

S i l v i c u l t u r e C h em ic al s and P r o te c tio n o f W ater 

Q u a li ty (p r o p o s e d ), R eg io n X S i l v i c u l t u r e P r o j e c t , 

EPA, S e a t t l e , W as hin gto n.

S i l v i c u l t u r e C h em ic al s an d P r o te c tio n o f W ater 

Q u a li ty (p r o p o s e d ), R eg io n X S i l v i c u l t u r e P r o j e c t , 

EPA, S e a t t l e , W as hin gto n.
271

as a minim um th e p ro d u c tio n o f lu m ber and o th e r 

f o r e s t p ro d u c ts a c h ie ve d by h a rv e s t o f t r e e s . " 6

The E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o te c tio n Age nc y ha s g iv e n c le a r r e c o g n itio n 

th a t such s i l v i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s as c o n s tr u c tio n and m a in te n a n ce 

o f lo g g in g ro ads and t r a i l s a re n o n p o in t in n a tu r e . 7 8

B. U n a u th o riz e d C overa ge o f N o n p o in t S ourc es

g

S e c ti o n 40 4 , p r o p e r ly c o n s tr u e d , a p p lie s o n ly

6. P ro ce sse s, P ro ce d u re s an d M eth ods, fn . s u p ra , p . 11 .

7 . Lo ggin g R oa ds, f n . s u p ra , p . 11, p a s s im .

8 . S e c ti o n 404 p r o v id e s :

"(a ) The S e c re ta ry o f th e Arm y, a c tin g th ro u g h th e C h ie f 

o f E n g in e e rs , may is s u e p e rm it s , a f t e r n o tic e and op ­

p o r t u n it y f o r p u b lic h e a rin g s f o r th e d is c h a rg e o f dre dged 

or f i l l m a te r ia l in t o th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs a t s p e c if ie d 

d is p o s a l s it e s .

" (b ) S u b je c t to s u b s e c ti o n (c ) o f t h is s e c tio n , ea ch 

su ch d is p o s a l s i t e s h a ll be s p e c if ie d fo r ea ch su ch 

p e rm it by th e S e c re ta ry o f th e Army (1 ) th ro u g h th e 

a p p lic a tio n o f g u id e lin e s d e ve lo p e d by th e A d m in is tr a to r , 

in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e S e c re ta ry o f th e Arm y, w hic h 

g u id e lin e s s h a ll be ba se d upon c r i t e r i a com para ble to 

th e c r i t e r i a a p p lic a b le to th e t e r r i t o r i a l se a s, th e 

c o n ti g u o u s zone, an d th e oc ean under s e c tio n 4 0 3 (c ), 

an d (2 ) in an y case whe re su ch g u id e lin e s under c la u s e 

(1 ) a lo n e w ould p r o h ib it th e s p e c if ic a t io n s o f a s i t e , 

th ro u g h th e a p p lic a tio n a d d it io n a lly o f th e eco no m ic 

im p a ct o f th e s i t e on n a v ig a tio n and a n ch o ra g e .

" ( c ) Th e A d m in is tr a to r is a u th o riz e d to p r o h ib it th e 

s p e c if ic a t io n ( in c lu d in g th e w it h d ra w a l o f s p e c if ic a t io n ) 

o f any d e fin e d a re a as a d is p o s a l s i t e , an d he is a u th o riz e d 

to deny o r r e s t r i c t th e us e o f an y d e fin e d are a fo r 

s p e c if ic a t io n ( in c lu d in g th e w it h d ra w a l o f s p e c if ic a t io n ) 

as a d is p o s a l s i t e , w henever he d e te rm in e s , a f t e r n o tic e 

and o p p o r tu n ity f o r p u b lic h e a rin g s , th a t th e d is c h a rg e 

o f su ch m a te r ia ls in t o such a re a w i l l ha ve an u n a c c e p ta b le 

ad vers e e f f e c t on m u n ic ip a l w a te r s u p p lie s , s h e llf is h 

be ds an d f is h e r y a re a s ( in c lu d in g spaw nin g an d b re e d in g 

a r e a s ), w i l d l i f e , o r r e c r e a t io n a l a re a s . B e fo re m aking 

su ch d e te rm in a tio n , th e A d m in is tr a to r s h a ll c o n s u lt 

w ith th e S e c re ta ry o f th e Arm y. The A d m in is tr a to r s h a ll 

s e t f o r t h in w r it in g an d make p u b lic h is fin d in g s and 

h is re asons fo r m akin g an y d e te rm in a tio n under t h is 

s u b s e c tio n ."
272

o d is c h a rg e s fro m p o in t s o u r c e s . S e c ti o n 4 0 4 (a ) g iv e s 

th e S e c re ta ry o f th e Army (t h ro u g h th e Cor ps o f E n g in e e rs ) 

a u th o r i t y to is s u e p e rm it s " fo r th e d is c h a rg e o f dre d g ed 

o r f i l l m a te ria l in to th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs a t s p e c if ie d 

d is p o s a l s i t e s " . S e c ti o n 5 0 2 (1 6 ) p ro v id e s t h a t " [ t ] h e te rm 

'd is c h a r g e * when use d w it h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n in c lu d e s a 

d is c h a r g e o f a p o l l u t a n t , an d a d is c h a rg e o f p o l l u t a n t s . "

And § 5 0 2 (1 2 ) p ro v id e s :

"The te rm 'd is c h a r g e o f a p o l l u t a n t ' an d th e te rm 

'd is c h a r g e o f p o l l u t a n t s ' ea ch me ans (A) an y ad ­

d i ti o n o f any p o l lu t a n t to n a v ig a b le w a te rs fro m 

any p o in t s o u rc e , (B) an y a d d it io n o f an y p o l l u t a n t 

to th e w a te rs o f th e c o n ti g u o u s zone o r th e oce an 

fro m any p o in t s o u rc e o th e r th an a v e s s e l o r o th e r 

f lo a t i n g c r a f t . " (E m ph as is a d d e d .)

S e n a to r M us ki e, th e p r i n c i p a l sp onso r o f th e A ct, e x p la in e d 

in d is c u s s in g th e b i l l r e p o rte d by th e c o n fe re e s and u lti m a te ly 

e n a c te d , " [ t ) h e te rm 'd is c h a r g e ' i s a wor d o f a r t in th e 

l e g i s l a t i o n . I t r e f e r s to th e a c tu a l d is c h a rg e fro m a 

p o in t so u rc e in to th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs , t e r r i t o r i a l s e a s 

o r th e o c e a n s .” (E m ph as is a d d e d .)

9 . 11 8 Co ng. Rec . 33 69 9 (1 9 7 2 ) , r e p r in te d in A L e g is la tiv e

H is to ry o f th e W ate r P o llu tio n C o n tr o l Ac t Ame ndme nts o f

1 9 7 2 , Co mmi tte e P r i n t , 9 3 rd C o n g ., 1 s t S e ss . (1 9 7 3 ) (h e r e in ­

a f t e r "L eg . H i s t . " ) , a t 1 7 8 .

The re a so n why th e r e i s a d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e 

o f a p o llu ta n t" an d a ls o o f " d is c h a rg e " i s fo un d in th e 

l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y . I t h a s n o th in g w hate ver to do w it h 

an y i n t e n t to in c lu d e n o n p o in t so u rc e a d d it io n s in th e te rm 

" d is c h a rg e " . The S e n a te b i l l had o n ly a d e f i n i t i o n o f 

" d is c h a rg e " whi ch was d e fin e d so a s n o t to in c lu d e n o n p o in t 

s o u rc e p o l lu t i o n . See S. 27 70 92 d C ong., 1 s t S e s s . (1 9 7 1 ), 

§ 5 0 2 (n ), a t 16 6 Le g. H is t, a t 1 6 9 9 . The Hou se b i l l d e fin e d 

" d is c h a rg e o f a p o llu ta n t" a s d oes th e p r e s e n t § 5 0 2 ( 1 2 ) , 

b u t i t a ls o in c lu d e d a d e f i n i t i o n o f "th e rm a l d is c h a rg e " 

a s th e " in tr o d u c tio n o f w a te r i n to th e n a v ig a b le w a t e r s . . . 

fro m a p o in t so u rc e a t a [ d i f f e r e n t ] t e m p e r a t u r e . ... " H.R . 

1 1 8 9 6 , 92 d C ong., 2d S e ss . (1 9 7 2 ), § § 5 0 2 (1 3 ) and 5 0 2 ( 1 7 ) , 

a t 3 7 3 - 4 , 3 7 5 , Le g. H is t, a t 1 0 6 9 -7 0 , 1 0 7 1 . S in ce th o s e 

tw o te rm s we re in te n d e d to be " m u tu all y e x c lu s iv e " (H ou se 

Re p. a t 1 3 1 , Le g. H is t, a t 8 1 8 ) , th e Hou se b i l l ad de d a 

g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e " a s in c lu d in g "a d i s ­

c h a rg e o f a p o l l u t a n t , a d is c h a r g e o f p o l l u t a n t s , an d a 

th e rm a l d is c h a rg e " — a l l p o in t so u rc e d is c h a r g e s . H.R .

1 1 8 9 6 , § 5 0 2 (1 8 ), a t 3 7 5 , Leg . H is t, a t 1 0 7 1 . When th e 

c o n f e r e e s d e cid ed to t r e a t " th e rm a l" p o l lu t a n ts l ik e an y 

o th e r p o l lu t a n ts (s e e 11 8 Co ng. Re c. 33 69 8 (1 9 7 2 ), Le g.

[F o o tn o te c o n ti n u e d n e x t p ag e]
273

f S4 04 in c lu d e d a d d it io n s o f d re d g ed o r f i l l 

m a te r ia l fro m n o n p o in t s o u r c e s , f a i l u r e t o co mply w it h t h a t 

s e c tio n as to n o n p o in t s o u rc e s wo uld be u n e n fo rc e a b le .

S e c ti o n 30 9 p r o v id e s fo r f e d e r a l e n fo rc em en t in c a s e o f 

v i o l a t i o n o f an y c o n d it io n o r l i m i t a t i o n whi ch im pl em en ts 

SS 30 1, 3 0 2 , 3 0 6 , 3 0 7 , o r 30 8 o f th e A ct. S e c ti o n 3 0 1 (a ) 

makes th e " d is c h a rg e o f an y p o l lu t a n t" by an y p e rs o n un ­

la w fu l e x c e p t a s in com pli an ce w it h $ $ 3 0 1 , 3 0 2 , 3 0 6 , 3 0 7 ,

3 1 8 , 4 0 2 , an d 4 0 4 . I t w i l l be r e c a ll e d t h a t " d is c h a rg e 

o f a p o l lu t a n t" i s d e fin e d in $ 5 0 2 (1 2 ) a s m ea ni ng th e 

a d d itio n o f an y p o l lu t a n t to n a v ig a b le w a te rs fro m any 

p o in t s o u rc e . S in c e $ 3 0 1 (a ) does n o t a p p ly to n o n p o in t 

s o u r c e s , f a i l u r e to o b ta in a $4 04 p e rm it fo r a n o n p o in t 

a d d it io n o f d re d g ed o r f i l l m a te r ia l wo uld n o t be a v i o la t io n 

o f $3 01 e n f o rc e a b le un de r $ 3 0 9 . T h is i s f u r t h e r p ro o f t h a t . 

C ongre ss d id n o t in te n d $4 04 to a p p ly to n o n p o in t s o u r c e s . 1 0

Why does $4 04 a p p ly o n ly to p o in t s o u rc e s ? B ec au se 

th e o n ly p u rp o se o f $4 04 was to t r a n s f e r to th e Cor ps p a r t 

o f th e EP A's j u r i s d i c t i o n over p o in t so u rc e d is c h a r g e s o f 

d re d g ed s p o i l s under $ 4 0 2 , in o rd e r to a v o id in te r f e r e n c e 

by th e EPA w it h c e r t a i n Cor ps p ro g ra m s.

The Army, an d th ro u g h i t th e C o rp s, has lo ng had 

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs . I t i s th e Ar my's 

d u ty to p r e s c r ib e su ch r e g u la tio n s f o r th e u s e , a d m in is tr a tio n , 

an d n a v ig a t if ^ o f th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs a s th e p u b li c n e c e s s ity 

may r e q u ir e . The R iv e rs and H ar bors A p p ro p ria ti o n s Ac t

9 . [F o o tn o te c o n ti n u e d fro m p re v io u s p ag e]

H is t, a t 1 7 5 ) , th e y si m p ly an d w it h o u t e x p la n a ti o n dr op pe d 

th e s p e c ia l d e f i n i t i o n o f "th e rm a l d is c h a rg e " an d th e r e f e r e n c e 

t h e r e to in th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e ." T hu s, th ey r e ­

ta in e d b o th th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e o f a p o l lu t a n t" 

( $ 5 0 2 (1 2 ) ) an d th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e " ( $ 5 0 2 ( 1 6 ) ) .

As S e n a to r Mus kie re c o g n iz e d (s e e q u o ta tio n in t e x t ) , t h a t 

a c tio n ha d no r e l a t i o n s h i p w h ats o ev er to th e " p o in t, no np o in t" d i s t i n c t i o n , wo rked no ch an ge in th e p r i o r l i m i t a t i o n 

to p o in t s o u r c e s , and th u s e v id e n c e s no in te n t io n to in c lu d e 

n o n p o in t so u rc e p o l lu t i o n in th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e " .

10. Fo r s im il a r re a s o n s , $ 5 0 5 , whi ch a u th o r iz e s c i t i z e n s ' 

s u i t s , does n o t p ro v id e fo r su ch s u i t s in c a s e s o f v io ­

l a t i o n s o f $ 4 0 4 .

1 1 . 33 U .S .C . $ 1 .
274

f 18 99 makes i t u n la w fu l to " e x c av a te o r f i l l " o r in any 

ma nn er a l t e r th e c o u rs e o r c o n d it io n o f an y p o r t , la k e , 

h a rb o r or th e .c h a n n e l o f an y n a v ig a b le w ate r u n le s s a u th o riz e d 

by th e C o rp s. The R iv e rs and H ar bors Ac t o f 19 70 a u th o riz e d 

th e c o n s tr u c tio n by th e C or ps in th e G re at La ke s o f "c o n ta in e d 

s p o i l d is p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s " , o f s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c it y f o r up 

to 10 y e a r s , an d i t a u th o r iz e d th e Cor ps to e x te n d to a l l 

o th e r w a te rs a com pre hen si ve st u d y o f th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . - 

o f d re d g ed s p o i l and a l t e r n a t i v e m etho ds f o r i t s d i s p o s a l . J

When th e S en ate b i l l t h a t u lti m a te ly became th e 

A ct was f i r s t r e p o r te d , i t c o n ta in e d no § 4 0 4 . "D redg ed 

s p o ils " we re w it h in th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " p o llu ta n t" , an d he nc e 

p o in t so u rc e d is c h a r g e s o f d re dged s p o ils re q u ir e d EPA p e rm it s 

under S 402 . On th e f l o o r , S e n a to r E ll e n d e r o f f e r e d an amendmen t to th e b i l l to c arv e dre dged m a te r ia ls o u t o f th e 

S4 02 pr og ra m and g iv e th e Army (t h e C orp s) th e a u th o r i t y 

to is s u e p e rm it s fo r th e d is c h a rg e o f su ch m a t e r i a ls i n to 

th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs a t s p e c if i e d d is p o s a l s i t e s . S e n a to r 

E ll e n d e r e x p la in e d t h a t h i s ame ndm ent:

"s im ply r e t a i n s th e a u th o r ity o f th e S e c r e ta r y 

o f th e Army to is s u e p e rm it s fo r th e d is p o s a l 

o f d re dged m a t e r i a ls . T h is i s e s s e n t i a l s in c e 

th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e Army i s re s p o n s ib le fo r 

m a in ta in in g and im pr ov in g th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs 

o f th e U n it ed S t a t e s .

* * * *

"The R iv er and Har bo r Act o f 19 70 a u th o r iz e d 

th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f d ik ed d is p o s a l a r e a s fo r th o se 

G re at La ke s h a rb o rs wh ich a re h e a v il y p o l lu t e d , 

and a u th o riz e d a st u d y o f th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 

o f d re dged s p o i l . . . . The P u b li c Wor ks A p p ro p ria ti o n s 

Ac t fo r f i s c a l y e a r 19 72 in c lu d e d $3 0 m il lio n 

to i n i t i a t e c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e d ik ed d is p o s a l 

a r e a s fo r some 30 G re a t La ke s h a r b o rs . The a u th o riz e d 

st u d y o f th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e s p o i l m a te r ia l 

has n o t be en c o m p le te d , and i t wo uld be u n re aso n a b le 

to p la c e u n j u s t i f i e d r e s t r i c t i o n s on th e d is p o s a l 

o f su ch m a t e r i a ls .

"Th e b i l l under c o n s id e r a ti o n e x te n d s th e 

a u th o r i t y o f th e c o rp s to c o n s tr u c t s im ila r d ik ed 

d is p o s a l a r e a s i n .o t h e r p a r ts o f th e c o u n tr y wh ere 

fo un d n e c e s s a r y ."

1 2 . 33 U. S.C . $ 4 0 3 .

1 3 . P .L . 9 1 - 6 1 1 , 84 S t a t . 18 18 ($ 1 2 3 ).

1 4 . 11 7 Cong . Re c. 38 85 3 (1 9 7 1 ) , Le g. H is t, a t 13 86

1 5 . Id .
275

en a to r M us ki e, how ev er , op po se d t h i s amend me nt and in s te a d 

p ro p o se d th e fo ll o w in g ame ndm ent:

"Any a p p li c a t io n fo r a p e rm it under t h i s s e c ti o n

[§ 4 0 2 ] fo r th e d is c h a rg e o f d re d g ed s p o i l in to 

th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs (o th e r th an in c o n fi n e d 

d is p o s a l s i t e s ) s h a l l be ac co m pa ni ed by a c e r t i f i c a t e 

fro m th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e Army t h a t th e a re a chose n 

fo r d is p o s a l i s th e o n ly re a s o n a b ly a v a ila b le 

a l t e r n a t i v e an d , u n le s s th e A d m in is tr a to r fin d s 

t h a t th e m a tt e r to be d is p o s e d o f w i l l a d v e rs e ly 

a f f e c t m u n ic ip a l w ate r s u p p l i e s , s h e l l f i s h b e d s, 

w i l d l i f e , f i s h e r i e s (i n c lu d in g sp aw ni ng and b re e d in g 

a r e a s ) or r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s , su ch p e rm it s h a l l 

i s s u e . "

The S e n a te p a sse d S e n a to r M u sk ie 's am en dm ent.

The Ho use b i l l ga ve p e rm it a u th o r i t y f o r th e 

" d is c h a rg e o f d re d g ed o r f i l l m a te r ia l i n to th e n a v ig a b le 

w ate rs " to th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e Army; EPA ha d o n ly a d v is o ry 

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , whi ch c o u ld ha ve be en o v e rrid d e n by th e 

S e c r e ta r y . As a co m pr om is e, th e C o n fe re n ce Co mmitt ee 

ag re e d to §4 04 a s u l tim a te ly e n a c te d .

From th e f o re g o in g , i t i s a b u n d a n tl y c le a r t h a t 

§4 04 a p p lie s o n ly to p o in t so u rc e d is c h a r g e s . The in te rim 

f i n a l r e g u la ti o n s , th e n , a re u n la w fu l in t h a t n e ith e r th e 

d e f i n i t i o n o f " d is c h a rg e o f dre d g ed m a te r ia l" nor th e d e f i n i t i o n 

o f " d is c h a rg e o f f i l l m a te ria l" i s e x p l i c i t l y lim ite d to 

p o in t so u rc e d is c h a r g e s , no r i s th e r e an y r e f e r e n c e to p o in t 

so u rc e s e ls e w h e re in th e r e g u la ti o n s . A lt hough th e pr ea m ble 

to th e r e g u la ti o n s s t a t e s t h a t "a ny m a te r ia l whi ch i s e x ca v ate d 

o r d re d g ed fro m a n a v ig a b le w ate r and th en re in tr o d u c e d 

th ro u g h a p o in t so u rc e i n to a n a v ig a b le w a te r w o u ld .f a ll 

u n d e r [ t h e te rm 'd is c h a r g e o f dre d g ed m a t e r i a l ' ] " , t h i s 

l i m i t a t i o n i s n o t in c lu d e d in th e r e g u la ti o n s .

1 6 . 11 7 Co ng . R ec . 38 85 6 ( 1 9 7 1 ), Le g. H is t, a t 1 3 9 2 .

1 7 . H. Re p. No. 9 2 - 9 1 1 , 92 d C o n g ., 2d S e s s . (1 9 7 2 ) (h e r e i n a f te r 

"H ous e R e p ." ), a t 3 6 7 - 8 , Le g. H is t, a t 1 0 6 3 - 4 .

1 8 . Se e S. Re p. No. 9 2 - 1 2 3 6 , 92 d C o n g ., 2d S e s s . (1 9 7 2 ) 

(h e r e i n a f t e r "C on f. R e p ." ), a t 1 4 1 - 4 2 , Le g. H is t, a t 3 2 4 - 

2 5 .

1 9 . Em ph as is ad ded . 40 F. R . 31 32 1 (J u ly 2 5 , 1 9 7 5 ).
276

t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t h a t , in th e d e f i n i t i o n s 

o f "d re dged m a te ria l" an d " f i l l m a te r ia l" , th e r e g u la tio n s 

e x c lu d e " m a te ria l r e s u l ti n g fro m no rm al fa rm in g , s i l v a c u l t u r e 

[ s i c ] , an d ra n ch in g a c t i v i t i e s , su ch as p lo w in g, c u l t i v a t i n g , 

s e e d in g , an d h a r v e s tin g , fo r p ro d u c ti o n o f fo o d , f i b e r , 

an d f o r e s t p ro d u c ts ." W hile we b e li e v e t h a t t h i s e x c lu s io n 

i s p ro p e r as f a r as i t goes (f o r i t doe s r e f e r to a d d it io n s 

fro m n o n p o in t s o u s e s ) , th e ex em ption do es n o t co v er a l l 

n o n p o in t s o u rc e s , and in an y e v e n t, th e s e d e f i n i t i o n s 

o f " d is c h a rg e o f d re dged m a te ria l" and o f " f i l l m a te r ia l" 

e x p l i c i t l y , j n c l u d e a c t i v i t i e s wh ich we b e li e v e a re n o n p o in t 

in n a tu r e .

P a rt I d is c u s s e s wh at i t means to th e f o r e s t 

in d u s tr y i f n o n p o in t s o u rc e s a re re q u ir e d to ha ve §4 04 p e rm it s 

As in d ic a te d th e r e , c o n s tr u c tio n o f ro ad s i s re g a rd e d by 

th e f o r e s t in d u s tr y a s a n o n p o in t a c t i v i t y . Bu t ro a d s a re 

n o t j u s t b u i l t by th e f o r e s t in d u s tr y . An a n a ly s is o f th e 

C o rp s' r e g u la ti o n s r e v e a ls t h a t alm o st a l l ro a d s c o n s tr u c te d 

in th e U nit ed S t a t e s , w het her by th e f e d e r a l g over nm en t, 

S t a t e s , lo c a l gover nm en ts o r p r i v a t e in d iv id u a ls , w i l l r e q u ir e 

§4 04 p e rm it s u n le s s th e r e g u la tio n s a re amended to a p p ly 

o n ly to p o in t so u rc e d is c h a r g e s . The same i s tr u e o f nu mero us 

o th e r n o n p o in t a c t i v i t i e s common to s i l v i c u l t u r e , a g r i c u l t u r e 

an d c o n s tr u c tio n , su ch a s d ig g in g o f d itc h e s fo r d ra in a g e 

o r o th e r p u rp o se s in we t a r e a s , la y in g o f u t i l i t y l i n e s 

an d p ip e s in we t a r e a s o r in some c a s e s a c ro s s w ate r b o d ie s , 

b u il d in g o f d ik e s o r im po un dm en ts, and s i t e p r e p a r a tio n .

Fo r a l l o f th e s e n o n p o in t a c t i v i t i e s , w het her c a r r i e d o u t 

p u b l ic a ll y or p r i v a t e l y , th e Cor ps i s u n la w fu ll y and un -

2 0 . 33 C .F .R . § § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) (4 ) an d ( 6 ) .

2 1 . F u rt h e rm o re , th e d e c is io n in NRDC v. T r a in , 7 ERC 18 81 

(D . D. C. 19 75 ’)., a p p e a l p e n d in g , c a s t s doubt on th e p r o p r ie ty 

o f t h i s me tho d o f e x c lu s io n . T hat c a s e d e a l t w it h an EPA 

r e g u la ti o n ex em pt in g fro m i t s §4 02 p e rm it pr og ra m c e r t a i n 

c l a s s e s o f so u rc e s ( e . g . , d is c h a r g e s fro m sm a ll anim al 

co n fi n e m e n t f a c i l i t i e s ) , w h ic h , in th e c o u r t 's vie w , in c lu d e d 

p o in t s o u rc e s . The c o u r t h e ld t h a t th e Ac t d id n o t g iv e

EPA th e l a t i t u d e to exem pt e n t i r e c la s s e s o f p o in t s o u rc e s 

from th e §4 02 pr ogra m , b u t in s te a d re q u ir e d EPA to d e te rm in e 

w hi ch so u rc e s we re p o in t s o u rc e s an d which we re n o t.

2 2 . We b e li e v e t h a t th e fo ll o w in g s i l v i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , 

among o t h e r s , a r e n o n p o in t in n a tu re : ro ad f i l l s ( e . g . , 

p la cem en t o f s id e c a s t m a t e r i a l, f i l l over c u l v e r t s , and 

c o n s tr u c tio n o f b rid g e ab u tm en ts an d p i e r s ) ; i n d u s t r i a l s i t e 

f i l l s ( e . g . , c o n s tr u c tio n o f b u lk h e a d s, un der gro und p ip e

o r u t i l i t y l i n e s , and d ra in a g e f a c i l i t i e s ) ; and f i l l s fo r 

c o n s tr u c tio n o r m ain te n an ce o f d ra in a g e d i tc h e s . Se e p p . 2 -4 

an d 1 0 - 1 2 , s u p ra .
277

e c e s s a r i ly r e q u ir in g §4 04 p e r m its .

To a v o id th e s e p ro ble m s an d t o c u re th e le g a l 

d e f ic ie n c y d is c u s s e d , th e r e g u la ti o n s sh o u ld p ro v id e e x p l i c i t l y 

t h a t th e y a r e l im i te d to d is c h a r g e s fro m p o i n t s o u rc e s 

o r t h a t n o n p o in t s o u rc e s a re e x c lu d e d . Th ey sh o u ld a ls o 

e li m in a te th e i n c o r r e c t ex am pl es o f d is c h a r g e s p r e s e n t l y 

g iv e n .

C. D is c h a rg e s O th e r Tha n a t S p e c if ie d D is p o s a l S i t e s

The C o rp s' a u th o r i t y un de r §4 04 i s l im i te d to 

p e r m it s f o r d is c h a r g e s fro m p o in t s o u rc e s i n t o th e n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs " a t s p e c i f i e d d i s p o s a l s i t e s " . Y et th e r e g u la ti o n s 

ig n o re t h i s s t a t u t o r y re q u ir e m e n t an d t r e a t e v e ry d is c h a r g e 

i n t o th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs a s r e q u ir in g a p e r m it, w he th er 

o r n o t a t a s p e c if i e d d is p o s a l s i t e . The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y 

c o n fi rm s t h a t th e C o rp s' a u th o r i t y un de r §4 04 i s in dee d 

l im ite d t o d e s ig n a tin g d is p o s a l s i t e s ( in a c c o rd a n c e w it h 

th e c r i t e r i a s p e c if i e d in § 4 0 4 (b ) an d s u b j e c t to EPA v e to 

un de r § 40 4 ( c ) ) an d is s u in g p e rm it s fo r bhe d i s p o s a l o f d re d g ed 

o r f i l l m a t e r i a l a t th o s e s i t e s .

We ha ve d is c u s s e d a b o v e , a t p p . 1 4 - 1 6 , th e o r i g in 

o f §4 04 an d i t s r e l a t i o n to th e pr og ra m to d re d g e G re a t 

La ke s h a rb o rs and o th e r C or ps pro gra m s r e q u ir i n g s p o i l 

d is p o s a l a r e a s . S e n a to r E ll e n d e r , in in tr o d u c in g h i s ame ndm en t, r e f e r r e d r e p e a te d ly to th e "d ik e d d is p o s a l a r e a s " 

o f th e C o rp s; he a l s o s a id th e am end men t wo uld g iv e th e 

EPA "a v e to pow er o v e r th e s p o i l d is p o s a l a r e a s re q u ir e d 

f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n an d m ai n te n a n ce o f a l l n a v ig a ti o n p r o j e c t s ."

R eg ar d in g th e EP A' s r e s p o n s i b l i t i e s un de r § 4 0 4 , 

S e n a to r M us kie e x p la in e d in a memorandum su b m it te d d u ri n g 

d e b a te in th e S e n a te :

"S ec o n d , th e E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o t e c t i o n Ag enc y 

m us t d e te rm in e w het her o r n o t a s i t e to be us ed 

fo r th e d is p o s a l o f d re d g ed s p o i l i s a c c e p ta b le 

when ju d g ed a g a i n s t th e c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d fo r 

f r e s h an d oce an w a te rs s i m il a r to t h a t wh ic h 

i s r e q u ir e d un de r S e c ti o n 4 0 3 .

" T h ir d , p r i o r to th e is s u a n c e o f an y p e rm it to 

d is p o s e o f s p o i l , th e A d m in is tr a to r m us t d e te rm in e

2 3 . 11 7 Co ng . R ec . 3 8 8 5 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , L eg . H i s t , a t 1 3 8 6 - 7 .
278

h a t th e m a te r ia l t o be d is p o s e d o f w i l l n o t a d v e rs e ly 

a f f e c t m u n ic ip a l w a te r s u p p l i e s , s h e l l f i s h be ds 

an d f i s h e r y a r e a s (i n c lu d in g sp aw ni ng an d b re e d in g 

a r e a s ) , w i l d l i f e o r r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a s in th e 

s p e c if i e d s i t e . Sh ou ld th e A d m in is tr a to r so d e te rm in e , 

no p e rm it may i s s u e .

"The C o n fe re e s we re u n iq u e ly aw ar e o f th e 

p ro c e s s by w hi ch th e d re d g e an d f i l l p e rm it s a re 

p r e s e n t l y h a n d le d an d d id n o t w is h to c r e a t e a 

bu rd en so m e b u re a u c ra c y in l i g h t o f th e f a c t t h a t 

a sy st em to is s u e p e r m it s a lr e a d y e x i s t e d . At 

th e same ti m e , th e Com mitt ee d id n o t b e li e v e th e r e 

c o u ld be an y j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r p e r m it ti n g th e 

S e c r e ta r y o f th e Army to make d e te r m in a ti o n a s 

to th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p li c a ti o n s o f e i t h e r th e 

s i t e to be s e l e c te d o r th e s p e c i f i c s p o i l to be 

d is p o s e d o f in a s T t e . T hu s, th e C o n fe re e s a g re e d 

t h a t th e A d m in is tr a to r o f th e E n v ir o n m e n ta l P ro ­

t e c t i o n Ag enc y sh o u ld ha ve th e v e to over th e s e l e c ti o n 

o f th e s i t e fo r d re d g ed s p o i l d is p o s a l an d o v e r 

an y s p e c i f i c s p o i l to be d is p o s e d o f in an y s e l e c te d 

s i t e . " (E m ph as is a d d e d .)

T hu s, t o th e e x te n t t h a t th e C o rp s' r e g u la ti o n s 

a tt e m p t to r e g u la te d is p o s a l o f dre d g ed o r f i l l m a t e r i a l 

a t p la c e s o th e r th a n " s p e c if i e d d is p o s a l s i t e s " d e s ig n a te d 

by th e C o rp s, th e y a re i n v a l i d . The d is c h a r g e o f p o l l u t a n t s 

c o n s i s t in g o f d re d g ed s p o i l o r o th e r p o l l u t a n t s fro m a p o in t 

s o u rc e i n to th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs a t any p la c e o th e r th a n 

a s p e c if i e d d is p o s a l s i t e o f th e C or ps r e q u ir e s a § 40 2 p e r m it , 

b u t n o t a §4 04 p e r m it. (D ep en di ng on w he re i t i s mad e, 

i t may a ls o r e q u ir e a u th o r i z a t io n by th e C o rp s, un de r th e 

R iv e rs an d H ar bo rs A p p r o p r ia ti o n s Ac t o f 1 8 9 9 2 5 ) .

D. I n c lu s io n o f La nd A re as in "N a v ig ab le W at er s"

The C or ps h as u n la w fu ll y a s s e r t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r d i s ­

c h a rg e s o f dre d g ed o r f i l l m a t e r i a l i n to c e r t a i n la n d a r e a s . S e c ti o n 

4 0 4 ( a ) a u th o r iz e s th e Cor ps to is s u e p e rm it s fo r th e d is c h a r g e

2 4 . 1 1 8 Co ng . R ec . 3 3 6 9 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , Le g. H i s t , a t 1 7 7 .

2 5 . 33 O .S .C . S 4 0 3 .
279

o f dre dged o r f i l l m a te r ia l " i n t o th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs " . Th e C o rp s ' 

i n i t i a l r e g u la tio n s under §404 z

 c o n ta in e d a d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " r e f le c t in g th e t r a d i t i o n a l te s t s o f " n a v ig a b ilit y " 

under §10 o f th e R iv e rs an d H a rb o rs A p p r o p ria tio n s A c t o f 1899.

In Mar ch 1975, ho w e ver, th e D i s t r i c t C o u rt f o r th e D i s t r i c t o f 

C olu m bia h e ld th a t th e te rm "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in §404 means w hat 

i t do es in th e r e s t o f th e A c t, i . e . , "w a te rs o f th e U n it e d S ta te s , 

in c lu d in g th e t e r r i t o r i a l seas" (§ 5 0 2 ( 7 )) ; t h a t th ro u g h th a t 

d e f i n i t i o n C ongre ss "a s s e rte d fe d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o ve r th e 

n a tio n 's w a te rs to th e maximum e x te n t p e rm is s ib le under th e 

Commerce C la u se o f th e C o n s t it u t io n " ; an d t h a t th e C orp s 

m ust re vo ke and amend so much o f t h e ir r e g u la tio n s as was 

in c o n s is te n t w it h th e " f u l l r e g u la to r y m an da te o f th e W ate r 

A c t" . N a tu ra l R esourc es D efe nse C o u n c il v . C a ll a w a y , 7

ERC 1784.

In a tte m p tin g to com ply w ith t h is o r d e r , th e C orp s 

re d e fin e d "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in th e in te r im f i n a l r e g u la tio n s , 8

26. 39 F .R . 12 115 ( A p r il 3, 1 9 7 4 ).

27. 33 U .S .C . §403.

28. The C orp s d e fin e d "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " as in c lu d in g :

" (a ) C o a s ta l w a te rs th a t a re n a v ig a b le w a te rs 

o f th e U n it e d S ta te s s u b je c t to th e eb b an d flo w o f 

th e t id e , sho re w ard to t h e ir mean h ig h w a te r mark (mean 

h ig h e r h ig h w a te r ma rk on th e P a c ific c o a s t ) ;

" (b ) A l l c o a s ta l w e tl a n d s , m u d fla ts , swamps, 

an d s im ila r a re a s th a t a re c o n ti g u o u s o r a d ja c e n t to 

o th e r n a v ig a b le w a te rs . "C o a s ta l w e tl a n d s " in c lu d e s 

m ars hes and s h a ll o w s and means th o se a re a s p e r io d ic a lly 

in u n d a te d by s a lin e o r b r a c k is h w a te rs an d th a t are 

n o rm a ll y c h a ra c te riz e d by th e p re v a le n c e o f s a l t o r 

b ra c k is h w a te r v e g e ta tio n ca p a b le o f g ro w th an d re ­

p r o d u c tio n ;

" ( c ) R iv e rs , la k e s , s tr e a m s , an d a r t i f i c i a l 

w a te r b o d ie s t h a t a re n a v ig a b le w a te rs o f th e U n it e d 

S ta te s up to t h e ir headw ate rs and la n d w a rd to t h e ir 

o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m ark ;

" (d ) A l l a r t i f i c i a l l y c re a te d c h a n n e ls and 

c a n a ls us ed f o r r e c r e a t io n a l o r o th e r n a v ig a tio n a l 

p u rp o se s th a t a re co n n e cte d to o th e r n a v ig a b le w a te rs , 

la n d w a rd to t h e i r o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m a rk ;

(F o o tn o te c o n ti n u e d on n e x t page]
280

u t s tra n g e ly enou gh d id n o t adopt th e EP A's d e f in i t io n

o f th e same te rm , ev en th ough th e EPA i s th e ag en cy a u th o riz e d 

to a d m in is te r th e A ct . In s te a d th e Cor ps ch ose to d e fin e

28 . [F ootn ote c o n ti n u e d fro m p re v io u s pa ge ]

"(e ) A ll t r i b u t a r i e s of n av ig ab le w a te rs o f th e U nit ed 

S ta te s up to th e i r head w ate rs and la nd w ar d to t h e i r 

o rd in a ry hig h w ate r mark;

" ( f ) I n t e r s t a t e w a te rs land w ar d to t h e i r o rd in a ry 

hig h w ate r mark and up to th e i r h ead w ate rs ;

"( g) I n t r a s t a t e la k e s , r iv e r s and str e am s land ward 

to t h e i r o rd in a ry h ig h w ate r mark and up to t h e i r hea dw a te rs th a t a re u t i l i z e d :

(1) By i n t e r s t a t e tr a v e le r s fo r w a te r - r e la te d 

r e c r e a tio n a l p u rp o se s;

(2) Fo r th e remov al o f f is h th a t a re so ld 

in i n t e r s t a t e com me rce ;

(3) Fo r i n d u s t r ia l p u rp o se s by i n d u s tr ie s 

i n t e r s t a t e comm erc e; o r

(4) In th e p ro d u c ti o n o f a g r ic u lt u r a l commod i t i e s so ld or tra n s p o rte d in i n t e r s t a t e com me rce ;

"( h) F re sh w ate r w etl an d s in clu d in g m ar sh es, 

sh a ll o w s, swamps an d, s im il a r a re a s th a t a re c o n ti g u o u s 

o r a d ja c e n t to o th e r n a v ig a b le w a te rs and t h a t su p p o rt 

fr e sh w a te r v e g e ta tio n . "F re sh w ate r w etl an d s" means 

th o se a re a s th a t a re p e r io d ic a lly in u n d ate d and th a t 

a re norm all y c h a r a c te riz e d by th e p re v a le n c e o f vegeta t i o n t h a t r e q u ir e s s a tu r a te d s o i l c o n d it io n s f o r gr ow th 

and re p ro d u c ti o n ; and

" ( i ) Th ose o th e r w a te rs which th e D i s t r i c t 

Engin ee r d e te rm in e s n e c e s s ita te r e g u la ti o n fo r th e 

p r o te c tio n o f w ate r q u a lity a s e x p re ssed in th e g u id e ­

lin e s (40 CFR 2 3 0 ). For ex am pl e, in th e c ase o f i n t e r ­

m itte n t r i v e r s , str e a m s, t r i b u t a r i e s , and p erc h ed w et ­

la n d s th a t a re not c o n ti g u o u s or a d ja c e n t to n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs i d e n t i f ie d in p a rag ra p h s ( a ) - ( h ) , a d e c is io n 

on j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l be made by th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r."

29. The EPA d e f in e s "n a v ig a b le w ate rs " to in c lu d e :

"( 1) A ll n a v ig a b le w a te rs o f th e U nit ed S ta te s ;

"( 2) T r ib u ta r ie s o f n av ig ab le w a te rs o f th e U nit ed 

S ta te s ;

"( 3) I n t e r s t a t e w a te rs;

"(4 , I n t r a s t a t e la k e s , r i v e r s , and str eam s which 

a re u t i l i z e d by i n t e r s t a t e t r a v e le r s fo r r e c r e a tio n a l 

o r o th e r p u rp o ses;

[F ootn ote co n ti n u e d on n e x t page]
281

n a v ig a b le w a te rs " as in c lu d in g n o t o n ly c o a s ta l w a te rs

and v a r io u s fre s h w a te rs b u t a ls o ( u n lik e th e EPA) c o a s ta l 

and fre s h w a te r w e tl a n d s c o n ti g u o u s o r a d ja c e n t to n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs . C o a s ta l w e tl a n d s wer e d e fin e d as "th o s e a re a s p e r io d ic a l l y in u n d a te d by s a lin e o r b ra c k is h w a te rs an d th a t a re 

n o rm a ll y c h a ra c te riz e d by th e p re v a le n c e o f s a l t o r b r a c k is h 

w a te r v e g e ta tio n c a p a b le o f g ro w th an d r e p r o d u c tio n " ; fr e s h w a te r 

w e tl a n d s wer e d e fin e d as "th o s e a re a s th a t a re p e r io d ic a lly 

in u n d a te d an d t h a t a re n o rm a ll y c h a ra c te riz e d by th e p re v a le n c e 

o f v e g e ta tio n t h a t r e q u ir e s s a tu ra te d s o i l c o n d itio n s fo r 

g ro w th an d r e p r o d u c tio n " . As d is c u s s e d more f u l l y in 

P a rt 1, pp . 1 -2 , th e s e d e f in it io n s o f "w e tl a n d s " in c lu d e 

many m illio n s o f a c re s o f la n d w h ic h a re o n ly p e r io d ic a lly 

flo o d e d an d w h ic h , because th e y ha ve a h ig h w a te r ta b le , 

s u p p o rt v e g e ta tio n o f th e ty p e d e s c rib e d .

We do n o t d is a g re e th a t m ost " w e tla n d s " , as th e 

te rm is co mmon ly u n d e rs to o d , a re w it h in " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " , 

fo r th e s e are a s e x is t a t th e ed ge o f w a te rs . Th us, s in c e 

th e C orp s d e fin e s "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " to in c lu d e c o a s ta l 

w a te rs " s u b je c t to th e eb b and flo w o f th e t id e , shore w ard 

to t h e ir mean h ig h w a te r mark (mean h ig h e r h ig h w a te r ma rk 

on th e P a c if ic C o a s t)" an d to in c lu d e v a r io u s .fr e s h w a te rs 

"la n d w a rd to t h e i r o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m ark " m ost w e tl a n d s 

w i l l be c o ve re d by th e d e f i n i t i o n . B u t we do o b je c t to 

th e in c lu s io n o f "w e t" la n d s in th e te rm " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

s im p ly beca use th e y ha ve a h ig h w a te r ta b le w h ic h s u p p o rts 

th e s p e c if ie d v e g e ta tio n an d a re p o o r ly d ra in e d o r o c c a s io n a lly 

flo o d e d .

S e c ti o n 50 2(7 ) o f th e A c t d e fin e s "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

as "w a te rs o f th e U n it e d S ta te s , in c lu d in g th e t e r r i t o r i a l

29. (F o o tn o te c o n ti n u e d fr o m p re v io u s page]

" (5 ) I n t r a s t a t e la k e s , r iv e r s , an d str e a m s fr o m 

w h ic h f is h o r s h e ll f i s h a re ta k e n and s o ld in in t e r s t a t e 

co mmer ce ; an d

" (6 ) I n t r a s t a t e la k e s , r iv e r s , an d str e a m s w h ic h 

a re u t i l i z e d fo r in d u s t r ia l p u rp o se s by in d u s tr ie s in 

in t e r s t a t e com m erc e." 40 C .F .R . $ 1 2 5 .l ( p ) .

30. Fn. 28, s u p ra , p . 21.

31. Id .
282

s e a s ". The A c t and i t s le g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y make i t c le a r 

th a t th e d e f i n i t i o n was in te n d e d to re ach o n ly b o d ie s o f 

w a te r. The A c t r e fe r s th ro u g h o u t to re q u ir e m e n ts f o r th e 

d is c h a rg e o f p o llu t a n t s in t o w a te r. I t c o n ta in s no re fe re n c e 

w h a ts o e ve r to "w e tla n d s " . In d e e d , th e o n ly re fe re n c e s to 

la n d in th e e n t ir e A c t in d ic a te th a t la n d is th e s u b je c t 

o f s ta te o r lo c a l c o n tr o l and th a t th e fe d e ra l govern m ent 

ha s o n ly fu n d in g o r e d u c a tio n a l d u tie s . Thus:

S101(b ) p r o v id e s :

" I t is th e p o lic y o f th e C ongre ss to re c o g n iz e , 

p re s e rv e , and p r o te c t th e p rim a ry r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s 

and r ig h t s o f S ta te s to p re v e n t, re d u c e , an d e lim in a te 

p o llu t io n , to p la n th e develo pm ent and us e ( in c lu d in g 

r e s t o r a t io n , p r e s e r v a tio n , and en hance m ent) o f 

la n d an d w a te r re s o u rc e s , and to c o n s u lt w it h 

th e A d m in is tr a to r in th e e x e rc is e o f a u t h o r it y 

under t h is A c t . " (E m pha sis ad ded.)

§ 1 02(c ) p ro v id e s F e d e ra l money fo r s ta te com p re h e n siv e 

w a te r q u a lit y c o n tr o l p la n s fo r b a s in s . Here 

" b a s in " is s p e c if ic a l l y d e fin e d to in c lu d e r iv e r s , 

c o a s ta l w a te rs , la k e s , e t c . , as w e ll as " th e 

la n d s d ra in e d th e re b y " .

§104 (n ) re q u ir e s th e EPA in c o o p e ra ti o n w ith v a rio u s 

g o ve rn m e n ta l b o d ie s an d p r iv a te a g e n c ie s to cond u c t and pro m ote s tu d ie s o f th e e f f e c t s o f p o llu t io n on e s tu a r ie s , and s ta te s th a t such s tu d ie s 

s h o u ld c o n s id e r th e e f f e c t o f "d e m o g ra p h ic tre n d s , 

th e e x p lo it a t io n o f m in e ra l re s o u rc e s an d f o s s i l 

fu e ls , la n d an d in d u s t r ia l d e ve lo p m e n t, n a v ig a tio n , 

flo o d and e r o s io n c o n t r o l, and o th e r use s o f e s tu a rie s 

and e s tu a rin e zo nes up on th e p o llu t io n o f th e 

w a te rs th e r e in " . (E m pha sis ad ded.)

In d e e d , th e c o u r t in NRDC v . C a lla w a y s ta te d th a t in §502(7 ) 

C ongre ss "a s s e rte d fe d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r th e n a t io n 's 

w a te rs to th e maximum e x te n t p e rm is s ib le under th e Commerce 

C la u s e . . . . " 7 ERC a t 1784. (E m pha sis a d ded.)

The o n ly s ta te m e n ts on th e f lo o r o f C ongre ss e x p la in in g 

§502(7 ) d e m o n s tr a te th a t i t was in te n d e d to a p p ly s o le ly 

to a c tu a l b o d ie s o f w a te r, n o t la n d s . S e n a to r M u skie s ta te d 

th e c o n fe re e s ' in t e n t t h a t "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " be g iv e n th e 

b ro a d e s t p o s s ib le C o n s t it u tio n a l in t e r p r e t a t io n , an d th e n
283

x p la in e d :

" I t i s in te n d e d t h a t th e te rm 'n a v ig a b le w a te r s ' 

in c lu d e a l l w ate r b o d ie s , su ch a s la k e s , s tr e a m s , 

an d r i v e r s , re g a rd e d as p u b li c n a v ig a b le w a te rs 

in law whi ch a r e n a v ig a b le in f a c t . I t i s f u r th e r 

in te n d e d t h a t su ch w a te rs s h a l l be c o n s id e re d 

to be n a v ig a b le in f a c t when th e y fo rm , in t h e i r 

o r d in a r y c o n d it io n by th em se lv es o r by u n iti n g 

w it h o th e r w a te rs or o th e r sy st em s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 

su ch a s hi gh w ay s or r a i l r o a d s , a c o n ti n u in g h ig h ­

way over whi ch com merce i s o r may be c a r r i e d on 

w it h o th e r S t a te s or w it h f o r e ig n c o u n tr ie s in 

th e cu st o m ary me ans o f tr a d e and t r a v e l in whi ch 

com me rce i s co n d u cte d to d a y . In su ch c a s e s th e 

com me rce on su ch w a te rs wo uld ha ve a s u b s ta n t ia l 

ec on om ic e f f e c t on i n t e r s t a t e co m m er ce ." (E m ph as is 

a d d e d .)

L ik e w is e , Co ng re ss m an D in g e ll — in th e s o le e x p la n a ti o n 

to th e House o f t h i s a s p e c t o f th e C o n fe re n ce b i l l — s t a t e d 

w it h r e s p e c t to th e te rm " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " :

"The new and b ro a d e r d e f i n i t i o n i s in l i n e w it h 

mo re r e c e n t j u d i c i a l o p in io n s wh ich ha ve s u b s t a n t i a l l y 

ex pa nd ed t h a t lim ite d vi ew o f n a v ig a b i li t y — d e riv e d 

fro m th e D a n ie l B a ll c a s e (7 7 U .S . 5 7 7 , 5 6 3 ) — to 

in c lu d e w at er w ay s whi ch wo uld be 's u s c e p t ib l e o f b ein g 

u se d . . . w it h re a s o n a b le im p ro v em en t, ' a s w e ll as th o se 

w at er w ay s w hi ch in c lu d e s e c tio n s p r e s e n t l y o b s tr u c te d 

by f a l l s , r a p id s , sa nd b a r s , c u r r e n t s , f l o a t i n g d e b r is , 

e t c e t e r a [ c i t i n g c a s e s ) .

" ****A lt h o u g h m os t i n t e r s t a t e com me rce 15 0 y e a rs 

ag o was acc o m p li sh ed on w ate rw ay s, th e r e i s no re q u ir e m e n t 

in th e C o n s t i tu t i o n t h a t th e wat er w ay m us t c r o s s a S t a te 

bo un dar y in o rd e r to be w it h in th e i n t e r s t a t e com merce 

powe r o f th e F e d e ra l G ov er nm en t. R a th e r, i t i s en ou gh 

t h a t th e w at er w ay s e rv e s as a l in k in th e c h a in o f com merce 

among th e S t a te s as i t fl o w s in th e v a r io u s c h a n n e ls 

o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n — hig hw ay s, r a i l r o a d s , a i r t r a f f i c , 

r a d io , an d p o s ta l co m m unic at io n, w ate rw ay s, e t c e t e r a .

3 2 . 11 8 Co ng. Rec . 33 69 9 (1 9 7 2 ), Le g. H is t , a t 1 7 8 .

76-161 0 - 76 - 19
The 'g i s t of F e d e ra l t e s t ' i s th e w at er w ay ' s us e 'a s 

a h ig h w ay ,' n o t w he th er i t is 'p a r t of a n a v ig a b le in ­

t e r s t a t e or in te r n a tio n a l co m m er ci al h ig h w ay .' [ c itin g 

c a s e s ] .

"T hu s, t h i s new d e f in i t io n c le a r l y en co m pa ss es 

a l l w ate r b o d ie s , in c lu d in g main st re am s and th e i r t r i ­

b u t a r i e s , fo r w ate r q u a lity p u rp o se s." (E mph asis 

a d d e d .)

Th es e re p e a te d re fe re n c e s in th e l e g i s l a t i v e h is to r y 

to "w at er b o d ie s ," " w a te rs ," and "w at er w ay s" d em o n str ate 

p la in ly an in te n t to re ach o n ly a c tu a l b o d ie s o f w ate r and 

n o t la n d a re a s th a t a re o c c a s io n a lly flo o d ed . (Of c o u rse , 

th e co n ce p t o f "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in c lu d e s th o se a re a s which 

a re s u b je c t to th e eb b and flow o f th e tid e from su ch w a te r. 

C as es d e cid ed su b s e q u e n tj to th e enac tm ent o f th e Wate r Ac t 

co n fi rm t h i s c o n c lu sio n . *)

The re g u la ti o n o f la n d a re a s ab ov e th e t i d a l in ­

flu e n c e o r th e o rd in a ry hig h w ate r mark may w e ll be w it h in 

th e f u l l sc ope of C o n g re ss ' power un de r th e Commerce C la u se 

g e n e r a lly , but th a t was n o t C o n g re ss' fo cu s in 5 5 0 2 (7 ).

C ongre ss d id n o t in te n d to go to th e f u l l e x te n t o f i t s Commerce 

C la u se po wer . Fo r in s ta n c e , i t r e je c te d a flo o r amendm ent 

o f f e r e d by Co ng ressm an Asp in whi ch wo uld ha ve re q u ir e d a 

5402 p e rm it fo r a d is c h a rg e o f p o llu ta n ts in to g ro u n d ,w ate rs 

— i . e . , w ate r ly in g be low th e su rfa c e o f th e e a r th . 5

 The 

House r e je c te d th a t pro pose d am endm ent . 6

33 . 118 Cong. Re c. 33 75 6-57 (1 9 7 2 ), Le g. H is t, a t 25 0.

The c a s e s c it e d by Con gressm an D in g e ll a l l d e a l w it h a c tu a l 

w ate rw ays. The y a re d is c u sse d in fo o tn o te 44 , pp. 28-2 9, i n f r a .

34 . Se e U n it ed S ta te s v. H o ll an d , 373 F. Su pp. 66 5, 67 4- 

76 (M.D. F la . 19 74 ); L e s li e S a l t v. F ro e h lk e, 7 ERC 1311 

(N.D. C a l. 1974); and U n it ed S ta te s v. Sm it h, 7 ERC 1937 

(E .D . Va. 1975) — eac h h o ld in g th a t a re a s s u b je c t to th e 

t i d a l in flu e n c e we re "n a v ig a b le w ate rs " w it h in th e mea ning 

o f th e A ct, and th a t 5404 a p p li e d . W ith re s p e c t to f r e s h ­

w ate r b o d ie s , th e o rd in a ry h ig h w ate r mark i s th e l im i t.

Se e PFZ P r o p e r tie s v. T r a in , 7 ERC 19 30 , 1936 (D. D.C. 1 975), 

h o ld in g t h a t th e A ct , in c lu d in g 54 04 , a p p li e d to a n o n tid a l 

mangrov e swamp con n ecte d to a n a v ig a b le waterway whi ch was 

co v ere d by w ate r th ro u g h o u t th e y ear ex cep t fo r p e rio d s o f 

d ro u g h t "a nd, th u s , mus t be be lo w th e o rd in a ry hig h w ate r 

mark" o f th e n av ig a b le w ate rw ays.

35 . 118 Co ng. Re c. 106 66 (1 9 7 2 ), Le g. H is t, a t 589.

36 . 118 Co ng. Re c. 106 69 (1 9 7 2 ), Le g. H is t, a t 59 7.
285

c co rd in g ly , th e i n c lu s io n o f " w e tl a n d s " in th e 

d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in th e C o rp s ’ in te r im f i n a l 

r e g u la ti o n s i s be yo nd th e a u th o r i t y g ra n te d t o th e Cor ps 

by § 4 0 4 . S e c ti o n 2 0 9 . 1 2 0 ( d ) ( 2 ) sh o u ld be am end ed by d e le t in g 

c la u s e s ( b ) , (h ) an d ( i ) . W ith t h i s m o d if i c a t io n , th e re g u ­

l a t i o n s wo uld c o v e r m os t w e tl a n d s b u t wo uld n o t c o v er la n d 

a r e a s t h a t a re o c c a s io n a lly f lo o d e d .

E. I n t r a s t a t e W at er s N e it h e r P o t e n t i a l l y In v o lv e d in

Commerc e by W ater T r a n s p o r ta ti o n Nor C onnec te d to

W ate rw ay s So In v o lv e d

Eve n in t h e i r c o v e ra g e o f a c t u a l b o d ie s o f w a te r , 

th e C o rp s' r e g u la ti o n s a r e u n a u th o ri z e d by §4 04 in t h a t th e y 

in c lu d e a s " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " c e r t a i n i n t r a s t a t e la k e s an d 

o th e r w a te r b o d ie s w hi ch we re n o t in te n d e d t o be in c lu d e d 

a s " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " un de r § 4 0 4 . We b e li e v e t h a t C ongre ss 

in te n d e d " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in t h a t s e c ti o n to c o v e r o n ly 

( i ) th o s e w at er w ay s w hi ch ha ve th e p o t e n t i a l f o r in v o lv em en t 

in com me rce by w a te r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , a s a l in k in th e c h a in 

o f i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e ig n co mm erc e, an d (2 ) th o s e w a te r b o d ie s 

(s u c h a s t r i b u t a r i e s ) w h ic h , b e c a u se t h e i r fl o w a f f e c t s 

su ch w a te rw a y s, ha ve be en c o n s id e re d w it h in C o n g re ss ' pow er 

to r e g u l a t e , p r o t e c t , an d pr om ot e co mm erc e. The r e g u la ti o n s 

in c lu d e w a te rs o th e r th a n th o s e j u s t d e s c rib e d — nam el y, 

w ho ll y i n t r a s t a t e la k e s an d o th e r w a te r b o d ie s use d s o l e ly 

fo r r e c r e a t i o n , f i s h i n g , i n d u s t r y , o r 7

a g r i,c u l tu r e , an d o t h e r s a s d e te rm in e d by a D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r-3 . S in c e su ch i n t r a s t a t e 

w a te r b o d ie s ha ve no r e l a t i o n s h i p to com me rce by w a te r t r a n s ­

p o r t a t i o n , th e r e g u la ti o n s a r e , in t h i s re g a rd a l s o , u n a u th o ri z e d 

by th e A c t. We b e li e v e t h a t t h i s p o s i t io n i s c o n s i s t e n t 

w it h t h a t o f th e c o u r t in NRDC v . C a ll a w a y , s u p r a .

The C o n fe re n c e R e p o rt u n d e rly in g th e A ct s t a te d 

th e c o n f e r e e s ' i n t e n t t h a t " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " "b e g iv e n 

th e b ro a d e s t p o s s ib l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n une ncum ­

b e re d by ag en cy d e te r m in a ti o n s w hi ch ha ve be en o r may be 

made fo r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s ." Ho w ev er , th e l e g i s l a t i v e 

h i s t o r y ma kes c l e a r t h a t , in so s t a t i n g , th e c o n f e r e e s we re 

n o t r e f e r r i n g to th e b r o a d e s t p o s s ib le i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 

C o n g re ss ' po we r un de r th e Commerce C la u se t o r e g u la te g e n e r a ll y , 

b u t t h a t th e y had a mo re s p e c i f i c i n t e n t . T h e ir r e fe r e n c e 

was made in th e c o n te x t o f C o n g re ss ' Comme rce C la u se pow er

3 7 . 33 C .F .R . § § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) (2 ) ( i ) ( g ) an d ( i ) . Th ey a ls o

in c lu d e la n d a r e a s be yo nd th e t i d a l i n f lu e n c e o r ab ov e th e 

o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r m ar k. See p p . 1 9 - 2 6 , s u p r a .

3 8 . C o n f. Re p. a t 1 4 4 , Le g. H i s t , a t 3 2 7 .
v e r b o d ie s o f w a te r, and i t was in te n d e d to r e fe r to th e 

b r a d e s t p o s s ib le in t e r p r e t a t io n o f th a t po wer as a p p li e d 

to r e g u la tin g comm erc e by w a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n .

S e n a to r M u skie , a f t e r re p e a tin g th e c o n fe re e s ' 

s ta te d in t e n t , e x p la in e d th a t i t was in te n d e d th a t th e te rm 

"n a v ig a b le w a te rs " s h o u ld in c lu d e a l l w a te r b o d ie s "re g a rd e d 

as n a v ig a b le in la w w h ic h a re n a v ig a b le in f a c t " an d t h a t :

" [ i ] t is f u r t h e r in te n d e d th a t su ch w a te rs s h a ll 

be c o n s id e re d to be n a v ig a b le in f a c t whe n th e y 

fo rm , in t h e ir o r d in a r y c o n d itio n by th e m se lv e s 

o r by u n it in g w ith o th e r w a te rs o r o th e r syste m s 

o f tr a n s p o r ta tio n , such as hig hw ays o r r a ilr o a d s , 

a c o n tin u in g hig hw ay o ve r w hic h comm erce is o r 

may be c a r r ie d on w ith o th e r S ta te s o r w ith fo r e ig n 

c o u n tr ie s in th e cu sto m a ry means o f tra d e a n d ,

q

 

t r a v e l in w h ic h comme rce is co n d u cte d to d a y ." 3 9

T h us, S e n a to r M uskie made c le a r th a t "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

was m ean t to r e fe r to b o d ie s o f w a te r w hic h fo rm o r c o u ld 

fo rm a li n k in th e " c o n tin u in g hig h w ay" o ve r w hic h in t e r s t a t e 

o r fo r e ig n com me rce " i s o r may be c a r r ie d o n ."

The re m ark s o f Con gr es sm an D in g e ll a te to th e 

same e f f e c t . He e x p la in e d t h a t th e re ason f o r th e new and 

b ro a d e r d e f i n i t i o n o f "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " — th e on e in te n d e d 

to be g iv e n th e "b ro a d e s t p o s s ib le c o n s t it u t io n a l in t e r p r e t a t io n 

was to g e t awa y fr o m "th e o ld , n a rr o w d e f in it io n s o f n a v ig a b i l i t y , as d e te rm in e d by th e C or ps o f E n g in e e rs ," and 

th e " t^ g h n ic a l" d e f i n i t i o n "a s we so m etim es se e in some 

la w s ." T h a t o ld , lim it e d v ie w o f n a v ig a b ilit y , he s ta te d , 

was th e on e d e riv e d fr o m th e case o f The D a n ie l B a l l , 77 

U .S . (10 W a ll .) 557, 563 (1 871) — w hic h s ta te s th a t w a te rs 

"a re n a v ig a b le in f a c t when th e y a re used, o r s u s c e p tib le 

o f b e in g used, in t h e ir o r d in a r y c o n d itio n , as hig hw ays 

f o r co m mer ce , o ve r w h ic h tra d e an d t r a v e l a re o r may be 

co n d u c te d in th e cu sto m a ry modes o f tr a d e and t r a v e l on 

w a te r ." (E m pha sis a d d e d .) A c c o rd in g to Con gr es sm an D in g e ll:

"T he new and b ro a d e r d e f i n i t i o n is in l i n e w ith 

more re c e n t j u d i c i a l o p in io n s w hic h ha ve s u b s t a n t ia lly 

ex pa nd ed th a t lim it e d vie w o f n a v ig a b ilit y — 

d e riv e d fr o m th e D a n ie l B a ll case (77 U .S . 557,

39. 118 Con g. Rec . 33 699 (1 9 7 2 ), Leg. H is t, a t 17 8.

40. 118 Con g. Rec . 33 757 (1 9 7 2 ), Leg. H is t, a t 250.
287

56 3) — to in c lu d e w ate rw ays w h ic h w ould be 1

 su sc e p tib le o f b e in g us ed . . . w i t h re a s o n a b le im p ro v e ­

m e n t,' as w e ll as th o s e w ate rw ays w h ic h in c lu d e 

s e c tio n s p r e s e n tly o b s tru c te d by f a l l s , r a p id s , 

sa nd b a rs , c u r r e n t s , f lo a t in g d e b r is , e t c e te ra 

[ c i t i n g c a s e s ]." (E m phasis a d d e d .) 4

Con gr es sm an D in g e ll th e n s ta te d th a t th e re was no re q u ir e m e n t 

in th e C o n s t it u tio n th a t a w ate rw ay m ust c ro s s a S ta te b o u jj ^a ry 

in o rd e r to be w it h in C o n g re s s ' in t e r s t a t e comme rce pow er. 

R a th e r he s a id :

" i t is en ou gh th a t th e w ate rw ay s e rv e s as a l in k

in th e c h a in o f commerce among th e S ta te s as i t

fl o w s in th e v a r io u s c h a n n e ls o f tr a n s p o r ta tio n

— h ig h w a ys, r a ilr o a d s , a i r t r a f f i c , ra d io and

p o s ta l c o m m u n ic a ti o n s , w a te rw a ys, e t c e te r a .

The ' g i s t o f th e F e d e ra l t e s t 1

 is th e w a te rw a y 's

us e 'a s a h ig h w a y , ' n o t w heth er i t is 'p a r t o f 

a n a v ig a b le in t e r s t a t e o r in t e r n a t io n a l co m m e rc ia l 

h ig h w a y .' [C it in g c a s e s .]" (E m phasi s a d d e d .)

F i n a l l y , Con gr es sm an D in g e ll co n c lu d e d th a t th e new d e f i n i t i o n 

" c le a r ly en co mpa ss es a l l w ^ e r b o d ie s , in c lu d in g m ain str e am s 

an d t h e ir t r i b u t a r i e s . . . . "

41. 118 Con g. Rec . 33756 (1 9 7 2 ), Leg. H is t , a t 250.

42. 118 Con g. Rec . 33757 (1 9 7 2 ), Leg. H is t , a t 250.

43. Id .

44. Id . The cases c ite d by Con gr es sm an D in g e ll co m p o rt

w ith t h i s a n a ly s is . Th os e cases h o ld th a t a w a te rw a y 'i s

a "n a v ig a b le w a te r " , ev en i f i t is n o t p r e s e n tly us ed as 

a hig h w ay o r p a r t o f a h ig h w ay o f in t e r s t a t e o r fo r e ig n 

co m mer ce , so lo n g as i t was us ed as su ch in th e p a s t. U n it e d 

S ta te s v . A p p a la c h ia n Po we r C o ., 311 U .S . 377, 4 0 8 -1 0 , 416 

(1 940) ; Econom y L ig h t & Po we r Co. v . U n it e d S ta te s , 256 

U .S . 113, 1 1 7-1 1 8, 123-1 24 (1 9 2 1 ); P u e n te -d e -R e yn o sa , S .A . 

v . C it y o f M c A ll e n , 357 F. 2d 43, 50-5 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 6 6 ); 

R o ch e ste r Gas & E le c . C orp , v . FPC, 344 F .2 d 594, 596-9 7 

(2 d C ir . 1 9 6 5 )); o r c o u ld be made s u ita b le f o r su ch us e 

in th e fu t u r e by re a s o n a b le im pro vem ents (U n it e d S ta te s 

v . A p p a la c h ia n Po we r C o. , s u p ra , a t 4 0 7 -0 9 ; R o ch e ste r Gas 

& E le c . C orp , v . FPC , s u p ra , a t 59 6) ; th a t n a v ig a b ilit y 

is n o t ne gate d by o b s tr u c tio n s in p o r tio n s o f th e w a te rw a y, 

su ch as ra p id s , f a l l s , s a n d b a rs , d r if tw o o d , ic e , flo o d s , 

o r a r t i f i c i a l o b s tr u c tio n s (U n it e d S ta te s v . A p p a la c h ia n

[F o o tn o te c o n ti n u e d on n e x t page ]
288

It is p la in from Con gr es sm an D in g e ll's re m ark s 

t h a t th e b ro a d e n in g o f th e d e f i n i t i o n o f "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

in th e A c t was in te n d e d to e n su re cove ra ge o f

- w ate rw ays u sa b le in t h e ir o r d in a r y c o n d itio n 

as in t e r s t a t e o r in t e r n a t io n a l hig hw ays o f 

commerce ;

- w ate rw ays s u s c e p tib le o f su ch us e w ith re a s o n a b le 

im pro vem ent, even i f th e y in c lu d e p r e s e n tly 

o b s tru c te d s e c tio n s ;

- w h o ll y in t r a s t a t e w ate rw ays th a t s e rv e in conju n c t io n w ith o th e r ch a n n e ls o f tr a n s p o r ta tio n 

as a l i n k in th e c h a in o f in t e r s t a t e o r fo r e ig n 

co mmerce ; and

- t r i b u t a r ie s o f such w ate rw ays.

T h ere was no in t e n t to in c lu d e w a te rs w h ic h a re n o t in v o lv e d 

in comme rce by w a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n as a l i n k in th e c h a in 

o f in t e r s t a t e o r fo r e ig n comme rce and whose flo w w ould 

n o t a f f e c t su ch w a te rw a ys.

44. [F o o tn o te c o n ti n u e d fr o m p re v io u s pa ge ]

Pow er Co. , s u p ra , a t 4 0 8 -0 9 ; U n it e d S ta te s v . U ta h , 283 U .S . 64 , 

84 -8 7 (1 9 3 1 ); Econom y L ig h t & Power Co . v . U n it e d S ta te s , s u p ra , 

a t 118, 12 2-2 4 ; The M o n te llo , 87 U .S . (20 W a ll .) 430, 441-4 2 

(1 874) ; th a t s m a ll t r a f f i c in co m m e rc ia l us e is s u f f ic i e n t to 

re n d e r a w ate rw ay " n a v ig a b le " (U n it e d S ta te s v . A p p a la c h ia n 

Po we r Co. , s u p ra , a t 40 9; R o ch e ste r Gas & E le c . C o rp , v .

FPC , s u p ra , a t 5 9 7 ); th a t th e f lo a t in g o f lo g s in th e c o u rs e 

o f c o n ti n u o u s mo veme nt in in t e r s t a t e comme rce re n d e rs a w a te rwa y " n a v ig a b le " , even i f th e w ate rw ay ha s n o t be en us ed fo r 

such tr a n s p o r ta tio n fo r a lo n g ti m e an d ev en th o ugh th e lo g s 

a re n o t a b le to tra v e rs e c e r t a in s e c tio n s (Nam eka gon H ydro 

Co. v . FPC , 216 F. 2d . 509, 513 (7 th C ir . 1 9 5 4 ); S ta te o f 

W is c o n s in v . FPC, 214 F .2 d 334, 337-3 8 (7 th C ir . 1 9 5 4 ); W is ­

c o n s in P u b li c S e rv ic e C o rp , v . FPC, 147 F .2 d 74 3, 747-4 8 

(7 th C ir . 1 9 4 5 )); an d th a t th e us e o f a w ate rw ay f o r p u re ly 

in t r a s t a t e tr a n s p o r t o r sh ip m e n ts do es n o t n e gate i t s " n a v ig a b ilit y 

under th e Commerce C la use so lo n g as i t is s u ita b le f o r use 

as a c o n n e c ti n g w ate rw ay in in t e r s t a t e o r fo r e ig n tr a n s p o r t 

o r sh ip m e n ts (R o ch e ste r Gas & E le c . C orp . v . FPC, s u p ra , 

a t 5 9 7 -8 ; W is c o n s in P u b li c S e rv ic e C orp . v . FPC, s u p ra , a t 

7 4 8 ). None o f th e s e cases — o r o th e rs th a t we know o f — 

ha s h e ld th a t "n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in c lu d e s w a te rs w h ic h ha ve 

no p o t e n t ia l fo r in v o lv e m e n t in comm merce by w a te r tr a n s ­

p o r t a t io n as a t le a s t a c o n n e c ti n g li n k in in t e r s t a t e o r 

fo r e ig n co mmerce .
289

In ex pan d in g th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

to th e f u l l re a c h o f i t s Commerce C la u se power o v er com me rce 

by w ate r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , i t a p p e a rs t h a t C ongre ss in te n d e d 

to in c lu d e n o n -n a v ig a b le s t r e t c h e s an d t r i b u t a r i e s th e fl ow 

o f whi ch a f f e c t s do w ns tre am " n a v i g a b i l it y " , fo r th e s e w a te rs 

had , th ro u g h e s t a b l i s h e d j u d i c i a l p r e c e d e n t, be en c o n s id e re d 

w it h in th e sc o p e o f C o n g re ss ' powe r to p r o t e c t an d pr om ot e 

com mer ce on w at er w ay s whi ch s e rv e a s a l in k in th e c h a i n . _ 

o f i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e ig n com me rce (a s by flo o d c o n t r o l ) . ’

As th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y and th e c a s e s d is c u s s e d 

in fo o tn o te 4 4 , p p . 2 8 - 2 9 , d e m o n s tr a te , th e ex pa nd ed d e f i n i t i o n 

o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " w hi ch Con gr es sm an D in g e ll was d e s c rib in g 

and w hi ch was e n a c te d in § 5 0 2 (7 ) was base d on th e b ro a d e s t 

C o n s t i tu t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , in l i n e w it h th e o p in io n s 

c i t e d , o f C o n g re ss' power o v er com me rce by w ate r t r a n s p o r ta ­

t i o n . I t was n o t m ea nt to in c lu d e a l l a r e a s o r ev en a l l 

w a te rs w hi ch C ongre ss c o u ld c o n c e iv a b ly re a c h un de r i t s 

Commerce C la u se powe r in a l l i t s a s p e c ts . In d e ed , C o n g re ss ' 

r e j e c t i o n o f Con gr es sm an A s p in 's amend men t to in c lu d e gr ou nd 

w ate r — d is c u s s e d on p . 2 5 , — f u r t h e r c o n fi rm s t h a t C ongre ss

4 5 . Se e Con gr es sm an D i n g e ll 's s ta te m e n t q u o te d on p. 2 8 , 

s u p r a , an d s e e , e . g . , Okl aho ma ex r e l . P h i l l i p s v . A tk in so n 

C o ., 31 3 U .S . 5 0 8 , 52 3 (1 9 4 1 ) ( “C ongre ss may e x e r c is e i t s 

c o n tr o l o v er th e n o n -n a v ig a b le s t r e t c h e s o f a r i v e r in o rd e r 

to p r e s e r v e o r pr om ote com mer ce on th e n a v ig a b le p o r t io n s " ); 

U nit ed S t a te s v . Gr an d R iv er Dam A u th o r it y , 36 3 U .S . 2 2 9 . 

2 3 2 -3 3 (1 9 6 0 ).

S in ce p a ss a g e o f th e a c t , c o u r ts ha ve h e ld t h a t 

i t a p p lie s to n o n -n a v ig a b le t r i b u t a r i e s , in c lu d in g t e r t i a r y 

t r i b u t a r i e s , o f w at er w ay s t h a t a r e n a v ig a b le in te rm s o f 

w a te rb o rn e com me rce ( U n it ed S t a te s v . A sh la nd O il & T ra n sp . 

C o ., 50 4 F .2 d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 0 , 13 28 (6 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ); Sun E n te rp r i s e s v . T r a in , 7 ERC 2 1 1 0 , 2 1 1 8 -2 0 (S .D . N.Y. 1 9 7 5 ) ) , 

an d to man -ma de c a n a ls co n n ec te d w it h , and th u s a f f e c t i n g , 

su ch n a v ig a b le w at er w ay s (W eisz man n v . C or ps o f E n g in e e rs ,

7 ERC 15 23 (S .D . F la . 1 9 7 5 ); U n it ed S t a te s v . H o ll a n d ,

37 3 F. Su pp . 6 6 5 , 6 7 3 -7 4 (M.D. F la . 1 9 7 4 ) ) . In A sh land 

O i l , th e c o u r t r e l i e d h e a v il y on Con gr es sm an D i n g e ll ' s 

re m ar ks an d th e d e c is io n s in A tk in so n Co. an d Gr and R iv er 

Dam, an d s t a te d t h a t th e Ac t ga ve th e f e d e r a l go ve rn m en t 

th e a u th o r i t y " to c o n tr o l th e q u a li t y o f e f f l u e n t fro m 

r i p a r i a n ow ne rs wh ose la n d d r a in s i n to n o n n a v ig a b le st re am s 

in p u rs u a n ce o f th e f e d e r a l i n t e r e s t in p r e s e r v in g th e 

n a v ig a b i li t y an d th e q u a li t y o f th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs o f 

th e co m m erc e-c arr y in g r i v e r s i n to w hi ch th e s e t r i b u t a r i e s 

fl o w ." 50 4 F .2 d , a t 1 3 2 8 .
290

did not intend to go to the full conceivable reach of its 

Commerce Clause power to regulate waters other than those 

potentially involved in commerce by water transportation 

as a link in interstate or foreign commerce.

In summary, it seems clear that Congress intended 

the term "navigable waters" in the Act to mean all waterways 

(subject to the influence of the tides or up to the ordinary 

high water mark) which, under the expanded judicial opinions, 

have the potential for involvement in commerce by water 

transportation as a link in the chain of interstate or foreign 

commerce, and the non-navigable stretches and tributaries 

of such waterways. There is no indication in the legislative 

history, and no case holds, that Congress meant to include 

other waters in the definition simply on the ground that 

it might reach them under its Commerce Clause power as applied 

generally to regulate matters other than commerce by water 

transportation. This is true, we believe, of the use of 

the term "navigable waters" throughout the Act. as defined 

in §502(7), and particularly as used in §404. 6 Accordingly,

46. We assume in these comments — but do not concede — 

that, as held in NRDC v. Callaway, the term "navigable 

waters" in S404 has the same meaning as it does in the rest 

of the Act and as is defined in §502(7). We note, however, 

that our comments apply with particular force to §404.

The legislative history of §404 makes plain that 

the whole purpose of having a separate section dealing with 

permits for discharge of dredged or fill material was to 

preserve the authority of the Corps over waterways, waters 

which were navigable in the traditional sense. Thus, in 

Senate debate on this issue, reference was frequently made 

to retaining the permit authority of the Secretary of the 

Army "who has the responsibility for maintaining and improving the navigable waters of the United States," lest 

the ports and harbors be closed — "a catastrophical situation with respect to our foreign and domestic commerce"

— and thus lest the "economy... stagnate." 117 Cong. Rec.

38853-54 (1971), Leg. Hist, at 1387 (Sen. Ellender), and 

117 Cong. Rec. 38855 (1971), Leg. Hist, at 1390 (Sen. Stennis ). Again, the House Report, in discussing §404, referred 

to the necessity "to assure continuation of dredging essential to our Nation's waterborne transportation." House 

Rep. at 130, Leg. Hist, at 817. In discussing the final 

compromise embodied in the Conference Report and ultimately 

enacted, Senator Muskie stated that "(t]he Conferees were 

uniquely aware of the process by which the dredge and fill 

permits are presently handled and did not wish to create

(Footnote continued on next page]
291

to th e e x te n t t h a t th e C o rp s' in te r im f i n a l r e g u la tio n s 

d e f in e " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " to in c lu d e w a te rs o th e r th a n th o s e 

s p e c if i e d ab ov e (a nd th e y do so r e s p e c tin g c e r t a i n w holl y 

i n t r a s t a t e w ate r b o d ie s in 33 C .F .R . § § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( g ) 

and ( i ) ) , th e y a r e u n a u th o ri z e d by §4 04 an d sh o u ld be m o d if ie d 

to r e f l e c t wh at we ha ve shown to be th e c o r r e c t d e f i n i t i o n 

o f t h a t te rm under th e A ct .

F . F i l l M a te r ia ls Which Are No t " P o llu ta n ts "

Und er th e Ac t

The in te r im f i n a l r e g u la tio n s d e f in e " f i l l m a te ria l" 

as "a ny p o l l u t a n t us ed to c r e a te f i l l in th e t r a d i t i o n a l 

se n se o f r e p la c in g an a q u a ti c a r e a w it h d ry la n d o r o f.c h a n g in g 

th e bottom e le v a tio n o f a w ate r bo dy fo r an y p u rp o s e ."

(E m ph as is a d d e d .) The te rm " p o llu ta n t" i s d e fin e d in § 5 0 2 (6 ) 

o f th e A ct as :

"d re dged s p o i l , s o l i d w a s te , i n c i n e r a t o r r e s id u e , 

se w ag e, g a rb a g e , sewa ge s lu d g e , m u n it io n s , c h em ic al 

w a s te s , b i o lo g i c a l m a t e r i a ls , r a d io a c tiv e m a t e r i a ls , 

h e a t, w re ck ed or d is c a rd e d eq u ip m en t, ro c k , sa n d , 

c e l l a r d i r t an d i n d u s t r i a l , m u n ic ip a l, and ag ­

r i c u l t u r a l w ast e d is c h a rg e d i n to w a te r."

4 6 . (F o o tn o te c o n ti n u e d fro m p re v io u s pag e]

a bu rd en so m e b u re a u c ra c y in th e l i g h t o f th e f a c t t h a t 

a sy st em to is s u e p e rm it s a lr e a d y e x is te d ." 11 8 Co ng. 

Re c. 33 69 9 (1 9 7 2 ) , Le g. H is t, a t 1 7 7 . The C onfe re nce 

R ep ort i t s e l f r e f e r r e d to d re d g in g p e rm it s and d re d g in g 

a c t i v i t i e s " e s s e n t i a l f o r th e m ai n te n an ce o f i n t e r s t a t e 

and f o r e ig n co m m er ce ." C on f. Re p. a t 1 4 2 , Le g. H is t , a t 

32 5 .

Hen ce , i t was c l e a r l y C o n g re ss ' i n te n t io n to 

l i m i t " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in §4 04 to w a te rs p o t e n t i a l l y 

a f f e c ti n g com me rce by w ate r t r a n s p o r ta ti o n ; an d i f th e 

te rm i s th e same in §4 04 as in th e r e s t o f th e A c t, t h a t 

c o n g r e s s io n a l i n te n t io n sho ws t h a t " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

th ro u g h o u t th e A ct an d as d e fin e d in § 5 0 2 (7 ) m us t be 

li m ite d to su ch w a te rs — a c o n c lu s io n w hic h, a s sho wn , 

i s in acc o rd an c e w it h th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f § 5 0 2 (7 ). 

47 . 33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) ( 6 ) .
292

hu s, i f " f i l l m a t e r i a l" in th e r e g u la ti o n s me ans "a ny 

p o l lu t a n t" a s d e fin e d in § 5 0 2 ( 6 ) , i t in c lu d e s "r o c k " an d 

" s a n d ," b u t n o t no rm al d i r t , e a r t h , o r s o i l . 8

 In d e f in in g 

" d is c h a rg e o f f i l l m a t e r i a l " , ho w ev er , th e r e g u la ti o n s g iv e 

a s an ex am pl e " th e b u il d in g o f an y s t r u c t u r e o r imp ou nd me nt 

r e q u ir in g ro c k , s a n d , d i r t , o r o th e r p o l l u t a n t s f o r i t s 

c o n s t r u c t i o n ." 33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d) ( 7 ) . Th ey th u s i n d ic a te 

t h a t th e te rm " p o l l u t a n t " fo r p u rp o se s o f d e f in in g f i l l 

m a te r ia l un de r th e r e g u la ti o n s in c lu d e s " d i r t " an d he nc e 

i s b ro a d e r th a n th e d e f i n i t i o n in § 5 0 2 ( 6 ) .

I f th e r e g u la ti o n s do in te n d to c o v e r , a s " f i l l 

m a t e r i a l " , no rm al d i r t , e a r t h , s o i l s , an d o th e r m a t e r i a ls 

n o t d e fin e d a s " p o l l u t a n t s " in th e A c t, th e y a r e , to t h a t 

e x t e n t , u n a u th o ri z e d by § 4 0 4 . The g r a n t o f a u t h o r i t y to 

th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e Army un de r §4 04 to is s u e p e r m it s fo r 

th e d is c h a r g e o f "d re d g ed o r f i l l m a te r ia l" was in te n d e d 

to a p p ly o n ly to su ch "d re d g ed o r f i l l m a te r ia l" a s i s 

d e f in e d a s a " p o l l u t a n t " in th e A c t.

As s t a t e d a b o v e , §4 04 i s e n f o rc e a b le th ro u g h §3 09 

o f th e A c t, b e ca u se th e " d is c h a r g e " o f d re d g ed o r f i l l m a te r ia l 

w it h o u t a §4 04 p e rm it o r in v i o l a t i o n o f th e r e q u ir e m e n ts 

o f su ch a p e rm it wo uld v i o l a t e § 3 0 1 ( a ) . See p . 1 4 , s u p r a . 

S e c ti o n 3 0 1 (a ) a p p li e s o n ly to th e d is c h a rg e o f an y " p o ll u t a n t " , a s d e fin e d in th e A c t, and he nc e §3 09 e n fo rc e m e n t 

i s a v a i l a b l e o n ly fo r th e d is c h a r g e o f su ch a " p o l l u t a n t " .

To th e e x te n t t h a t th e C o rp s' §4 04 r e g u la ti o n s wo uld a p p ly 

to and r e q u ir e a p e rm it f o r th e d is c h a r g e o f e a r t h o r o th e r 

m a t e r i a ls t h a t a re n o t " p o l l u t a n t s " un de r § 5 0 2 ( 6 ) , t h e r e f o r e , 

th e y wo uld n o t be e n f o r c e a b le . C ongre ss c o u ld h a r d ly ha ve 

in te n d e d §4 04 to a p p ly t o m a t e r i a ls wh ose d is c h a r g e w it h o u t 

co m p li an ce w it h t h a t s e c ti o n wo uld n o t be a v i o l a t i o n o f

4 8 . The re a s o n fo r t h i s o m is si o n in § 5 0 2 (6 ) i s d is c u s s e d 

in f o o tn o te 5 0 , p . 3 4 , i n f r a .

4 9 . We n o te t h a t th e r e g u la ti o n s d e f in e "d re d g ed m a te r ia l" 

a s " m a te r ia l t h a t i s e x c a v a te d o r d re d g e d ." 33 C .F .R .

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) ( 4 ) . Fo r th e r e a s o n s to be shown in th e t e x t ,

we b e li e v e t h a t C o n g re ss in te n d e d th e te rm "d re d g e d m a te r ia l" 

in §4 04 to be sy no ny mo us w it h th e te rm "d re d g ed s p o i l " l i s t e d 

in § 5 0 2 ( 6 ) . In ou r v ie w , th e C o rp s' r e g u la ti o n s p l a i n l y 

in te n d th e sa m e. Bu t i f th e r e g u l a t i o n s ' c o v e ra g e o f "mat e r i a l t h a t i s e x c a v a te d o r d re d g ed " i s in te n d e d somehow 

t o go be yo nd th e "d re d g ed s p o i l " l i s t e d in § 5 0 2 ( 6 ) , th e n 

f o r th e re a s o n s g iv e n in t h i s s e c ti o n o f ou r d is c u s s io n 

w it h r e s p e c t to f i l 1

 m a t e r i a l , t h i s wo uld n o t be a u th o r iz e d 

un de r th e A c t.
293

3 0 1 (a ) an d th u s wo uld n o t be e n fo rc e a b le .^ ®

The p r o v is io n s o f §4 04 i t s e l f d e m o n s tr a te f u r t h e r 

t h a t t h i s s e c tio n was n o t in te n d e d to a u th o r iz e th e Cor ps 

to r e g u la te th e d is c h a rg e o f m a te r ia ls n o t d e fin e d a s " p o ll u ta n t s " in th e A ct. S e c ti o n 4 0 4 (b ) r e q u ir e s ea ch d is p o s a l 

s i t e to be s p e c if i e d fo r ea ch p e rm it th ro u g h th e a p p li c a t io n 

o f g u id e lin e s b ase d upon c r i t e r i a co m par ab le to th e c r i t e r i a 

a p p li c a b le under 5 4 0 3 ( c ) . The se c r i t e r i a r e f e r th ro u g h o u t 

to " p o llu ta n ts " an d th e e f f e c t o f d is p o s a l o f " p o l l u ta n t s " . 

S e c ti o n 40 3 p r o v id e s no c r i t e r i a fo r th e d is c h a rg e o f m a te r ia ls 

o th e r th a n th e " p o llu ta n ts " an d he nc e th e r e ca n be no 5 4 0 4 (b ) 

g u id e lin e s fo r su ch m a t e r i a l. M or eo ve r, 5 4 0 4 (c ) g iv e s th e 

A d m in is tr a to r o f EPA v e to pow er over th e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f 

a d is p o s a l s i t e w he ne ve r he d e te rm in e s " t h a t th e d is c h a rg e 

o f su ch [d re d g ed or f i l l ] m a te r ia ls i n to su ch a re a w i l l 

ha ve an u n a c c e p ta b le a d v e rs e e f f e c t on m u n ic ip al w ate r 

s u p p l i e s , s h e l l f i s h bed s an d f i s h e r y a r e a s (i n c lu d in g sp aw ni ng 

an d b re e d in g a r e a s ) , w i l d l i f e , o r r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a s " .

In d e f in in g " p o l l u ta n t s " , C on g re ss made a p o li c y d e te rm in a ti o n 

a s to whi ch m a t e r i a ls sh o u ld be s u b je c t to a .f e d e r a l p e rm it 

pr og ra m fo r p r e v e n ti n g su ch a d v e rs e e f f e c t s . I t see ms 

c l e a r , th e n , t h a t C ongre ss in te n d e d th e "d re dge o r f i l l 

m a te ria ls " r e f e r r e d to in 5 4 0 4 (a ) to be th o s e which q u a lif y 

as " p o llu ta n ts " un de r th e A ct .

The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f 54 04 c o n fi rm s t h i s co nc lu s io n . W hi le th e r e i s no d is c u s s io n o r in d ic a tio n t h e r e in 

o f th e in te n d e d mea ning o f th e te rm " f i l l m a te ria l" in 5 4 0 4 , 

t h a t m ea ni ng can be g le a n ed fro m th e nu merou s com me nts r e ­

g a rd in g th e te rm "d re dged m a te ria l" in t h a t s e c ti o n . S e n a to r 

M us ki e, fo r exam ple , th ro u g h o u t h is d is c u s s io n o f 5 4 0 4 , r e ­

f e r r e d n o t to "d re d g ed m a te ria l" (t h e la n g u ag e o f th e b i l l ) , 

b u t to "d re dged s p o il" (t h e " p o llu ta n t" d e fin e d in 5 5 0 2 ( 6 ) ) ,

5 0 . The o m is si o n o f e a r t h an d s o i l s fro m th e d e f i n i t i o n 

o f a " p o llu ta n t" under th e A c t, an d th u s fro m th e p r o v is io n s 

o f 5 5 3 0 1 (a ) an d 3 0 9 , i s e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t w it h C ongre ss * 

sch em e th ro u g h o u t th e A c t, in whi ch th e a d d itio n o f e a r t h 

and s o i l s to th e w ate r i s re g a rd e d a s co mi ng b a s i c a ll y fro m 

ru n o ff an d o th e r n o n p o in t s o u r c e s . See S. Re p. No. 9 2 - 4 1 4 ,

92 d C o n g ., 1 s t S e s s . (1 9 7 1 ), a t 3 9 , 5 2 , Le g. H is t, a t 1 4 5 7 , 

1 4 7 0 . As show n ab o v e, th e f e d e r a l d is c h a rg e p e rm it sy st em 

i s a p p li c a b le o n ly to p o l lu t i o n fro m p o in t s o u r c e s , le a v in g 

n o n p o in t s o u rc e s an d la n d use p la n n in g e s s e n t i a l l y to p la n s 

un de r 5 2 0 8 . Se e p p . 1 - 3 , s u p r a . S in ce th e d is c h a rg e o f 

a " p o llu ta n t" i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , li m ite d to p o in t s o u r c e s , 

i t wo uld ha ve made no se n se to in c lu d e a s a " p o llu ta n t" m a te r ia l 

( i . e . , se d im e n t) t h a t i s ad de d fro m n o n p o in t s o u rc e s .

51 . Se e fo o tn o te 5 0 , s u p r a .
294

th u s in d ic a ti n g vi ew t h a t th e two te rm s wer e in te n d e d

to be sy no ny mo us. L ik e w is e , in d is c u s s in g th e Ho use b i l l 

— wh ich a ls o a p p li e d to "d re dged o r f i l l m a te ria l" — EPA 

A d m in is tr a to r R uck el sh au s s t a t e d t h a t i t c o v ere d "d re dged 

s p o i l " , and Con gr es sm an Van ik r e f e r r e d to " p o ll u te d d re d g in g s " . 

The se in d ic a tio n s t h a t th e "d re dged m a te ria l" co v ere d by 

§4 04 was mea nt to be t h a t l i s t e d as a " p o llu ta n t" in § 5 0 2 (6 ) 

a ls o su g g e st t h a t th e same was in te n d e d to be tr u e o f " f i l l 

m a t e r i a l" .

54

F i n a ll y , a s shown ab ove, §4 04 was carv e d o u t o f 

§4 02 in o rd e r to e n su re th e C or ps c o ^ r o l over d re d g e and 

f i l l o p e r a ti o n s in n a v ig a b le w a te rs . T he re i s no i n d ic a tio n 

w h ats o ev er t h a t , in so d o in g , C ongre ss in te n d e d to ex pa nd 

th e ty p e s o f m a te r ia ls co v ere d be yo nd th o se co v ere d by § 4 0 2 , 

w hi ch a p p li e s o n ly to th e d is c h a r g e o f " p o l l u ta n t s " .

I t i s p l a i n , th e n , t h a t §4 04 a u th o r iz e s th e C or ps 

to r e g u la te th e d is c h a rg e o n ly o f su ch "d re dged o r f i l l m a te r ia l 

a s i s w it h in th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " p o llu ta n t" in th e A c t. To 

th e e x te n t t h a t th e C orp s’ r e g u la tio n s go be yo nd t h i s a u th o r i ­

z a tio n by in c lu d in g in th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " f i l l m a te r ia l" 

no rm al d i r t , e a r t h , o r s o i l s , an d o th e r m a te ria l t h a t i s 

n o t a " p o llu ta n t" un de r th e A ct, th e y a re i n v a l i d . T h is 

d e f e c t ca n be cu re d si m ply by d e f in in g " f i l l m a te r ia l" in 

33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) (6 ) a s "a ny p o l l u t a n t , a s d e fin e d in 

§ 5 0 2 (6 ) o f th e A ct, us ed to c r e a te f i l l . . . " and by re m ov in g 

an y re fe r e n c e to " d i r t " in 33 C .F .R . § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (d ) ( 7 ) .

5 2 . Se e 11 8 Co ng. Re c. 33 69 9 (1 9 7 2 ), Le g. H is t, a t 1 7 7 -7 8

5 3 . Hou se Rep . a t 1 6 7 , Le g. H is t, a t 8 5 4 .

5 4 . 11 8 Cong. Rec . 10 23 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ), Le g. H is t, a t 4 2 1 - 2 2 .

5 5 . See p p . 1 4 - 1 6 , s u p ra .
295

PART I I I

SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS ON THE §4 04 REGULATIONS

(4 0 F .R . 3 1 1 2 0 f f . )

S 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( i ) . As in d ic a te d in P a r t I I o f 

t h i s s u b m is s io n , t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s to o b ro a d ; su b p a ra g ra p h s 

(b ) an d (h ) sh o u ld be d e le te d b ec a u se th e a r e a s m en ti oned 

a r e n o t " w a te rs o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s ” . S i m il a r ly , s u b p a ra g ra p h 

(g ) sh o u ld be r e v is e d to r e s t r i c t i t to w a te rs wh ic h ha ve 

a p o t e n t i a l f o r in v o lv e m en t in com mer ce by w a te r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 

a s a c o n n e c ti n g l in k in i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e ig n co mm erc e.

S u b s e c ti o n ( i ) , l i k e nu m er ou s o th e r p a r t s o f th e 

r e g u l a t i o n s , p r o v id e s t h a t th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e er may d e te rm in e 

t h a t an y " o th e r w a te r" i s a " n a v ig a b le w a t e r ," in c lu d in g 

w a te rs an d p e rc h e d w e tl a n d s t h a t a re n o t c o n ti g u o u s o r a d ja c e n t 

to n a v ig a b le w a te rs i d e n t i f i e d in o th e r p a ra g ra p h s o f th e 

r e g u l a t i o n s . We b e li e v e t h i s s e c ti o n sh o u ld be d e le t e d , 

fo r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . F i r s t , th e p a ra g ra p h i s o v e r ly b ro a d 

in s o f a r as i t p e rm it s th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e er to d e s ig n a te 

w a te rs wh ich a r e n o t " n a v ig a b le w a te r s " . (S ee d is c u s s io n 

in P a r t I I o f t h i s s u b m is s io n .) S ec ond, a p r o v is io n su ch 

a s t h i s e f f e c t i v e l y r e q u ir e s an a p p li c a t io n fo r a p e rm it 

in a l l i n s t a n c e s , s in c e t h i s i s th e o n ly way a c i t i z e n ca n 

d e te rm in e w h et h er a p e rm it i s r e q u ir e d . I f he f a i l s to 

a p p ly , he ru n s th e r i s k t h a t th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e er w i l l 

make an ex p o s t f a c to d e te r m in a ti o n t h a t a p e rm it was n e c e s s a ry 

an d he may b e .r e q u i r e d to r e s t o r e th e a r e a w he re th e f i l l 

o r d re d g ed m a t e r i a l was d is p o s e d o f to i t s o r i g i n a l s t a t e .

T h is i s u n f a ir an d u n re a s o n a b le . F i n a l l y , when on e c o n s id e r s 

th e num ber o f l a k e s , s tr e a m s , r i v e r s , h a rb o rs an d c o a s ta l 

w a te rs in th e U n it e d S t a t e s , i t be co me s a p p a re n t t h a t to 

a v o id an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e n ig h tm a re , th e C or ps m us t d e f in e 

" n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in su ch fa s h io n t h a t a p p li c a n t s ca n 

d e te rm in e by th e m s e lv e s , u si n g common s e n s e an d w it h o u t 

r e s o r t to co m pl ex s t u d i e s , w het her a w a te r i s a n a v ig a b le 

w a te r . The " o r d in a r y h ig h w a te r ma rk" an d th e "e bb an d 

fl ow o f th e t i d e " t e s t s f u l f i l l t h i s r e q u ir e m e n t. Fo r a l l 

o f th e s e r e a s o n s , s u b s e c ti o n ( i ) sh o u ld be d e le t e d .

I t wo uld be h e lp f u l to s u b s t i t u t e fo r s u b s e c ti o n 

( i ) a c la u s e to th e e f f e c t t h a t :

The D i s t r i c t E n g in e er may a t th e r e q u e s t o f an 

a p p li c a n t is s u e l e t t e r d e te r m in a ti o n s as to w het her 

a p a r t i c u l a r w a te r i s a " n a v ig a b le w a te r" a s 

d e f in e d h e r e i n .

A new su b p a ra g ra p h sh o u ld be ad de d ma kin g i t
296

le a r t h a t d ra in a g e c a n a ls and i r r i g a t i o n d itc h e s a re n o t 

" n a v ig a b le w a te r s " . The pr ea m bl e in d ic a te s t h a t t h i s i s 

th e p o s itio n o f th e C o rp s, b u t we do n o t fin d i t r e f l e c t e d 

in th e r e g u la tio n s .

5 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) (2 ) ( i l ) ( c ) . The d i s t i n c t i o n be tw ee n 

manmade and n a tu r a l la k e s i s i n c o n s is te n t and s e r v e s no 

u s e f u l p u rp o se . A d d itio n a lly , th e undu ly r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n 

does n ot a id in a c h ie v in g th e g o a ls o f th e A ct. We su g g e st 

th e fo ll o w in g d e f i n i t i o n o f th e la k e s:

" ' L a k e s 1

 me an s n a tu r a l o r a r t i f i c i a l b o d ie s o f 

w ate r g r e a te r th an 50 a c r e s in s u r f a c e a r e a .

S to ck w a te ri n g po nd s and s e t t l i n g b a s in s s h a l l 

n o t be c o n s id e re d ’ l a k e s '. "

5 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (d ) (2 ) ( i i ) ( d ) . B ec au se th e wo rd "n or m al " 

i s u n d e fi n e d , f i e l d d e te r m in a ti o n s o f wh ich s tr e a m s f a l l 

w it h in th e d e f i n i t i o n a r e im p o s sib le f o r ev en th e mos t 

e x p e r t h y d r o lo g is t. A d d itio n a lly we c o n s id e r th e d e f i n i t i o n 

unduly r e s t r i c t i v e . For a c l a r i f i c a t i o n em pl oy in g a cc ep te d 

h y d ro lo g ic a l c o n c e p ts an d whi ch f u l f i l l s th e p u rp o se o f 

th e A ct we su g g e st:

"H ead w at ers " me ans t h a t p o r tio n o f th e st re am 

ab ov e th e p o in t a t which th e s e a s o n a l low fl ow 

i s l e s s th an 20 c u b ic f e e t p e r se co n d .

A lthough th e i n te n t io n was a p p a r e n tl y to e x clu d e 

str e a m s h avin g fl ow o f l e s s th an 5 c f s , th e p r o v is o ca n 

be re ad as im p ly in g t h a t str e am s o f s m a ll e r fl ow may be 

t r e a t e d as c o v ere d i f th e D i s t r i c t E ngin ee r so d e te rm in e s .

The " p o in t an d n o n p o in t so u rc e d is c h a rg e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 

o f th e w ate rs h ed " a re i r r e l e v a n t to th e q u e s ti o n o f w he th er 

i t i s a " n a v ig a b le w a te r" . M or eo ve r, th e c la u s e c r e a te s 

an a d m in is tr a tiv e n ig h tm a re . T h is i s a n o th e r o f th e many 

c la u s e s whi ch le a v e i t to th e d i s c r e t i o n o f th e D i s t r i c t 

E n g in eer to d e c id e w het her or n o t th e r e g u la ti o n s w i l l ap p ly 

in a g iv en c a s e . The p ro v is o sh o u ld be d e le te d .

5 2 0 9 . 1 2 0 ( d ) (2 ) ( i i ) ( e ) . The te rm "p ri m ary t r i ­

b u ta r ie s " i s n o t us ed in th e r e g u la ti o n s . Wha t i s ne ed ed 

i s a d e f i n i t i o n o f “t r i b u t a r i e s " fo r p u rp o se s o f 5 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (d )

( 2 ) ( i ) ( e ) . The d e f i n i t i o n sh o u ld be r e v is e d to re ad :

"T r i b u t a r i e s " means th e ma in st em s o f r i v e r s d i r e c t l y 

c o n n e c ti n g to n a v ig a b le w a te rs o f th e U n it ed 

S t a te s up to t h e i r h ead w ate rs and d oes n o t in c lu d e 

an y a d d it i o n a l t r i b u t a r i e s e x te n d in g o f f th e ma in
297

stem of thes e tributa ries .

520 9.1 20 (d) ( 4 ). We wis h to poi nt out that this 

de finition and the def inition for fill mat erial are co un te rpro duc tive from an environme nta l standpoint . The y appear 

to apply to all earthmovi ng activities . Thi s of course 

incl udes constr uc ti on of those wor ks whose purpose is to 

reduce erosi on and oth erwise pro tect the soil and water 

reso urce s. Sin ce sed iment is on e of the wor st sources of 

water pollut ion , eve ry effort shou ld be made to encour age 

install ati on of wor ks to hold the soil in place and minim ize 

the nor mal ero sion process . For the mos t part, con servation 

mea sures are volunt ar il y inst alled and ma intained by lan dow ner s 

Any sys tem whi ch wou ld requ ire exp ens ive and tim e-d ela yin g 

per mit s can be exp ected to redu ce the numb er of conservation 

wor ks installe d.

52 09 .1 20 (d)(5). As dis cus sed in Part II of this 

submission , the definition of "di scharge of dre dge d materi al" 

shou ld be rev ise d to make it cl ear that it include s onl y 

dis cha rges from p oin t sources. The ref ere nce to "runoff 

or overfl ow from a c ontained land or wat er dis posal area" 

shou ld be deleted , as it a ppe ars to refer to non poi nt source 

poll utio n.

520 9.1 20 (d) (6) ■ As discu sse d in Par t II of this 

submission , the def inition of "fill mat eri al" should be 

modified by add ing the wor ds "as def ine d in Secti on 502(6) 

of the Fed era l Wat er Polluti on Contr ol Act" afte r the wor ds 

"any pol lut ant".

5209.1 20 (d) (7). As discu sse d in Part II of this 

subm issi on, the def inition of "di scharge of fill mat erial" 

shou ld be rev ise d to m ake clear that it app lie s onl y to 

dis cha rges of fill mat erial from poi nt sourc es. The second 

sen ten ce of the def inition should be deleted . We believe 

that mos t of the act ivi tie s list ed are non poi nt in nature.

As ind ica ted in Part s I and II, the re is con sid era ble 

con troversy as to what is or is not a p oin t source, and 

ther e are man y ram ifications to this determ ina tio n. The 

Corps shou ld not con fus e the issue by sup ply ing its own 

defi nition.

520 9.1 20 (e) (2) (i). For the reasons stated in 

Part II of this sub mission, cla use s (a) and (b) should be 

ame nded to d ele te ref ere nce s to coa sta l and fres hwater we tlands.

5209.1 20 (e) (2) (ii). Thi s is y et another sub par agr aph
298

w h ic h g iv e s bro ad d is c r e t io n to th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r, in

t h i s case d is c r e tio n to r e q u ir e a p e rm it fo r a p ro c e s s w hic h 

w ould o th e rw is e be ex em pt because i t o c c u rre d b e fo re th e 

e f f e c t iv e d a te o f Ph ase 1, 2 o r 3. I t is alw ays u n f a ir 

to a p p ly re g u la tio n s r e t r o a c t iv e ly , b u t p a r t i c u l a r l y so 

when th e r e g u la tio n s a re so c o n t r o v e r s ia l. For th e re asons 

e xp re sse d above, th e su b p a ra g ra p h sh o u ld be d e le te d .

C la use (a ) o f t h is sub para gra ph s h o u ld be amended 

to r e q u ir e a §401 w a te r q u a lit y c e r t i f i c a t i o n " i f a p p lic a b le " . 

W ate r q u a lit y c e r t i f i c a t i o n s under §401 a re re q u ir e d o n ly 

f o r p o in t s o u rc e s . I f § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d ) (5 ) and (7 ) a re amended 

as su g g e ste d above, th e re w ould be no p ro b le m w ith c la u s e 

( a ) , as th e e n t ir e pro gra m w ould a p p ly o n ly to p o in t s o u rc e s 

in th e f i r s t p la c e . S im ila r comme nts a p p ly to su b p a ra g ra p h 

( i i i ) o f § 2 0 9 .1 2 0(e ) (2 ).

$209.1 20 (e) ( 2 ) ( i i i ) . See com ment to § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (e ) (2 ) ( i i ) . 

The e xe m p ti o n fo r d is c h a rg e s o f 500 c u b ic y a rd s is a s te p 

in th e r i g h t d ir e c t io n , b u t th e ex em pt am ou nt s h o u ld be 

a t le a s t 5,0 00 c u b ic y a rd s s in c e t h is e xe m p tio n c o v e rs p r o je c ts 

w h ic h wer e a lr e a d y un de rw ay whe n th e r e g u la tio n s were p ro m u lg a te d .

In th e f i r s t p r o v is o , th e w ord s " , i f a p p lic a b le , " 

s h o u ld be ad de d a f t e r th e w ord s "F e d e ra l W ate r P o llu t io n 

C o n tro l A c t" and a f t e r th e w ord s "C o a s ta l Zone Man agem en t 

A c t" .

The se co nd p ro v is o c o n ta in s y e t a n o th e r o f th e 

p r o v is io n s g iv in g th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r d is c r e t io n to r e q u ir e 

a p e rm it fo r an o th e rw is e ex em pt a c t i v i t y . I t sh o u ld be 

d e le te d .

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (e ) ( 2 ) ( i v ) . T h is p a ra g ra p h sh o u ld be 

d e le te d as i t r e fe r s to n o n p o in t sou rc e a c t i v i t i e s .

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( f ) ( 1 ) . We s u g g e st th a t t h i s p a ra g ra p h 

be amended to make c le a r t h a t s o c ia l co n ce rn s o f a n o n -e n v ir o n m e n ta l 

n a tu re , such as em plo ym ent o p p o r t u n itie s , sh o u ld be re g a rd e d 

as fa c to r s th a t a re r e le v a n t in c o n s id e rin g w h eth er o r n o t

p e rm it is su a n ce w ould be in th e p u b lic in t e r e s t .

?

 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( f ) ( 3 ) . T h is s e c tio n p la c e s th e C orp s 

on o f p o lic in g s t a t u t o r y re q u ir e m e n ts f o r w h ic h

i t ha s no r e s p o n s ib lit y o r a u t h o r it y . In th e in t e r e s t o f

e x p e d itin g a l l ne ed ed p e rm it s , th e §404 p e rm it a p p lic a tio n

s h o u ld be p ro cessed on i t s own m e rit s w ith o u t re g a rd to

re q u ir e m e n ts w h ic h a re n o t c o n d itio n s p re c e d e n t to p e rm it

is s u a n c e . The f i r s t se n te n ce sh o u ld be re v is e d to re a d :
299

" P e rm it s w i l l n o t be is s u e d w he re p r i o r c e r t i ­

f i c a t i o n o r a u th o r i z a t io n o f th e p ro p o se d work 

i s r e q u ir e d by law an d su ch c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r 

a u th o r i z a t io n ha s n o t be en o b ta in e d " .

S 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (g ) (1 ) ( i ) ( b ) . A ll r e f e r e n c e s in t h i s 

s u b s e c ti o n to " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " sh o u ld be ch an ge d to " n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s " . Su ch r i g h t s a s th e g e n e ra l 

p u b li c may ha ve w it h r e s p e c t to use o f an d a c c e s s to th e 

" n a v ig a b le w a te rs " ( i n th e t r a d i t i o n a l s e n s e ) we re n o t ex pa nd ed 

by th e F e d e ra l W at er P o l l u ti o n C o n tr o l A c t.

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( g) (3 ) . The e f f e c t o f c la u s e ( iv ) o f 

t h i s s u b s e c ti o n i s t h a t no p e rm it w i l l be g r a n te d fo r work 

in w e tl a n d s i d e n t i f i e d a s im p o rt a n t un de r su b p a ra g ra p h ( i i ) 

u n le s s th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e er c o n c lu d e s t h a t th e b e n e f i ts 

o f th e p ro p o se d a l t e r a t i o n o u tw ei g h th e dam age to th e w e tl a n d 

re s o u r c e an d t h a t th e p ro p o se d a l t e r a t i o n i s n e c e s s a ry to 

r e a l i z e th e b e n e f i t s .

I t i s h a rd to c o n c e iv e o f a w e tl a n d t h a t wo uld 

n o t be " i d e n t i f i e d a s im p o rt a n t" under su b p a ra g ra p h ( i i ) .

Th us th e e f f e c t o f t h i s s u b s e c ti o n (3 ) i s to p r o h i b i t a l l 

d is c h a r g e s in w e tl a n d s u n le s s th e a p p li c a n t ma kes th e p ro p e r 

sh ow in g.

As a p p li e d to th e w e tl a n d s , a t e § t t h i s s t r i n g e n t 

may p e rh a p s be j u s t i f i e d , th ou gh i t p o se s C o n s t i tu t i o n a l 

q u e s ti o n s in as m uc h a s i t may e f f e c t i v e l y d e p r iv e a p r o p e rty 

ow ner o f th e us e o f h i s p r o p e rty w it h o u t c o m p e n sa ti o n . C f.

U n it e d S t a te s v. R an ds , 38 9 U .S . 12 1 (1 9 6 7 ) . How ever a t e s t 

t h i s s t r i n g e n t c a n n o t be j u s t i f i e d when a p p li e d to la n d 

a r e a s . As p o in te d o u t in P a r t I o f t h i s s u b m is s io n , m il l io n s 

o f a c r e s o f co m m er ci al ti m b e rl a n d a re in c lu d e d in th e d e f i n i t i o n 

o f " f r e s h w a te r w e tl a n d s " o r " c o a s ta l w e tl a n d s " c o n ta in e d 

in § 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( d) (2 ) o f th e r e g u l a t i o n s , an d many d a y -t o -d a y 

a c t i v i t i e s in th e s e a r e a s w i l l r e q u ir e p e r m its . In mos t 

c a s e s " a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s " w i l l n o t be a v a i l a b l e fo r s i l v i c u l t u r a l 

a c t i v i t i e s . U n le ss th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " 

i s am end ed a s s u g g e s te d , c la u s e ( iv ) sh o u ld n o t a p p ly to 

su ch a r e a s . In an y e v e n t, s u b c la u s e (a ) o f c la u s e ( iv ) sh o u ld 

be am end ed to r e q u ir e th e su b m is si o n o f d a ta o n ly " i f re q u e s te d 

by th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r " .

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( g) (6 ) ( i ) . T h is s u b s e c ti o n sh o u ld be 

ame nde d to make c l e a r t h a t h i s t o r i c , s c e n ic an d r e c r e a t i o n a l 

v a lu e s w i l l n o t be c o n s id e re d by th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e er u n le s s 

su ch v a lu e s a re re c o g n iz e d in an e x i s t i n g la w o r r e g u la ti o n 

w hi ch a p p li e s g e n e r a ll y o r s p e c i f i c a l l y to th e p r o p e rty in v o lv e d .

76-161 0 - 76 - 20
300

Th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r s h o u ld n o t de ny a p e rm it on th e b a s is 

o f h is p e rs o n a l ju dg m en t th a t th e p ro p e r ty i s , e . g . , s c e n ic , 

u n le s s th e re is in e f f e c t some la w w h ic h a u th o r iz e s him to 

do so . We b e li e v e t h is was n o t th e in t e n t o f t h i s s e c tio n ; 

b u t to c l a r i f y th e i n t e n t , th e f i r s t se n te n ce o f th e s u b s e c ti o n 

sh o u ld be amended to re a d (new m a tt e r u n d e r lin e d ) :

" ( i ) A p p lic a tio n s fo r p e rm it s co ve re d by t h is 

r e g u la tio n may in v o lv e a re a s t h a t p o ssess h is ­

t o r i c , c u l t u r a l , s c e n ic , c o n s e rv a tio n , r e c r e a tio n a l 

o r s im ila r v a lu e s th a t a re re q u ir e d by a p p li c a b le 

la w s and r e g u la tio n s to be enhanced, p re s e rv e d

o r d e v e lo p e d ."

5 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( h ) ( I) a n d ( 2 ) . C o n s id e rin g t h a t , as d is c u s s e d 

in P a rt I o f t h i s s u b m is s io n , th e r e g u la tio n s c o v e r many 

th o usan ds o f m in o r a c t i v i t i e s in n a v ig a b le w a te rs , th e d e t a il 

re q u ir e d on ENG Form 43 45 i s f a r to o d e ta ile d an d p ro b a b ly 

be yo nd th e c a p a b ilit y o f many a p p lic a n ts . The re q u ir e m e n t 

f o r d ra w in g s , s k e tc h e s an d p la n s sh o u ld a p p ly o n ly in th e 

case o f m a jo r p r o je c ts . A ls o , p r o v is io n sh o u ld be made 

f o r re fe re n c e to a g e n e ra l p la n in cases o f c o n tin u in g p r o je c ts 

o r r e p e t it iv e a c t i v i t i e s .

In fo rm a tio n as to a d ja c e n t p ro p e r ty ow ners sh o u ld 

be re q u ir e d o n ly whe re th e y a re l i k e l y to be im p a c te d .

In th e ca se o f a la rg e la nd ow ne r u n d e rta k in g a p r o je c t 

in th e i n t e r i o r p a r t o f h is h o ld in g s , i t m ig h t be s e v e ra l 

m il e s to th e n e a re s t a d jo in in g la n d o w n e r. I f a l l a d jo in in g 

la nd ow ne rs wer e n o t i f i e d th e y c o u ld numb er in th e hundre ds 

an d be fa r be yo nd th e a re a o f an y p o s s ib le in flu e n c e by 

th e pro posed p r o je c t . Wh ere th e re a re g r e a t d is ta n c e s fr o m 

th e pro posed a c t i v i t y to th e a d jo in in g p r o p e r ty th e a p p lic a n t 

s h o u ld be p e rm it te d to s a t is f y t h i s re q u ir e m e n t by a s ta t e ­

men t th a t th e re a re no o th e r p ro p e r ty ow ners w it h in X m il e s .

C o n s id e ra tio n s h o u ld be g iv e n to a s im p lif ie d , 

s h o rt-fo rm a p p lic a tio n f o r p r o je c ts l i k e l y to c o s t le s s 

th a n $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 .

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( h ) ( 2 ) ( i i ) . T h is s u b s e c ti o n a g a in assume s 

t h a t 5401 c e r t i f i c a t i o n s a re re q u ir e d f o r a l l d is c h a rg e s , 

w here as in f a c t th e y a re re q u ir e d o n ly f o r p o in t so u rc e 

d is c h a rg e s .

I t is n o t c le a r how th e fe e s tr u c tu r e w ould 

a p p ly in th e case o f a nu mbe r o f in d iv id u a l a c t i v i t i e s , 

a l l p a r t o f a s in g le p r o je c t , such as a l l th e c u lv e r ts on 

a ro ad n e tw o rk b e in g in s t a lle d as on e p r o je c t . A s in g le 

fe e sh o u ld a p p ly in su ch a s it u a t io n , o r e ls e th e fe e s c o u ld
301

become a major expense item for an applicant.

§209.120 (h) (2)(iv). If a structure is being constructed which requires a §402 permit, a State permit or 

a §401 certification, it is the responsibility of the applicant 

to obtain the necessary permit or certification. This is 

not a legitimate concern of the Corps. Unnecessary delays 

will be caused if issuance of a permit to dispose of dredged 

or fill material is contingent upon issuance of a permit 

for a structure to be erected later on the disposal site.

§209.120 (h) (2) (vi). This subsection is highly 

objectionable because it requires the applicant to pay the 

cost of the environmental impact statement. Environmental 

impact statements are required for the benefit of the general 

public; they do not benefit the applicant. To assess the 

cost of the impact statement against the applicant under 

such circumstances is unlawful. In Federal Power Commission 

v. New England Power Company, 415 U.S. 345 (1974), the Court 

held that the proper construction of 31 U.S.C. §48 3(a) was 

that a reasonable charge "'should be made to each identifiable 

recipient for a measurable unit or amount of government 

service or property from which he derives a special b enefit’" 

and that no charge for services should be made "'when the 

identification of the ultimate beneficiary is obscure and 

the service can be primarily considered as benefiting broadly 

the general public'" (at p. 349-51). See also National Cable 

Television Asso. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974).

Furthermore, the Corps has no authority under 

any statute to require information for the impact statement 

"to be compiled by an independent third party under contract 

with the applicant". Under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (42 U.S.C. 4332), the requirement of preparing an environmental impact statement rests on the Federal government, 

not on the applicant. The applicant may find it in his 

interest to assist a federal agency in the preparation of 

the statement, but in the absence of proper statutory authority 

he cannot be made to pay for it or participate in its preparation 

directly or through a contractor.

We believe that in all cases where an environmental 

impact statement is required, the Corps should consult with 

the applicant as to the selection of the Corps' consultant 

to ensure that the consultant chosen will be knowledgeable 

and respected in his field and competent to prepare the 

statement.

§209.120(i)(1)(i). The standard procedure for
ro c e s s in g p e rm it s mus t be m o d if ie d to make i t si m p le and 

l e ss ti m e -c o n su m in g . Th e c u r r e n t r e g u la ti o n s w i l l c l e a r l y 

c a u s e a fl o o d o f a p p l i c a t i o n s , mo st o f w hi ch w i l l r e c e iv e 

a t b e s t a c u r s o r y re v ie w by th e Cor ps an d th e nu mero us 

o th e r a g e n c ie s wh ich a r e e x p e c te d to re v ie w th em . In a d d it io n 

to th e am en dm ent s su g g e s te d e ls e w h e re in t h i s P a r t , a c t i v i t i e s 

c o s tin g l e s s th a n $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 o r in v o lv in g l e s s th a n 1 0 0 0 c u b ic 

y a rd s o f d re d g e o r f i l l an d o th e r m inor a c t i v i t i e s sh o u ld 

n o t be s u b je c te d to th e r ig o r o u s re v ie w p ro c e s s t h a t m aj or 

p r o j e c t s may a p p r o p r i a te l y n e ed . In o rd e r to re d u c e d e la y 

in is s u a n c e o f th e s e p e r m i t s , th e C or ps sh o u ld im po se upo n 

i t s e l f th e d i s c i p l i n e o f s p e c i f i c ti m e l i m i t s . Fo r i n s t a n c e , 

th e C or ps sh o u ld be a b le to make a d e te r m in a ti o n t h a t an 

e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p ac t s ta te m e n t w i l l n o t be r e q u ir e d , fo r 

mos t a p p l i c a t i o n s , w it h in 10 day s o f r e c e ip t o f th e a p p l i c a t i o n .

S 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( i ) (1 ) ( i v ) . The D i s t r i c t E n g in e er i s 

g iv e n a g r e a t d e a l o f d i s c r e t i o n th ro u g h o u t t h i s r e g u l a t i o n .

The d e te r m in a ti o n t h a t an EIS i s or i s n o t r e q u ir e d ca n 

ha ve a m aj or ec on om ic im p ac t upo n th e a p p l i c a n t . The Cor ps 

sh o u ld p u b li s h some g u i d e l i n e s fo r th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e er 

to fo ll o w in e v a lu a ti n g th e ne ed fo r an E IS . T he se g u id e lin e s 

sh o u ld be a v a i l a b l e to th e p u b li c so t h a t th e a p p li c a n t 

ca n ju d g e fo r h im s e lf i f an EIS re q u ir e m e n t i s l i k e l y .

T her e sh o u ld be a c l e a r - c u t d e te r m in a ti o n t h a t m os t m in or 

a c t i v i t i e s do n o t r e q u ir e an E IS .

S 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( i ) (1 ) ( v i ) . A ft e r a l l a c tio n s a r e co m ple te d 

th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e er sh o u ld be r e q u ir e d to re n d e r a d e c is io n 

w it h in 15 day s in o rd e r to re d u c e d e la y . I f th e a p p li c a t io n 

i s fo rw ar ded to h ig h e r a u t h o r i t i e s f o r a d e c i s i o n , th e a p p li c a n t 

sh o u ld be in fo rm ed both o f th e d a te i t was fo rw a rd ed and 

th e re a s o n s fo r i t s b e in g fo rw ar d ed so he ca n p r e p a r e h im s e lf 

fo r f u r th e r q u e s t io n s . T h er e sh o u ld a ls o be a ti m e r e q u ir e ­

men t fo r th e h ig h e r a u t h o r i t y to a c t .

S 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( i ) (1 ) ( v i i ) . The re q u ir e m e n t t h a t th e 

a p p li c a n t s ig n th e p e rm it i s u n n e c e s s a ry . T h is i s n o t do ne 

w it h o th e r p e r m its , su ch a s NPDES p e rm it s un de r § 4 0 2 .

S 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( a ) . I f th e pr og ra m i s to re m ai n 

in i t s p r e s e n t fo rm , we s u g g e s t t h a t th e Cor ps e x p lo r e w it h 

th e S t a te s th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f g e n e r a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , an al o g o u s 

t o g e n e r a l p e r m its .

S 2 0 9 . 1 2 0 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( 1 ) ( b ) . T hr ee m on th s i s n o t a re a s o n a b le 

p e r io d o f tim e to d e te rm in e i f a w ai ver has o c c u r r e d . Tw enty 

d a y s sh o u ld be a d e q u a te , w it h a r e s e r v a t io n t h a t th e S t a te 

ca n re s e r v e e x tr a ti m e t o make th e d e te r m in a ti o n on p r o j e c t s 

o f e x te n s iv e s i z e .
303

2 09.1 20 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( i i ) . S ix m onth s is an u n re a so n a b le 

p e rio d o f ti m e fo r th e S ta te to w aiv e i t s r i g h t to o b je c t 

to a c t i v i t y in a c o a s ta l zone. I f th e a p p lic a n t c e r t i f i e s 

th a t th e a c t i v i t y co n fo rm s to th e c o a s ta l zo ne ma nageme nt 

p la n o r th a t th e re is no a p p li c a b le p la n , th e C orp s s h o u ld 

pro ce e d w ith is s u a n c e of th e p e rm it u n le s s an d u n t i l i t 

ha s re ason to b e li e v e o th e rw is e .

§ 2 0 9 .1 2 0 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( i x ) . The g e n e ra l p e rm it sh o u ld 

n o t be us ed as an excuse fo r f a i l i n g to r e v is e th e §404 re g u ­

la t io n s to c o n fo rm to th e s ta t u to r y m andate .

I f g e n e ra l p e rm it s a re to be us ed w it h in th e c o n te x t 

o f a p r o p e r ly dra w n §404 p ro gra m , th e c la u s e g iv in g th e D i s t r i c t 

E n g in e e r d is c r e tio n a r y po wer to r e q u ir e in d iv id u a l p e rm it s 

on a c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s is fo r a c t i v i t i e s co v e re d by a g e n e ra l 

p e rm it sh o u ld be d e le te d , f o r th e re asons s ta te d ab ov e in 

t h is P a r t. Th e mec ha nism an d a p p lic a tio n o f g e n e ra l p e rm it s 

s h o u ld be s p e ll e d o u t in mo re d e t a i l . Th e C orp s s h o u ld im m e d ia te ly 

b e g in is s u in g g e n e ra l p e rm it s .

^20 9.1 2 0 ( i ) ( 3 ) . T im in g is ke y to an a p p lic a n t's 

c o n s id e ra tio n s in u n d e rta k in g a p r o je c t . S i lv i c u l t u r a l 

a c t i v i t i e s a re s e a s o n a l in n a tu re . Some a c t i v i t i e s ca n 

o n ly be c a r r ie d o u t d u rin g c e r t a in p e rio d s be ca use o f w e a th e r, 

g ro w in g p e rio d s an d th e l i k e . Some a c t i v i t i e s m ust be do ne 

on an em er ge nc y b a s is , such as s a lv a g e o p e ra tio n s a f t e r 

a h u rric a n e o r f o r e s t f i r e . Th e le n g th o f ti m e an a p p ro v a l 

can ta k e under th e s e r e g u la tio n s f o r ev en m in o r a c t i v i t i e s 

is o f g r e a t co n c e rn to th e fo r e s t in d u s tr y .

A l l o f th e ti m e p e rio d s p ro v id e d he re c o u ld be 

s h o rte n e d f o r th e v a s t b u lk o f p e rm it te d a c t i v i t i e s . In 

c la u s e ( i ) is s u a n c e o f p u b lic n o tic e c o u ld be a cco m p lish e d 

in 5 d a y s ; in c la u s e ( i i ) , t h i r t y da ys s h o u ld be ad equate 

to re c e iv e comments (s ee 5 2 0 9 . 1 2 0 ( f ) ( i ) ( v i i i ) ; in c la u s e 

( i i i ) , th e re c o rd s h o u ld be c lo s e d n o t l a t e r th a n 5 da ys 

a f t e r th e m e e ti n g ; in c la u s e ( i v ) , f i f t e e n da ys sh o u ld be 

adequate to is s u e a p e rm it a f t e r o th e r re q u ir e m e n ts a re 

m et.

5209.1 20 ( j ) ( 1 ) . P u b li c n o tic e o f th e e x te n s iv e 

n a tu re p ro v id e d f o r h e re is un n e ce ssa ry f o r m in o r a c t i v i t i e s . 

The n o tic e c o u ld s ta te th a t th e C orp s in te n d e d to is s u e 

a p e rm it fo r an a c t i v i t y w hic h ha d be en d e te rm in e d to be 

m in o r an d in d ic a te where th e f i l e c o u ld be re v ie w e d by th e 

p u b lic .

5209.1 20 (k ) ( 2 ) . The p u b lic n o tic e s h o u ld in c lu d e
a sta te m e n t of th e b e n e f its ex p ecte d to be ach ie v ed by th e 

p r o je c t in a d d it io n to a summ ary o f th e en v ir o n m en ta l c o n s id e ra ti o n s

§209.1 20(m )( 3 ). The Cor ps sh ould c o n sid e r ex pa nd in g 

th e l e t t e r o f p e rm is sio n p ro ced u re to th e §404 pro gr am .

52 09 .120 (n) (3 ). U nle ss th e re g u la ti o n s a re m odif ie d 

as su g g est ed in t h i s su b m is sio n , tim ber co m pa ni es w i l l p ro b ab ly 

be a p p ly in g fo r p e rm it s 2 o r 3 y e ars in ad va nc e o f th e r e a l 

ne ed fo r them . I f th e p e rm it s a re g ra n te d on a ti m e ly b a s is , 

th ey may e x p ir e b e fo re th e work i s un de rw ay . T h ere fo re 

t h i s s e c ti o n sh ould n o t be in te r p r e te d to o r i g id l y .

A ls o, p ro v is io n sh ould be made in p e rm it s fo r 

m ai nte nance o f th e wo rks covere d by th e p e rm it .

§209 .1 2 0 ( o ) (1 ). P ro v is io n sh ould be made fo r 

m o d if ic a ti o n s on a p p lic a tio n o f th e p erm it h o ld e r.

$209 .1 2 0 ( q ) (4 ). The expen se s in c u rre d w it h re g ard 

to in s p e c tio n s per fo rm ed by th e Corps sh ould n o t be p a id 

by th e p erm it h o ld e r. See FPC v. New En glan d Power C o ., 

d is c u sse d ab ov e.
305

EX HIB IT 3

EXPANDING REGULATORY TIME TABLE 

N

OF THE ARMY EN GINEERS - SECTION 101

P 1. 92-500
306

EX PA NDI NG RE GU LA TO RY T IM E TABLE

OF THE A RM Y E NG IN EE RS — SE CT ION 404

P. L. 9 2-500 ON

KENNEBEC C OUN TY

M AIN E

Phase I July 25 1975

Phase II July 1 1976

Phase II I July 1 1977

Swamp or Marsh

Phase II

Phase III
307

EXPANDING R EG IL A TORY TIM ETA BLE 

OF THE ARMY ENGINEERS - SECTION BM 

f.l « a »

ON

Cl RKY & JOSEPHINE COl NTIES 

ORE<4>N

K V 3 3 0 J

Ph«M-l July 25 ,1975

< M IEORNH
308

E X H IB IT 6

SYMBCA

Q . " 0

DRAINAGE MAP

SECTION <04 JURISDICTION 

SAVANNAH DISTRICT

•STATS BOUNDARY 

DISTRICT BOUNOARY 

NAVIGABLE WATERS OF 'ME U 1 

PHASE I 

PRIMARY TRIBUTARIES 

PHASE II, NAVIGABLE WATERS OE THE U 

l » TO THEIR HEADWATERS 

NAVIGABLE WATERS OE THE US 

PHASE III, UP IO THEIR HEADWATERS

S A V A N N A H D IS T R IC T 

C IV IL W O R K S ARE A

SC Alf r 500 000
309

EXHIBIT 7

5YMBQt PESCRI

LEQEHD

UFTl&M

. STATE BOUNDARY

DISTRICT BOUNDARY

FRESHWATER WETLANDS

PHASE I, NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THI U.S

WETLANDS

PHASE l« NAVIGABLE WATERS O * THE U.S

EXCLUDED CONTIGUOUS

fro s t r e am s < s C E s )

EXCLUDED RE ARCHED

S A V A N N A H D IS T R IC T

C IV IL W O R K S AREA

SC AIE 1 500 00C

WETLANDS MAP SKTION 404 jur

SAVANNAH DISTRICT
EXHIBIT 9R O A D C O N S T R U C T I O N

Com bin ed road/drainage ditch constr uct ion in p oorly drained forestland. 

Mat erial removed from ditc h is ut ilized to pro vide a hi gher, drier roadbed.
D R A I N A G E P I T C H

Minor drainage ditch in a pine plantation to control 

excess surface water that retards tree growth.

EXHIBIT 10
I

0 0 

—■* ►

u>

C U L V E R T S

EXHIBIT 11

Filling over road culverts may result in placement of many cubic 

yards of material in and above the stream channel.
313

EX HIBIT 12

5 C F S S T R E A M

T h is i s a n e x a m p le o f a t y p i c a l 5 c u b ic f t / s e c . s tr e a m .
EXHIBIT 13

Permit CRITICAL PATH FOR GETTING CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT

Denied

This chart shows the Corps permit process for projects

of various public and agency sensitivity. It is based

upon optimistic periods of time for accomplishing some

tasks. Individual companies have had experiences with

moderate sized projects which have greatly exceeded

these time schedules

Time

Weeks

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 $9 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
315

KEY TO C RITICAL PA TH CHA RT

Proc es s fo r Getting Co rp s of En gi ne er s Pe rm it

< m u

Pe rm it application su bm it te d

Co rp s issu es pub lic no ti ce - neg at iv e declaration fo r EI S 

Co rp s is su es pub lic no ti ce - EI S an d wa ter qu ality certificati on re quired

D. No publ ic or age nc y ob je ctions re ce ive d

E. Agency or publ ic ob jec ts to proje ct

F. Seventy-five-day wa iting pe ri od ov er - Co rp s decid es to is su e

perm it

G. Co rp s is su es per mi t

H. Co rp s decides EI S req ui re d ba se d on objec ti on s

I. Co rp s decide s ob jections no t signifi ca nt en ough to re qu ir e

an EI S

J. Wa ter quality certification re ce iv ed - EI S req ui ri ng no lo ngte rm st ud ie s compl et ed

K. Activity is in co as tal zo ne - CZM ce rt ification re qu ir ed

L. CZM certification rece iv ed

M. CZM certification de nied

N. Applicant sa ti sfi es objec to rs co nc er ns

O. Pe rm it application modified an d objector re mo ve s ob je ct io ns

P. Pe rm it issu ed

Q. Applicant ap pe al s to Se cr et ary of Co mm er ce

R. Secretar y gr an ts certification

S. Secr etary do es no t grant certi fi ca ti on

T. Proj ec t modified - pe rm it pr oc es s mu st st ar t ov er

U. Pu bl ic review of EI S

V. Pu bl ic or agen cy req ue st s pu bl ic meeting

W. Pu bl ic meeting he ld

X. Pu bl ic meeting re co rd cl os ed

Y. Co rp s is su es pe rm it

Z. Co rp s deni es per mit

AA. Major environmen ta l st ud ie s requ ir ed to prov id e da ta fo r EI S

BB. St ud ie s desi gned - co nsultants hi re d

CC. St ud ie s ar e be gu n

DD. St ud ie s complete d - EI S wr itten

76-161 0 - 76 - 21
316

WHY ALL WETLANDS SHOULD NOT BE COVERED

BY SECTION 404 OF P.L. 92-500.

Supplement to Statement of William H. McCredie 

for the Forest Industry

before the Committee on Public Works 

United States Senate

July 28, 1976

All interest groups involved in the Section 404 debate agree 

that wetlands are a very important national resource. But when the 

discussion gets down to— important for what purpose or what use— 

the agreement begins to fade. The reason for this is because the 

term "wetlands," in its scientific sense, includes a large complex 

set of different types of wetlands. A set more complex than even 

the expansive array of items the Corps of Engineers has included in 

its new definition of "navigable waters" under Section 404. Whereas 

"navigable waters" deals primarily with water bodies that are easily 

identifiable, the general term "wetlands" is used to describe "land 

containing much soil moisture" (Webster's Third New International 

Dict ionary, 1971). The term then includes lands with excess soil 

moisture for only two months of the year to lands that are continuously covered by 6 feet of water. To many members of the public, the 

term wetlands may bring an image of coastal salt and fresh water 

marshes or the Florida Everglades which should be considered for 

preservation for their unique national significance. Most people 

do not think of lands producing farm and forest crops as wetlands.

But the natural resource managers, conservation groups, and commercial interests who pursue a day-to-day interest in all types of 

wetlands perceive them differently. This perception varies depending 

on their knowledge, experience, and interests related to wetlands.

For wetlands are managed for many legitimate social purpo ses— waterfowl; timber; fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and crop production.

Some of these purposes are compatible and some are not.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly discuss the complexities 

surrounding the subject of wetlands and the present Corps regulations 

under Section 404.

What Are Wetlands?

Webster says they are lands containing much soil moisture. This 

definition could include a residential lawn after watering. Scientific 

definitions of wetlands have tended to be vague and imprecise because 

they are used to describe a general condition and are not meant for 

actual delineation on the ground.

For example, inland wetlands are defined by Durrenberger as: 

"Any area that is more or less regularly wet or flooded. Where the

1. Durrenberger, Robert W ., Dictionary of the Environmental Sciences 

National Press Books, Palo Alto, California, 19737
317

water table stands at or above the land surface for at least part 

of the year." He defines coastal wetlands as: "Land types such as 

salt marshes, and brackish marshes subject to saline and/or tidal 

influences.1* For scientific discussion these definitions may serve 

well enough but they are very inadequate for determining the area 

subject to the permit requirements of a regulatory agency.

The nature of wet-lands not only varies greatly by regions of 

the nation and by the amount or duration of water saturation but also 

by very different biological communities that are able to live and 

thrive. Some support reeds, cattails, and grass; others, shrubs and 

small trees; and yet others are either now growing or capable of 

growing food and timber crops.

The inclusion or withdrawal of lands from the classification of 

wetlands is a continuous dynamic process. Changes occur both by natural processes and man's activities. Natural processes include a 

complex interrelationship of:

CLIMATE Temperature, rainfall

GEOLOGICAL Crust movement, sedimentation, sea level

BIOLOGICAL Vegetative cover, plant succession

Man creates wetlands by construction and maintenance of ponds, 

dam s, and other water control structures. Man also converts wetlands 

to other u ses— by chance and by intent— by filling, drainage, and 

flood control activities.

Harvest of timber on lands which have nominal excess water problems can greatly increase these proble ms. Some timber growing lands 

would revert to grass or brush species more characteristic of wetlands 

if water control management is not carried out. For instance, wellstocked pine forests in the South transpire2 an equivalent of 20 to 

30 inches of rainfall per year. When these stands are harvested, the 

water table can rise to a level that inhibits pine regeneration and 

tree growth. Water co ntrol measures such as drainage ditches may be 

necessary under these conditions to restore the optimum forest productivity potential of the site.

Importance Of Wetlands

Each variety of wetland has different beneficial value to man 

depending on its location and individual chara cteristics. Some wet ­

lands have a very evident primary value for one use; others have primary values for multiple uses.

- Fish - breeding, spawning, and protective cover for 

commercial and sport species

- Development - homes, recreation, dock facilities, 

hig hwa ys, and airports

- Natural Recreation/Scientific Study - exploration 

for fun or knowledge

2. The passage of water vapor from a tree into the air.
- Plant Crops wild rice, cranberries, rice, and 

other grains, vegetables

- Shellfish - breeding, shelter, and habitat for 

commercial and natural production

- Timber Crops - preferred habitat for many botto mland hardwood species and some conifer species

- Waterfowl - food, nesting, wintering, and resting 

areas during migration

- Wildlife - food, water, and shelter for many species 

of game or fur animals

Public Policy For Wetlands

When major conflict arises between the many uses of wetlands, 

Congress or state legislatures are asked to establish policy to serve 

the public interest. At least 15 states have passed laws to protect 

some portion of the wetlands in that state (see attached list). The 

definition of wetlands for each state law is different, reflecting 

the specific areas to which the protective programs are aimed.

Congress has established several significant national policies 

directed at the preservation and/or wise use of wetlands. The following laws are examples of federal policies:

Wetlands Loan Act of 1961, P.L. 87-383, P.L. 90-205, and

P.L. 94-215

In October 1961, Congress passed an appropriations authority 

for preservation of wetlands and other waterfowl habitat. This Act 

provides a long-term funding source— a loan repayed by duck stamp receipts— for the Secretary of the Interior to acquire wetlands authorized under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. In 1967 the Act was 

amended to extend the authorization of $105 million for a 15-year 

period ending in 1977 and to provide that all federal acquisitions be 

subject to approval by the Governor. On February 17, 1976, the Act 

was again amended to increase the authorization to $200 million and 

extend the time period to October 1, 1983.

In 1956 the Department of the Interior identified 22.5 million 

acres of wetlands (of a total of 75 million acres, Circular 39) of 

significant value for migratory waterfowl use. The Department's initial plan identified the following wetlands maintenance goals:

Million Acres

Remain in private ownership 

State acquired 

Federal acquired

TOTAL

10.0

5.0

7.5

22.5
319

By 1975 the Department of the Interior had acquired, by donation, 

fee purchase, or easement, all but 600,000 acres of its original 

goal. Also in 1975 the Department identified an additional 1.3 

million acres of prime waterfowl habitat for federal acquisition.

The current Department wetlands acquisition goal is therefore 1.9 

million acres over the next decade.

Water Bank Act of 1970, P.L. 91-559

Under this law "the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 

and directed to formulate and carry out a continuous program to 

prevent the serious loss of wetlands, and to preserve, restore and 

improve such lands...." The Secretary may enter into 10-year lease 

"agreements with landowners and operators in important migratory 

waterfowl nesting and breeding areas on specified farm, ranch, or 

other wetlands identified in a conservation plan developed in cooperation with the Soil and Water Conservation District...."

"As used in this chapter, the term 'wetlands' means the inland 

fresh areas (types 1-5) described in Circular 39, Wetlands of the 

United Stat es, published by the U.S. Department of the Interior...."

Several USDA agencies work together in the administration of 

this program including the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the 

Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). Since 

1972 when program funding was first authorized, USDA has expended or 

obligated over 64 percent of available program funds. The program 

has so far been directed to the primary flyways involving some 62 

counties in 15 states. Even so, by June 1975, over 330 thousand acres 

of wetlands have been brought under lease agreement.

SCS also administers other programs to improve crop and pasture 

land by water control structures. In 1975 SCS adopted a policy to 

restrict technical and financial assistance for modifying wetlands 

including conversion to cropland. SCS will now only provide assistance on wetland types 1 and 2 (FWS, Circular 39).

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, P.L. 92-583

This law provides for federal grants to the 30 coastal states 

for planning and administering management programs "...to preserve, 

protect, develop, and where possible, to restore and enhance, the 

resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations. ..."

The term "coastal zone" as used in the Act means the coastal 

wate rs— and the adjacent shorelands— and includes transitional and 

intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches.

Coastal states receiving grants under this Act must include in 

their plans or programs:

1. Identification of the coastal zone including an inventory 

and designation of areas of particular concern.
320

. Definition of permissable land and water uses within the 

coastal zone including priority uses in particular areas.

3. State or local authority to (a) administer land and water 

use regulations, control development, and resolve conflicts 

among competing us es , and (b) acquire fee simple or easement 

interests.

The 30 coastal states are currently in the process of developing 

these pl ans .

Wetlands Inventories

Many federal and state agencies have or will be making inventories of "wetlands." In almost all cases the inventories are not 

comparable because they are made for different purposes or uses. 

Working with only one of these inventories may be fine for the purpose 

it was intended, but to use it for a more comprehensive consideration 

of the wetlands question leads to confusion. Comparison of different 

inventories is like comparing apples and oranges. Examples of two 

existing inventories show this problem.

Wetlands of the United States - Circular 39, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Department of the Interior

"The term 'wetlands,' as used in this report and in the 

wildlife field generally, refers to lowlands covered with 

shallow and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters."

Potential Cropland Study - (partially published), Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture

"Subclass w (excess water) consists of soils in which 

excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation in their 

use. Poor soil drainage, wetness, high water table, and 

overflow are the criteria for determining which soils 

belong in this subclass."

Circular 39 Potential Cropland

Date of Inventory 1955 1975

Purpose

Scope of Survey

Waterfowl and wild- Land use capability 

life habitat

Only natural wetlands, Natural and altered 

little altered by man's by man 50 states 

activities 48 states

Ownership Included Private and public Non-federal only
Circular 39 Potential Cropland

Wetlands (million acres)

Total 74.4 242.9

Cropland unknown 97.6

Pasture 6 Range unknown 44.3

Forest unknown 85.2

Other unknown 15.8

Categories of Wetlands 20 4

Several of the 20 wetlands types identified in Circular 39 contain important timber growing lands. An unknown portion of the following wetland types are commercial forestlands.

Classification Importance to Waterfowl Total 

(million acres)

Type Primary Lesser

1. Seasonally flooded 

basins or flats

6.4 16.7 23.1

2. Inland fresh 

meadows

2.0 5.5 7.5

7. Wooded Swamps 2.3 14.5 16.8

8. Bogs __ 3.3 3.3

TOTAL 10.7 40.0 50.7

Source: Circular 39

While a small proportion of these wetlands have primary value 

for waterfowl, a large proportion has primary value for growing 

timber, particularly hardwoods. In most cases both uses are compatible under proper forest management.

Conclusion

Wetlands have widely variable characteristics. Their contribution to man also spans a wide variety of benefits and uses, many of 

which are compatible. Where competitive uses of wetlands threaten 

some of these benefits, states and the federal government have established public policy to encourage a rational decision-making process. This policy takes several different forms such as the successful federal programs to purchase or provide financial incentives to 

landowners to maintain wetlands.

The states are also now using planning processes, with public 

involvement, to consider all the benefits and costs of the several 

wetland uses before developing regulatory management programs for
322

areas of concern. These planning processes will help to provide the 

needed information to properly consider wetlands issues. This effort by the states will also be helpful for identifying important 

wetland resources on maps and on the ground. This step is essential 

for responsible public management programs particularly when it 

involves regulation of activities by a permit system.

We can't believe it was the intent of Congress under Section 404 

for the Army Corps of Engineers to impose a regulatory permit program for everyday farming and forestry activities in wet-lands m anaged for the production of food, fiber, and forest crops. The 

Corps has improperly included many coastal and freshwater wetlands 

within the scope of its jurisdiction in navigable waters. For 

example, the Corps defines "freshwater wetlands" as follows:

"Freshwater wetlands including marshes, shallows, 

swamps and, similar areas that are contiguous or adjacent 

to other navigable waters and that support freshwater 

vegetation. 'Freshwater wetlands' means those areas that 

are periodically inundated and that are normally characterized by the prevalence of vegetation that requires saturated 

soil conditions for growth and reproduction." (33 CFR 

209. 120(d)(2)(h))

This definition is without precedent— either legislative or 

scientific— but even worse it is extremely vague and imprecise. To 

make this partial inventory of wetlands which are adjacent or contiguous to other navigable waters including designation on maps and 

the ground will literally take years. The uncertainty and confusion 

on the part of millions of "wet-lands" owners during this identification phase would be further increased by the implementation of the 

permit program itself.

This burden, cost, and confusion will be shared by the general 

public because of the complex overlap with other federal and state 

policies covering wetlands and the great potential for litigation if 

wetlands are covered by Section 404. Where program overlap develops, 

little additional environmental benefits will result and may actually cause counterproductive results.

The successful policies of public purchase or lease agreements 

to protect valuable wetland resources is far more preferable to regulatory permit policies of a controlled society.

We, therefore, urge the Congress to pass legislation amending 

Section 404 that insures that all lands— wet or dry— used for 

farming, forestry, and ranching purposes are clearly given geographical exclusion and all related activities are excluded from 

coverage by Section 404.
323

The fo llo w in g s t a t e s have e n a c te d la w s r e g u l a t i n g t i d a l 

a n d /o r n o n - t i d a l w e tla n d a r e a s in a d d i t i o n t o th e r e g u l a t i o n s 

o f w a te rw a y s p e r s e :

C o n n e c tic u t - GS 22 a 1-4 5

D e la w a re -7 De l . Co de §56601-6 620 (1 97 4 R e v .)

G e o rq ia -4 5 G a. Co de 136-1 47 (1 97 2)

L o u is ia n a -1 2 LRS 51^1361-1 365 (1 97 2 p o c k e t)

M ain e-3 8 MRSA 471-4 78 (S u p p .1 9 7 6 )

M ary la n d ^ M ?.A nn.C ode, N a t.R e s .A r t. 9 -1 0 1 e t s e q . (S u p p .1 9 7 6 )

M a s s a c h u s e tts -1 3 0 M a ss .A n n .L . 105 (S u p p .l 9 7 6 T ; 131 M ass .

A nn.L . 4 0 , 40A (S u p p .1 9 7 6 )

M ic h ig a n -1 9 5 5 A c ts C h.2 47 (G re a t L ak es Sub m er ge d L an ds)

19 72 A c ts Ch. 346 ( In la n d L a k e s ) , w e tla n d s l e g i s . 

p e n d in g

M in n e so ta -1 0 5 MS 3 7 -4 7 .5 (1 97 4)

New H a m p sh ir e - RSA 48 3A :1 e t s e q . (S upp. 1 9 7 5 ); RSA 

4 :4 0 a -d (1 97 0 R ep .V olT T ; RSA 4 :4 0 e (S u p p .1 9 7 5 )

New York-CLS §§24-0 101 e t s e q . (S u p p .1 9 7 5 ); CLS §§25-0 101 

e t s e q . (1 97 3) •

N o rth C a ro lin a - 1 1 3 GSNC 22 9 (S u p p .1 9 7 5 ); 11 3a GSNC 

1 e t s e q . 19 75 R e p l., (S u p p .1 9 7 5 ) E nv . P o lic y

V i r g i n ia - V a. C ode An n. § § 6 2 .1 - 1 3 .1 -1 3 .2 0 (S up p .1 9 7 6 ) 

W ash in g to n - RCW 9 0 .5 8 .0 3 0 e t s e q . (1 97 5)

W is c o n sin - WS § 5 9 .9 7 ,6 2 .2 3 STATS C1973)
324

Senator Randolph. Mr. Speth, tell us quickly, “W hat is the Natural 

Resources Defense Council?

STATEM ENT OE GUS SPE TH, NATURA L RESOURCES DEF ENS E 

COUNCIL

Mr. Speth. It is an environmental organization.

Mr. Chairman, for the last 6 years, it has been our privilege and our 

pleasure to work very closely with the staff of this committee to try to 

breathe as much life as we can into the Clean Air Act and the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act, which this committee wrote. It has 

been the most rewarding work that I have ever done.

I am here on behalf of N RDC , and roughly 80 national and local 

environment groups from around the country.

The section 404 program protects against two types of discharges 

which are among the most serious threats today to the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters:

First, discharges of dredged spoil which are frequently contaminated 

with heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium and chlorinated 

hydrocarbons such as PCB’s and Kepone and, second, discharges of 

fill materials which can result in the destruction of irreplacable wetlands—the most valuable and productive p art of the aquatic environment.

The amendment to section 404 recently passed by the House of 

Representatives, referred to as the Wright amendment, would allow 

these discharges to occur w ithout permits or regulation in the great 

majority of the country’s waterways. It would leave unprotected 

most of the country’s stream miles, most of the country’s wetlands and 

indirectly all the downstream waters th at depend on these streams and 

wetlands.

The Wright amendment would thus create a glaring loophole in the 

1972 act. It would undermine the act’s integrity and would render its 

goals unachievable.

Senator Randolph. Mr. Speth, was that a rollcall in the House?

Mr. Speth. Yes, it was. It certainly was a rollcall, but I don’t 

recall the exact vote by which the Wright amendment passed.

In effect, the Wright amendment puts into the law the loophole tha t 

our organization and the National Wildlife Federation originally 

brought our lawsuit to close.

All tha t that lawsuit did was to require tha t the corps regulate the 

discharge of those two types of pollutants assigned to it in the same 

geographical area that EPA regulates all other pollutants.

The section 404 program has become highly politicized during the 

past year. It has been the victim of tremendous misunderstanding 

and the source of heedless concern, of which the House’s action is the 

latest manifestation.

We are unfortunately still living with the poisoned atmosphere 

created by the Corps of Engineers’ press release of May 6, 1975. 

Among other misstatements, tha t release said tha t Federal permits 

may be required by the farmer “who wants to deepen an irrigation 

ditch or plow a field.”

Senator Muskie, upon reading this release, demanded tha t it be 

retracted. Over a year ago he stated on the floor of the Senate:
325

The Corps, in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to distort Federal 

water pollution policy for purposes which I do not understand, publicly announced 

tha t a court decision which upheld the intent of Congress as regards the meaning 

of navigable waters would have the effect of placing thousands of farmers in 

violation of Federal law. Nothing could be further from the truth and the Corps 

knows it . . .

I only hope th at this matter can now be ended and we can get on with the job 

of regulating the discharge of dredge or fill materials in such a manner as to 

protect both the nation’s wetlands and the quality of all the nation’s waters.

If only Se na tor M uskie ’s advice had been followed. Unf or tuna tely 

it was n ot. T he co rps ’ ala rm ist and u nsup po rta ble claim s were repeated 

and even fu rthe r exagg era ted in cou ntless Go ve rnme nt news releases 

and agricultura l and fores try n ew sle tte rs and articles.

Long after the corps, to its cre dit , had put tog eth er and beg un to 

imple me nt a work able and reaso nab le pro gra m, t he dist ortio ns referred 

to by Senato r M usk ie were pe rpetua ted by ce rta in group s with narro w 

com mercial interests in need of a broader political base to achieve 

their objectives, one of which appears to be to escape all reg ulati on 

un de r thi s act .

I do n’t th in k th at there is a basis for believing th at the co urt did 

som eth ing th at this comm itte e did no t inten d.

I wan t to stress three point s which I hope will convinc e the com ­

mittee th at the co ur t di dn ’t go bey ond the st at ute . Th e first is th at 

the re is no t one co urt decision which in terp reted wh at Con gress did, 

but 10 decisions holding th at there is a mu ch bro ader juris dic tio n. 

Th e En vironm en tal Protectio n Agency and the Justi ce Dep ar tm en t 

have consistently su pp orted th at position.

Th e reason for this essent ially unanimous position is the clarity of 

the 1972 ac t’s lan guage and his tor y on this point . Sec tion 502(7) 

defines “nav iga ble wat er s” as used in the ac t to include all “w ate rs 

of the Un ite d St at es ,” and the conference repo rt s tates th at :

The conferees fully intend that the term “navigable waters” be given the broadest 

possible constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations 

which have been made or may be made for administrative purposes. [Conference 

Report, at 144.]

As Congr essman Har sh a noted in the House debate on the W rig ht 

am endm ent:

The courts did not adjudicate a new definition of navigable waters . . . The 

Court has upheld our position on that. It did not redefine navigable waters 

[Congressional Record H5273, June 3, 1976.]

Sim ilar ly, the re is no serious do ub t th at the we tlands associated 

with our est uarie s an d str eams are par t of “the wa ter s of the Un ite d 

St at es .” Certain we tlands, for example, coa stal we tlands below me an 

high tide, have alw ays been included in the tra ditio na l definition 

of nav iga ble wa ters. Wh en the 1972 act abandoned the artificial 

lim ita tio ns of the na viga tio n ser vit ude, th at ab an do nm en t no t only 

exten ded the corps’ jur isd iction up str eam to nonnaviga ble wa ter s 

bu t also la ter ally into the wetlands that are an integ ral and ins epara ble 

par t of the aq ua tic ec osystem.

Otherwise, for example, an industr ial po llu ter could escape reg ula tio n 

under section 404 merely by dump ing its wastes int o a ma rsh or othe r 

we tland ins tea d of into the str eam itself.

Most fund am en tal ly, the basic goals of the ac t sta ted in section 

101—protec ting the chemical, phy sical and biological integr ity of the
326

N atio n’s w aters and pro vid ing a n aquatic env iro nm ent for the p rotec ­

tion and pro pagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and for rec rea tio n in 

and on the w ate r—could n ever even be appro xim ate d if w etlands were 

artificially segmen ted off a nd excluded from the prote cte d “w ate rs of 

the Un ite d St ates .”

Fin ally, we would also no te th at there has never been any serious 

quest ion th at section 404 rea ched the discharg e of fill ma terial. Th e 

phrase “or fill m aterial” is in section 404 itself, bu t its origins go back 

as far as the Senate rep ort.

Th e S enate bill had the A dm inist rator of t he E nv iro nm en tal Pr otec ­

tion Agency reg ula ting the discharg e of all po llu tants, including 

dredge d and fill ma terial. In describing EPA ’s respon sibilities, this 

co mm ittee’s repo rt sta tes:

In establishing the levels of b est practicable and best available technology for 

poi nt sources the Administrator should not ignore discharges resulting from point 

sources other than pipelines or similar conduits. For instance, the Adm inistrator 

mu st give proper a ttention t o the control of dredged spoil disposal and fill operations . . . [Senate Report at 51.]

I think the corps , as a resu lt of the law suit, ha s pu t toge ther a 

pro gra m th at can work. We believe it is a rea son able program. We 

believe it is n ot ov erregula tory. We believe th at the Clevela nd-H ars lia 

am en dm en t and the H ar t am en dm ent in the Se nate can tak e care of 

the problem s th at this comm itte e has de ba ted an d been con cern ed 

wit h.

Th ere is an exclusion in th e corp s’ regulation s for norma l fore stry a nd 

silvic ultura l ope rations . Th ere are general perm its, over a score of 

which hav e alread y been issued, which can cover tho usa nds, and 

alr ead y do cover tho usa nds, of po ten tia l pe rm it app lications.

Th e Cl ev ela nd -H arsha-Hart am endm ent would tak e care of the 

stock pond problem which has come up, and the farm impoundm ents. 

It excludes the m from the pro gram. We fav or th at am endm ent.

W ha t I am saying is th at I think the pro gra m has take n a b um r ap. 

I think the c ourt is taking a b um rap. And 1 think the reason w hy this 

problem has come ab ou t is th at original corps relea se which Se na tor 

Mu skie, and other people in the Congress, and EP A, and oth ers 

den oun ced as bein g mislead ing and dis tor ted . If it we ren ’t for th at 

relea se, we wouldn’t be here now.

I won der wh eth er this comm itte e— and I tr ust th at it doesn’t— 

wa nts to premise any actio n on public concerns caused by a dis torte d 

and misleading release. Th is is w hat i t ultim ate ly gets ba ck to, I thin k. 

These are very wa rra nted concern s on the pa rt of the people of the 

co un try , given wha t they have been told . But people hav e been 

misled.

We work closely with the corps to deve lop a rea son abl e program. 

We are eager to work with this com mittee to develop a wor kable 

program.

One m atter in addit ion to Clevela nd -H arsh a-Hart, which I hav e 

discussed which we believe sho uld be c onsidered in the coming session, 

is the possibility of es tab lishin g in section 404 a provision a nalo gous to 

th at now in section 402 of the act which would allow the delega tion of 

the section 404 pro gram to the Sta tes .

One thing must no t happen, howe ver. We m us t no t allow the 

leg itim ate concerns of the pub lic ab ou t Wa shington red tape and
overregulation to be played on and perverted into special treatme nt 

for special interests.

The proper response to public concerns about Washington regulations is not to create more loopholes but is to insist tha t the corns 

and EPA focus on what is really important, tha t they respond swiftly 

and courteously and tha t it be effective.

The public’s concern about Washington is not so much tha t there 

are Federal regulations, but it is tha t after all the paper is pushed 

the regulations don’t accomplish anything. This committee should 

tell the average American fanner and rancher tha t they have nothing 

to fear from this program. You should also tell the major corporations 

which are devouring the landscape tha t they do, and hopefully the 

destruction will be stopped before the remaining half of our wetlands 

are gone.

My friend Bill McCredie’s organization right now is in court 

trying to get out a regulation under section 208 of the act. They are 

in court trying to get out a regulation under section 402 of the act 

and they are here tonight trying to get out a regulation under section 

404 of the act.

It is the basic premise of some of the organizations tha t have 

perpetuated the original distortions which the corps started tha t 

what they really want to do is get out of being regulated under this 

act. It would be a crying shame if tha t happened.

It may well be that the implications of section 404 are larger than 

Congress originally envisioned. But I urge, as Senator Balter did, 

that we look to the future. The section 404 program is more than 

merely being consistent with the letter of the act as it now stands. It 

is an essential to achieving the act’s basic goal of protecting the integrity of the Nation’s waters.

What we now have in section 404—and this is why we have had 

the most substantial outpouring of environmental support in a long 

time—is a chance for the first time to protect the most critical, the 

most valued, and the most threatened natural resource tha t we have 

in the United States: our marshes and the shallows, and other wetlands.

This committee is right now in its deliberations at the heart of 

what is left of the natural environment in the United States. It is 

being gobbled up, and it is up to you, I think, to look into this with 

the greatest care and to be sure tha t this program, which offers the 

public the first chance to save some remnant of what is left of those 

wetlands and to prevent the unlimited discharge of polluted dredge 

spoil, is preserved.

Thank you.

Senator Randolph. Senator Domcnici, I have a feeling you wa nt 

to say something.

Senator Domenici. Not really, Mr. Chairman. I will, in this instance, 

say I haven’t had a chance to read your whole statement.

I don’t know that we disagree too much. I am having a great deal 

of difficulty determining what wetlands we intend to protect. I think 

you almost are acknowledging tha t maybe the interpretation in that 

respect is broader than the Congress intended.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying tha t what the Corps was 

implementing is right in terms of what is needed. I think it might be 

more appropriate to say tha t w hat the Corps is doing is exactly wrhat 

the court told them to do.
328

I have read the case and I understand you were pa rt of it. The court 

didn’t leave them very many alternatives. It used the broad definition 

in the act and applied it to section 404, and they said, “Th at is your 

job.”

I think when you really think about it, you would have to admit 

tha t we really didn’t intend such a thing as their proposed phase III .

I admit that tha t is a long way off, but even phase II encompasses 

all natural lakes greater than 5 acres. I don’t think we intended tha t in 

section 404, and I don’t think you all intended when you brought this 

lawsuit.

I don’t think you really wanted the Corps to do that, but you wanted 

them to do more than they planned to do. I think tha t is how you 

started the problem.

Mr. Speth . I t seems clear to us in the act that the jurisdiction under 

section 404 is as broad as it is under 402 for, say, industrial discharges.

You wouldn’t want an industrial discharger to locate a plant and 

be able to discharge toxic materials into one of these small tributar y 

streams.

Senator D omenici. I wouldn’t.

Mr. Speth . By the same token, you are going to do ultimately just 

as much damage to the aquatic environment by filling in the marshlands, and the swamps and the wetlands tha t are associated with 

those small tributary streams as you are dumping toxic materials into 

it.

Our feeling is that the jurisdiction of the two sections is the same. 

That is what the court told the Corps to do, to regulate the discharge 

of filled material and to regulate the discharge of dredged material in 

the same areas tha t EPA regulates the discharges from industrial 

plants, becauso the two sections are exactly the same.

There have been lots of court decisions holding that, not just our 

decision. The result is very important. What Congress has created 

is one of the most important environmental programs tha t we have 

ever had—the section 404 program—not just because it protects 

wetlands b ut also because it protects the whole environment from the 

unlimited discharge of often highly polluted dredge materials.

Senator D omenici. Let me just give you one observation and you 

might comment on it and the gentleman from the Audubon Society 

who has something to say in this area might comment also.

Last night, I raised an issue of the building of a bridge across the 

Rio Grande River in New Mexico. You are very well versed and 

knowledgeable on environmental problems in this country.

I first would say tha t I wouldn’t even be satisfied, from what I 

know now, with a Corps rule tha t accepted bridge building of the 

type used in my example under section 404 where they have to apply 

under section 404 for a permit to build a bridge across th at river.

Because you say the Corps has exempted it by regulation leaves us 

with the proposition that administratively the Corps can change its 

regulations at any time, which means tha t we assumed tha t it had 

jurisdiction to adopt section 404 permit system for tha t kind of 

situation.

I just don’t believe we did.

With reference to whether or not the Corps can handle a permit 

system in a reasonable manner, I have not been one who says tha t 

they cannot. I assume they can. But I think there is a question of how
329

much in terms of a nondelegated jurisdictional arena of permits can 

any bureaucracy handle reasonably if the scope is so big tha t it can 

be literally thousands of permits.

Even if they are seeking to see that they are exempt, I think that 

is part of the arbitrariness built into certain of our laws. Th at if you 

can’t administer it, it is prone to be arbitrary and is the worst kind of 

law th at you can pass.

Because tha t leaves an administrator free to pick and choose in 

many instances, even in the regulatory process. I don’t like tha t and 

I don’t think we intended that.

I am not sure you wanted tha t when you chose to challenge the 

Corps’ original concept of what it had jurisdiction over under section 

404.

Mr. Speth. Senator, let me respond to that briefly. I think tha t the 

Cleveland-Harsha amendment, which has been introduced in the 

Senate by Senator Hart, codifies those very exceptions which you 

find to be very important.

I think it is important, if there is any doubt or concern tha t the 

Corps might backtrack on those, to get them codified. It also takes 

care of Senator Burdick’s problems associated with trapping the 

runoff from the mountains, because the third one of those exceptions 

would apply for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farmer 

stock ponds and maintenance of drainage ditches.

Senator Domenici. Does it provide for delegations to the States?

Mr. Speth. The Cleveland-Harsha bill does not, but we would 

support a program modeled on what this committee has already done 

in section 402 to delegate the program to the qualifying States.

I think if you take into account general permits which can cover 

thousands and thousands—and there are already, as I say, 21 general 

permits tha t were issued by Ju ly 1 of this year and 40 or 50 more general permits are under development—and if you have ClevelandHarsha, if you have a delegation, and reasonable administration, 

then I think these problems are going to go away.

You can dream up a chamber of horrors under section 402 of the 

act. I have been informed tha t this committee speculated about such 

things in some of the executive sessions when they were developing 

the original act.

Under section 402, literally, a fisherman would have to have a 

permit if he dumped his bait overboard, or if he threw a coke bottle 

in the lake. Anything like tha t is technically and literally a point 

source discharge, and you should have a permit from EPA.

But nobody carries these things to tha t extreme. The sole basis 

of the current situation is that the corps carried it to the extreme in 

this case and put out th at press release which has so aroused everybody 

in the country and gotten in all your mail. I t is just irrational.

I think the committee has obviously, it seems to me, got to do 

something. But I respectfully suggest tha t you appreciate tha t if 

it hadn’t been for the original distortions, as Senator Muskie pointed 

out last night, we wouldn’t be here.

Senator Randolph. I am not sure about that, Mr. Speth. I remind 

you that this committee, in a regulatory way, moved on the improvement of water quality in 1965. Do you recall that?

Mr. Speth. Yes.
330

Senator R andolph. We did it in 1968 in the amendments to the 

original act. We did it again in 1970. We did it again in 1972. So the 

record of the committee is one of keeping current with the problems 

as they are presented, trying not to act after the fact, but before 

the fact.

I am not being critical, but I do think the record will show that we 

continue to keep very close to these developments. T hat is the reason 

I mentioned the past activity. Do you have any comments, Senator 

Burdick?

Senator Burdick . Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I got the impression from your testimony tha t all our river systems 

all involve wetlands. They don’t all involve wetlands. You are aware 

of that? As a matter of fact, many of our western rivers at certain times 

of the year are dry lands. The rivers are dry and the reason we have 

impoundments is tha t we want to conserve water which is done under 

careful regulation and with soil conservation help, and so forth. So 

when you use the words interchangeably, “wetlands and drainage 

areas,” they are two different things. We have wetlands in North 

Dakota and some good ones, good propagation areas for wildlife.

What bothers me is the mechanics of getting permits. I am glad to 

hear you say that you wouldn’t mind having some of this delegated to 

the States so you don’t have a dual operation here all the time. But 

this bureaucratic permit system is something to live with. You know 

the problems we have had getting EPA clearance. I was working 10 

years on a eutrophicated lake completely polluted and tried to get some 

action. I had been 10 years at it, going from administration to administration and bureau to bureau.

I was almost frustrated. What do you have to suggest to the farmer 

who wants to impound some of that water th at he won’t have 2 months 

from now without going through all this terrible redtape?

Mr. Speth. Three things, Senator. First, pass the ClevelandHarsha amendment. Get that problem behind us. I think those problems needn’t arise.

Second, if we are talking about substantial activities tha t really do 

pose a threat, take it up under the permit problem. If it doesn’t pose a 

threat, it will wash out in some type of general permit.

Senator Burdick . But you don’t understand. Even with these exempt ponds tha t are concerned, you still have to have a permit.

Mr. Speth. No, sir.

Senator B urdick . You have to have a permit denied.

Mr. Speth. No, sir, you don’t. There will be no reason. Tha t has 

come up last night and tonight. I don’t think there would be any 

reason if an activity is covered by a general permit for tha t person to 

ever apply. It certainly should not be.

Senator B urdick . It should not be?

Mr. Speth. I don’t think the corps’ regulations require it now.

Senator Burdick . But how does the corps determine whether there is 

5 acres or no t until you see the record?

Mr. Speth. I think, Senator, if a person—this has come up before— 

is going to build a structure which is going to be close to 5 acres, and 

sometime in the year it is going to be 5 acres or something like this, 

unless the corps administers the program in a really draconian way and 

tries to extract the last ounce, they are going to have too many big 

problems to handle to worry about these insignificant activities.
331

Senator B urdick. If yon and I have some time, I would like to show 

you the history I have had for 10 years on this lake issue. You know 

there is going to be some difference in getting the permits. It is one of 

the facts of life around here.

Mr. Speth . EPA and the corps certainly should handle these permits on an expedited basis. I agree there has been too much footdragging in getting permits out. It has happened under section 402 as 

well. One problem is EPA needs more resources. I will put in a plug for 

them. I have done it in a couple of hearings Senator Muskie has had 

on this same subject.

Senator Burdick. Whatever you do, I hope we don’t have two layers 

of administration, for goodness sakes.

Senator Randolph . Mr. Callison.

Mr. Callison. Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to suggest—and I 

do this out of considerable personal experience with farm pond 

programs in this county. It goes back to the time when I was with the 

Missouri State Conservation Department and tha t department actively promoted the construction of farm ponds, stock-water ponds.

1 have been in Senator Burdick’s State. I have seen the potholes and 

marshes in his State, most of which are natural waters and not artificially constructed ponds. But fewer than 5 percent of the created 

stock-water ponds in this country are as large as 5 acres.

They are nearly all smaller than that. I would even dare to suggest 

tha t fewer than 2 percent of them are 5 acres or more.

Senator Burdick. But you missed my point. In order to determine 

tha t they are 2 acres, there has to be an application to determine that .

Mr. Callison. I believe Mr. Speth is correct about tha t, tha t the 

regulations would be so written tha t small ponds would be exempted 

in a general way. Nobody is going to go out and-----

Senator Burdick. I am a bureaucrat. I won’t know whether it is

2 acres or not until I find out.

Mr. Callison. You will have to beat our friends in the Corps of 

Engineers over the head about tha t if they are so irrational. I don’t 

think they are.

Senator Domenici. Could I ask the two witnesses who have testified 

to discuss this with me? I don’t know if these facts are correct, but 

in preparing for this, I have a summary of some of the ecological 

issues. I have a s tatemen t tha t reads like this, “Prior to 1950, 57 of 

the Nation’s 127 million acres of wetlands have been lost.” I don’t 

know if we got tha t from you or the Audubon Society or whom. I am 

not going to buy that statement for a moment.

“This leaves about 70 million acres. About 300,000 acres are lost 

per year.”

Then the memo proceeds to talk about the asset value of wetlands. 

Incidentally, we had a superb presentation of th at from the administration through Russell Train last night on the importance of wetland 

preservation in not only the ecological system, but more specifically 

talking about clean water, which is the subject of the act.

The gentleman representing the forest industry put a map up here. 

I don’t know why he chose Georgia, but he did. He said that under 

the present definition of wetlands in tha t State and the Southern 

States, there were what number?

Mr. McCredie. In the Southern States, sir, there are about 33 

million acres.

76-161 0 - 76 - 22
332

Senator Domenici. 33,000,000. How many are there in the United 

States under the definition that we are using under section 404 now?

Mr. McCredie. I do not know that number. All I know, Senator, 

is that there are approximately 100 million acres of forestlands tha t 

now have excess water problems. Tha t is the only definition t hat we 

have identified.

Senator Domenici. I would like the two of you to tell me, first, is 

the summary tha t my staff gave me about wetlands and their disappearance accurate? Is this more or less an acceptable statement?

Mr. Speth . Senator, I think the Wildlife Federation, represented 

by Lou Clapper, hasn’t presented his testimony. They were going to 

focus on that. The answer to your question is “Y es.”

Senator Domenici. I have to go very shortly, so let’s talk a bit.

Mr. Speth . I think the basis for those figures is the Fish and 

Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Callison. Those figures come out of extensive studies, not 

once, but more than one time by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in cooperation with the State wildlife agencies who contributed to the 

study.

The gentleman who represents the timber industry, I think, is 

doing the same thing tha t some people, assuming to speak for the 

farmers, have done. That is, they are exaggerating. lie is greatly 

exaggerating the problem in order to try to frighten somebody about it.

Senator Domenici. We are not going to perhaps pass judgment 

on that, about who is frightening whom.

Mr. Callison. I am giving you my opinion about it.

Senator Domenici. Let me ask you this, are the wetlands which I 

just described in this statement—which you say comes from some 

official arm of the Federal Government—are those the wetlands we 

are trying to protect? Eith er of you or any of you can answer.

Mr. Speth . Yes.

Senator Domenici. I the corps defining as wetlands, subject to 

their protective jurisdiction under section 404, talking about those 

wetlands tha t we have just described or those plus others?

Mr. Speth . I think they are talking about most of those that have 

just been described. The wetlands tha t are covered by the corps’ 

regulations are those tha t are contiguous or adjacent to streams or 

large lakes.

Senator Domenici. That map, just of Georgia, showed wetlands 

defined and they weren’t near major streams or lakes; yet they are 

telling us they have been defined as wetlands.

My question is; Is t ha t what we are trying to protect under section 

404, or are we trying to protect the remaining 70 million acres tha t 

have been defined by the Federal Government?

Mr. Speth . I think we are trying to protect the wetland areas 

which are defined by the Department of the Interior as well.

Senator Domenici. Then what jurisdiction does the corps have 

under section 404 to go beyond that?

Mr. Speth . I am not sure th at it has. I don’t think it has. I think the 

Corps’ definition basically covers those. I would be very surprised if it 

went beyond them.

Senator Domenici. Would the forest people comment on that? I am 

through with this question because now I am totally confused.
333

Mr. McCredie. This whole subject, the definition of wetlands, is a 

very confusing subject. Various Federal agencies and various State 

agencies have different definitions. The definition t hat the Corps has 

now come up with is a totally new version and we do not know how 

many acres can come under it.

We believe, because of the definitions, that there are many productive forestlands, as well as agricultural lands, tha t would fall into this 

classification. We cannot specifically know that until the Corps further 

develops this very imprecise and vague definition of wetlands that they 

have in their regulations.

Mr. Speth. Senator, we would dissent on the characterization of 

those definitions as vague. I think if you look a t the testimony that 

Assistant Secretary Reed submitted last evening, you will see discussion of the types of wetlands tha t are excluded by the Wright amendment. It reflects the concern he has for those wetland areas.

I think if we turned to the D epartment of the Interior for a definition 

of wetland areas th at are protected by this, we will find that th at is the 

most consistent correlation we can get with the Corps’ definition.

Senator Domenici. Under section 404, the protection of wetlands is 

certainly covered and the words “dredge and fill” are used. Do both 

words, “dredge and fill,” apply to the wetland tha t you are describing 

to me or does one or the other word apply beyond the wetlands tha t 

we are talking about?

Mr. Speth. They both apply, Senator. You could dredge material 

out of the little creek tha t the kepone plant is on in Honewell and 

dredge that creek in front of that plant and dump t hat highly polluted 

dredge material in a wetland area and it would have a very serious 

effect on the fish, including the oceangoing fish th at come up there to 

spawn.

Senator Domenici. But my point is tha t that would then come within 

the statu te tha t says fill, and it would be filling wetlands as you and I 

have ju st described. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Speth. Under the Corps’ definition, it would be the discharge of 

dredged material rather than the filled. Fill would be a discharge for 

the purpose of destroying the wetlands, basically creating high land.

Senator Domenici. The point I am getting at is there is no broader 

use of the words “dredge and fill” than Qieir application to wetlands as 

defined. Is tha t correct, or is it not?

Mr. Speth. You could discharge dredged material into the open 

waters, and certainly tha t is one of the main focuses of the section 404 

program, to regulate the discharge of dredged material in the open 

waters.

Senator D omenici. All right, but th at is yet an understandable term. 

The open waters, as compared with the broad definition of navigable 

waters. Why is it tha t we can’t use an official definition of wetlands, 

since you tell us th at it exists? If it is 70 million acres, somebody must 

locate the acres somewhere. Why can’t we define wetlands as per 

something tha t is official and say tha t is one of the goals of that 

particular section you are talking about?

Mr. Speth. We certainly could. I think the Department of the 

Interior has done tha t in something called the Wetlands Circular No. 

39. I think it is No. 39.

Mr. McCredie. No. 39 is correct.
334

Senator Domenici. Does the forest industry understand tha t the 

defined wetlands by the Department of the Interior is the kind of lands 

you are worried about on your map, which are the wetlands as defined 

by them?

Mr. McCredie. No, sir, not all of those types. There are many 

breakdowns of different types of wetlands identified.

Senator Domenici. Where?

Mr. McCredie. In the Department of the Interior Circular No. 39. 

What we are really concerned about is the definition tha t the corps 

has promoted, which completely leaves us with an unknown as to 

what it includes; but it includes lands th at are periodically inundated 

and tha t are characterized by vegetation which requires saturated soil 

conditions.

These are the only two conditions tha t define wetlands.

Senator Domenici. Let me start over and I promise, Mr. Chairman, 

this is my last question. You heard the witnesses respond positively to 

my description of the number of acres of wetlands in the United States 

and what was happening to them, and tha t they accepted those figures 

as official Department of the Interior figures.

I am asking you, are you familiar with these officially designated 

wetlands that we are talking about?

Mr. McCredie. No, sir, I am not familiar enough to make a response 

to whether that would solve our problem or not.

Senator Domenici. I don’t know that it would solve any problem. 

I just want to try to get to a point where there is something called 

• wetlands, to see if you would agree there are wetlands.

Mr. Callison. Mr. Chairman, may I offer a suggestion?

Senator Randolph. Yes, Mr. Callison.

Mr. C allison. Senator Domenici, I am reminded by my friend and 

colleague in this work, Dr. Laurence Jahn, who is sitting right here, 

that the wetlands tha t we are referring to and the Department of 

the Interior has referred to are defined precisely in circular 39 of the 

Department of the Interior, which has been used by reference in several 

acts of Congress, including the Appropriations Act for the Department 

of Agriculture.

So I think tha t might be quite helpful to you. This is the definition 

of the wetlands tha t comprises the acreage that you quoted a while ago.

Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, Senator.

[Mr. Speth’s prepared statement follows:]
335

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc

9 1 7 I 5 T H S T R E E T , N.W . 

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C . SO O O 5 

1 0 1 7 3 7 - 5 0 0 0

Office

66 4 HA MILTO N A V IN U I

PALO ALTO. CA LIF. 943O I

41 5 3 1 7 -1 0 8 0

New York Office

15 W IS T 44 TH S T II IT

N IW Y O U , N.Y. 1 0 0 )6

t i t 8 6 9 -0 1 5 0

STATEMENT OF GUS SPETH ON BEHALF OF

THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL AND

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

AT HEARINGS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

SECTION 404 PERMIT PROGRAM,

JULY 28, 1976

Mr. Chairman, members.of the Committee, I am pleased to be 

here today to speak with you about an issue of great importance to 

the Nation and to the future success of the 1972 Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. I have reference, of course, to the permit 

program established by Section 404 of that Act to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the country's waters.

The Section 404 program protects against two types of 

discharges which are among the most serious threats today to the 

chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters: 

first, discharges of dredged spoil which are frequently contaminated 

with heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium and chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCB's and kepone and, second, discharges of fill
336

m a te r ia ls w hi ch ca n r e s u l t in th e d e s tr u c tio n o f i r r e p la c a b le w etla n d s — th e mos t v a lu a b le an d p ro d u c ti v e p a r t o f th e a q u a tic 

en v ir o n m en t. The am endm ent t o S e c ti o n 404 r e c e n tly p a sse d by th e 

House o f R e p re s e n ta tiv e s , r e f e r r e d to as th e W ri ght Amendmen t, 

wou ld a ll o w th e s e d is c h a rg e s to o c cu r w it h o u t p e rm it s o r r e g u la tio n 

in th e g r e a t m a jo rit y o f th e c o u n tr y 's w ate rw ays. I t wou ld le a v e 

u n p ro te c te d mos t o f th e c o u n tr y 's str e am m il e s , m os t o f th e c o u n tr y 's 

w e tl a n d s an d i n d ir e c t l y a l l th e down str eam w a te rs t h a t de pe nd 

on th e s e str eam s an d w e tl a n d s. The W ri ght Amendment wou ld th u s 

c r e a te a g la r in g lo o p h o le in th e 197 2 A ct . I t wou ld under m in e th e 

A c t's i n t e g r i t y an d wou ld re n d e r i t s g o a ls u n a c h ie v a b le .

The S e c ti o n 404 pr og ra m has become h ig h ly p o l i t i c i z e d 

d u rin g th e p a s t y e a r. I t h as be en th e v ic tim o f tr em en dous m is ­

u n d e rsta n d in g and th e so u rc e o f n e e d le s s c o n ce rn , o f w hic h th e 

H o u se's a c tio n i s th e l a t e s t m a n if e s ta tio n . We a re u n f o r tu n a te ly 

s t i l l l iv in g w it h th e p o is o n ed atm o sp h ere ’ c r e a te d by th e Cor ps of 

E n g in e e rs ' p re s s r e le a s e o f May 6, 19 75 . • Among o th e r m is sta te m e n ts , 

t h a t r e le a s e s a id t h a t f e d e r a l p e rm it s may be re q u ir e d by th e fa rm er 

"who w an ts to dee pe n an i r r i g a t i o n d itc h o r pl ow a f i e l d . " S e n a to r 

M usk ie , upon re a d in g t h i s r e le a s e , dema nded t h a t i t be r e tr a c t e d .

Ov er a y e a r ag o he s t a te d on th e f l o o r o f th e S e n a te :

"Th e C orp s, in wha t a p p e a rs to be a d e lib e r a te 

a tt e m p t to d i s t o r t F e d e ra l w a te r p o llu tio n p o lic y 

f o r p u rp o ses w hi ch I do n o t u n d e rsta n d , p u b lic ly 

an no un ce d t h a t a c o u rt d e c is io n whi ch u p held th e 

i n t e n t o f C ongre ss as re g a rd s th e mea ni ng o f 

n a v ig a b le w a te rs wo uld ha ve th e e f f e c t o f p la c in g 

th o u sa n d s o f fa rm e rs in v io la tio n o f F e d e ra l la w .

N oth in g co u ld be f u r th e r from th e t r u t h and th e 

Cor ps knows i t . . . .

"I o n ly ho pe t h a t t h i s m a tt e r ca n now be en de d 

an d we ca n g e t on w it h th e jo b o f r e g u la tin g th e 

d is c h a rg e ' o f d re dge o r f i l l m a te ria ls in su ch a 

man ne r as to p r o te c t b o th th e n a ti o n 's w etl an d s 

an d th e q u a lity o f a l l th e n a ti o n 's w a te rs ."
337

EPA Administrator Train, many members of Congress and others 

joined with Senator Muskie in expressing these views. If only Senator's 

Mus kie ’s advice had been followed. Unfortunately it was not. The 

Corps’ alarmist and unsupportable claims were repeated and even

further exagg erated in countless government news releases and

agricultural and forestry newsletters and articles. Long after the 

Corps to its credit had put together and begun to implement a workable and reasonable program, the distortions referred to by Senator 

Muskie were perpetuated by certain groups with narrow commercial 

interests in need of a broader political base to achieve their objectives, one of which appears to be to escape all regulation under

this Act.

In the remaining time that I have I would like to make three

points central to this issue. The first is that the Section 404

program now in the present Corps regulations is an accurate reflects tion of the 1972 Act and its history and is a reasonable and workable program. The second is that the success of this Section 404 

progra m is essential to the success of the Act. And the third is 

that certain limited action by the Senate, such as the amendment suggested by Senator Hart, may be necessary to clear the air and put to 

rest the unwarranted but understandable fears of many persons.

1.

One argument sometimes made by opponents of the Section 404 

program is that the courts are responsible for extending the program 

beyond Congress' intent. This is not true. Take the question of 

whether the 1972 Act and the Section 404 program were meant to 

extend beyond traditionally defined "navigable waters." I am aware
338

o f n o t one f e t t e n c o u r t d e c is io n s h o ld in g t h a t a much b ro a d e r j u r ­

i s d i c t i o n w c in te n d e d , an d th e E nvir onm enta l P r o te c tio n Agency an d 

th e De par t w a t o f J u s ti c e ha ve c o n s is te n tly su p p o rte d t h i s vie w .

The re aso n fo r t h i s e s s e n t i a l l y un an im ou s p o s itio n i s th e c l a r i t y o f 

th e 1972 fe t’ s la nguage an d h is to r y on t h i s p o in t. S e c ti o n 50 2( 7) 

d e fin e s "m nrigab le w a te rs" as use d in th e Act to in c lu d e a l l "w ate rs 

o f th e Uni ted S t a t e s a n d th e C onfe re nce R eport s t a t e s t h a t :

"Tte c o n fe re e s f u l l y in te n d t h a t th e te rm 'n a v ig ali e w a te r s ’ be g iv en th e b ro a d e s t p o s s ib le 

c o n s titu tio n a l i n te r p r e t a ti o n un en cu m be re d by 

agency d e te rm in a ti o n s w hi ch ha ve be en made o r 

may Be made f o r a d m in is tr a tiv e p u rp o se s."

Co nference R e p o rt, a t 14 4.

As Con gr es sn m H ars ha n o te d in th e House d e b a te on th e W right 

Amendmen t:

"The c o u rts d id n o t a d ju d ic a te a new d e f i n i t i o n 

of an vig ab le w a te rs . . . . The C ourt h as u p held 

our jo s i ti o n on t h a t . I t d id n o t re d e f in e n a v i—

. g a b le w a te r s ." C o n g re ssio n a l Rec or d H5273,

Ju ne I, 19 76. .r

A ll f la t th e D i s t r i c t C ourt d id in NRDC & NWF v. C all aw ay , 392 

F.S up p. 68 $ (D.D.C . 1975)’, was to r e q u ir e th e C or ps o f E n g in eers to 

re g u la te tic . d is c h a rg e o f th e two ty p e s o f p o l lu t a n ts a ssig n e d to 

i t in th e s n a r e a s t h a t EPA r e g u la te s o th e r p o l lu t a n ts .

Sin nB wr ly, th e r e i s no s e r io u s d oubt t h a t th e w e tl a n d s 

a s s o c ia te d w it h o u r e s t u a r i e s an d str e am s a re p a r t o f "th e w a te rs 

o f th e United S t a te s ." C e rta in w e tl a n d s, f o r ex am ple , c o a s ta l 

w etl an d s btlow mean h ig h t i d e , ha ve al w ay s bee n in c lu d e d in th e 

tr a d i t io n a l d e f in i t io n o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs . When th e 1972 Act 

ab an do ne d ti e a r t i f i c i a l l im i ta t io n s o f th e n a v ig a tio n s e r v itu d e , 

t h a t abandonment n o t o n ly ex te n d ed th e A c t's j u r i s d i c t i o n u p st re am 

to non-n avig able w a te rs b u t a ls o l a t e r a l l y in to th e w etl an d s t h a t
339

are an integral and inseparable part of the aquatic ecosystem. 

Otherwise, for example, an industrial polluter could escape regu ­

lation under Section 404 merely by dumping its wastes into a marsh 

or other wetlan d instead of into the stream itself.

Most fundamentally, the basic goals of the Act in Section 

101 — protecting the chemical, physical and biological integrity 

of the Nat ion1s waters and providing an aquatic environment for the 

protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and for 

recreation in and on the water — could not even be approximated 

if wetlands were artificially segmented off and excluded from the 

protected "waters of the United States." The House Report states 

that the "integrity" goal in Section 101 is intended to refer "to 

a condition in which the natural structure and function of eco ­

systems is maintained." (House Report at 76.) Wetlands are the most 

vital and prod uctive part of the aquatic ecosystem, and we could 

never make much progress towards protecting that ecosystem and 

the integrity of the Nation's waters if wetlands were unprotected. 

Consider the following:

- Fully two-thirds of the annual U.S. harvest of 

fish and shellfish can be traced back to wetlands.

- Ducks, other waterfowl and numerous other wildlife 

species are almost completely dependent upon wet ­

lands for nesting and feeding habitat.

*/ Prior to the court's ruling in NRDC & NWF v. Callaway the

House Government Operations Committee was calling upon the Corps to 

abandon its narrow view of Section 40 4's jurisdiction and to use 

that provision "to protect additional wetlands from the damaging 

effects of dredging and filling." H.R. Rep. No. 93-1396, 93rd Cong., 

2d Sess. (1974), at 14-27.
340

- The p o llu ta n t re m o v al, w a te r c le a n s in g p ro p e rt i e s o f w e tl a n d s a re en or m ou s. A 500 a c re

w e tl a n d has bee n show n to a s s im ila te to n s o f

p h o sp h a te s , n i t r a t e s , anim al w a ste s, se d im en t 

an d o th e r p o l lu t a n ts on a d a ily b a s is w h il e 

e n ric h in g th e su rro u n d in g w a te rs w it h oxygen .

The w e tl a n d i s th e fa rm e r 's p o llu tio n c o n tr o l 

p l a n t . R un of f fro m a g r ic u lt u r a l a re a s i s 

a lr e a d y a s e r io u s p o llu tio n pro ble m an d w i l l 

bec ome p r o p o r tio n a lly more im p o rta n t as cont r o l s on o th e r p o llu tio n so u rc e s a re im ple m ente d . W ithout w e tl a n d s to a c t as n a tu r a l f i l t e r s , 

a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l lu t i o n o f do wns trea m a r e a s , 

in c lu d in g d rin k in g w ate r s u p p lie s , wou ld be

f a r more s e v e re .

I f w etl an d s wer e n o t w ith in th e A c t's j u r i s d i c t i o n , we co u ld e a s il y 

f in d o u rs e lv e s a dec ad e hence h avin g sp e n t b i l l i o n s on c o n tr o llin g 

i n d u s t r ia l an d m u n ic ip al d is c h a rg e s b u t w it h an a q u a tic envir onm en t 

more im p overi sh ed th a n t o d a y 's .

T his Co mmittee re c o g n iz e d th e im p o rt an ce o f f u l l p r o te c tio n 

o f th e a q u a ti c en v ir o n m en t when i t o b se rv ed in i t s r e p o r t on th e

Act t h a t :

"W ater moves in h y d ro lo g ic c y c le s and i t i s 

e s s e n t i a l t h a t d is c h a rg e o f p o llu ta n ts be co nt r o l l e d a t th e so u rc e . T h e re fo re , re fe re n c e 

to th e c o n tr o l re q u ir e m e n ts mus t be made to 

th e n a v ig a b le w a te r s , p o r tio n s th e r e o f , an d 

t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s ." (S enate R eport a t 77 ; 

em phas is add ed .)
41

Finally, we would also note that there has never been any 

serious question that Section 404 reached the discharge of fi.ll 

material. The phrase "or fill material" is in Section 404 itself, 

but its origins go back as far as the Senate Report. The Senate 

bill had the Admin istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

regulating the discharge of all pollutants, including dredged and 

fill material. In describing EPA's responsibilities, this Commi ttee's report states:

"In establish ing the levels of best p racticable and best available technology for point 

sources the Administrator should not ignore 

discharges resulting from point sources other 

than pipelines or similar conduits. For instance, the Administrator must give proper 

attention to the control of dredged spoil disposal and fill operations . ? 7" (Senate

Report at 51; emphasis added.)

For all these reasons, the Corps was certainly correct when 

it established a Section 404 permit program which covered both 

navigable waters and their tributaries, included wetlands and regulated discharges of both fill materials and dredged spoil. Yet 

the Corps took special precautions in its July 25, 1975, regulations 

to ensure that its program did not extend to areas where it did not 

belong, that it did not become mired in the processing of innumerable individual permits for trivial matters and that it cooperated 

fully with state and local authorities and programs. The Corps 

regulations provide:

- that "normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities, such as plowing, cultivating, 

seeding and harvesting" will not be covered; 

that fills for the purpose of the maintenance 

of existing structures such as dikes, dams,
342

highways, etc., will not be covered;

- that only point source discharges will be 

covered and non-point sources excluded;

- that general permits applying to many dischargers can be used to reduce red tape 

and delay where activities have a minimal 

environmental impact;

- and that joint processing and other cooperative steps can be followed where a state 

is operating a permit program for similar 

activities.

We believe that the program set out in the Corps' July 25 

regulations is reasonable, is not overregulatory and deserves broad 

support and acceptance. It has our support and acceptance. The 

experience with the program over the past year bears out these 

conclusions. No one — not the Corps, EPA, the environmental community or the public — no one wants to see the Corps wasting its 

time on trivial discharges. We can assure this Committee that if 

the Corps should ever become overzealous and begin to get involved 

in activities outside the 404 program, or which have no significant 

environmental effect, then we will join with the other members of 

this panel in opposing the Corps' action. Until then, though, the 

Corps and EPA should be left to run the program as it is now consti 

tuted, especially if the alternative course is to cripple the pro ­

gram as the Wright Amendment would do.
343

.

The attack on the Section 404 program is nothing less than 

an attack on the integrity of the 1972 Act. The Wright Amendment 

would allow the discharge of both dredged spoil and fill materials 

to go u nregulated in most U.S. streams and rivers. It would jeopardize about three-fourths of all U.S. wetlands. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has concluded that the Wright Amendment could leave 

even the largest swamps and fresh water marshes such as the 

Okeefenokee and the Everglades unprotected. The consequences wo uld 

be extremely serious.

Wetlands are not only among our most valued 

resource; they are among our most threatened.

Already half of America's wetlands have been 

destroyed. And we are still losing our we tlands at a rate of over 200,000 acres a year.

- As the statement submitted by the Environmental 

Defense Fund documents, sediments dredged from 

the bottoms of our streams and rivers are increasingly found to be contaminated w ith toxic 

and cancer-causing materials. One example is 

the presence of cancer-causing PCB's in Antietam Creek in Maryland, a non-navigable tributary upstream of Washington's water supply 

intakes. Millions of cubic yards of dredged 

materials must be disposed of each year in 

the U.S. Under the Wright Amendment, it could 

be dumped into any waters other than those that
344

are used or could be used for navigation.

- Under the Wright Amendment, with the great 

majority of our wate r areas unprotected, 

dischargers would be free to dump into these 

areas anything they can get away with calling 

"fill." If a chemical company has some 

severely contaminated soil it has to get rid 

of, buy some wetland acreage and dump it in 

as "fill." No permit required.

The Wright Amendment would also authorize the inclusion of 

any type of discharge, no matter how serious, under a general permit. 

Environmental groups support the concept of the general permit in 

the Section 404 program. However, the general pe rmit should not be 

allowed for environmentally damaging discharges. A loose, vague, 

and criteria-free general permit authority invites administrative 

and legal challenges which would create confusion and delay.

The Wright Amendment would also allow delegation of the 

permit program to the states, but again without any criteria for 

program adequacy such as those established in Section 402. With ­

out criteria in law, the Corps must establish them by administrative 

rulemaking. Sound criteria such as those this Committee wrote into 

Section 402 are needed to give an interested state a stationary 

target, to prevent delegation to an inadequate state program, and 

to preserve national uniformity in order to protect those states 

whic h do come forward w ith good programs. Program uniformity in 

Section 404 is even more important than in Section 402, because 

Section 404 lacks nationally uniform discharge standards for invividual permits.
345

Finally, the Wright Amendment exempts many federally authorized or assisted projects from Section 404 requirements. We do not 

for one niinute believe that the Corps has the authority to use 

Section 404 to veto projects which Congress has authorized. On the 

other hand, it seems equally clear that the 404 process has a useful 

role to play in the planning of these projects.

Defenders of the Wright Amendment point to the fact that it 

does at least attempt to protect the small portion of our wetlands 

associated with traditionally navigable waters. There are at least 

four flaws in even this limited claim:

(1) The Wright Amendment defines "adjacent wetlands" as something distinct from "navigable waters."

Yet under other provisions of the 1972 Act, which 

are essential to make Section 404 work, e. g., Section 

301, it is onl y "navigable waters" that are protected.

So "adjacent wetlands" are probably not protected

at all by the Wright Amendment.

(2) The language of the Wright Amendment excludes 

the historical test of navigability. The result

is that man y waters which are covered by the traditional test of navigability are not protected under 

the Wright Amendment.

(3) Under the Wright Amendment, the wetlands aspects of the Section 404 program can be delegated 

to the states without any statutory restraints or 

criteria. Yet the vast majority of states are unprepared at present to handle the Section 404 

program. it is noteworthy that a recent study by
346

th e I n t e r s t a t e Co mmiss ion on W ater P o llu tio n i n d i ­

c a te s t h a t o f th e s t a t e s w hi ch wou ld se ek to ad m in ­

i s t e r th e S e c ti o n 404 pr og ra m o n ly s ix met c e r t a i n 

th re s h o ld t e s t s o f pr og ra m adeq uacy .

(4) F in a lly , i t i s a d e lu s io n to b e li e v e t h a t o u r 

f r a g i l e c o a s ta l eco lo g y ca n be p r o te c te d w h il e th e 

u pst re am a re a s on w hi ch i t dep en ds a re sm oth er ed 

and p o is o n ed by u n re g u la te d d is c h a r g e s . F is h do 

n o t r e s p e c t th e b o u n d a rie s o f n a v ig a tio n an y mo re 

th an p o llu tio n d o e s. Sm al l s tr e a m s, f o r ex am ple , 

a re v i t a l sp aw ni ng a re a s f o r many f i s h , in c lu d in g 

sa lm on, t r o u t , sh a d , an d a h o s t o f o th e r s .

The re i s much mo re t h a t co u ld be s a id a b o u t th e Hou se b i l l .

I t c r e a te s le g a l c o n tr a d ic tio n s w ith in th e Act w hi ch w i l l u n doubte dly 

le a d to p r o tr a c te d l i t i g a t i o n . I t i s a c l a s s i c ex am pl e o f w ha t ca n 

ha pp en w it h h a s ty , e le v e n th hour d r a f t i n g o f am endm ents to a co m pl ex 

an d h ig h ly a r t i c u l a t e d s t a t u t e l ik e th e W at er A ct. The W right 

Amendment becam e a v a ila b le o n ly a few h o u rs b e fo re th e v o te in th e 

Hou se . We wou ld urg e t h i s Com mitt ee to ta k e p le n ty o f ti m e to 

ex am in e a l l a s p e c ts o f t h i s am end ment b e fo re a c tin g .

3.

In c o n c lu sio n , o u r b e l i e f i s t h a t th e r e i s no r e a l j u s t i f i ­

c a tio n fo r am en ding th e 1972 A ct. In th e Hou se , we su p p o rte d th e 

C le v ela n d -H ars h a Amendment w it h th e o b je c tiv e o f a r r iv in g a t a 

co mpr om ise t h a t co u ld c le a r th e a i r an d re s o lv e th e s e is s u e s on ce 

an d f o r a l l . We wou ld do th e same f o r th e H art Amendment in th e 

S en ate i f t h a t o b je c tiv e co u ld be a c h ie v e d . We wor ke d c lo s e ly w it h
347

the Corps and EPA to help develop a reasonable Section 404 program.

We are certainly prepared, indeed eager, to work wi th this Committee 

to preserve that program. One matter which we believe should be 

considered in the coming session is the possibility of establishing 

in Section 404 a provision analogous to that now in Section 402 of 

the Act allowing the permitting authority to be assumed by qualifying 

states.

Thank you for this opportunity.

76-161 0 - 76 - 23
348

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR

HEARING RECORD

APPENDIX TO TESTIMONY OF GUS SPET H,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
349

UN ITED STATES ENVIR ON ME NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

z

 WASHINGTON . O.C. 20460

AW 1 s U74

TH£ A3MIMI57>UTOa

B ea r G en er al G ra bble : . • ' .

As you a r e undo ubt ed ly aw ar e, on March 15 , 19 74 , th a U .S . D i s t r i c t 

Cou rt f o r th e M id dl e D i s t r i c t of F lo ri d a is su ed a Memorandum O pi ni on 

in Cam tad S ta re s v . H oll an d. In th a t c a s e , th e Uni te d S ta te s so ught to 

e n jo in d is p o s a l w it h o u t a per m it o f dr ed ge d m a te ria l in w ee la nd s which 

wer e ab ov e th e mean- hig h w ate r lin e b u t wa re p e rio d ic a lly in u n d ate d by 

t i d a l w a te rs. Toe c o u rt h e ld , i n t e r a l i a , th a t w et la nds above th e Bean 

h ig h .w a te r l i n e a re su b je c t to F edera l j u r is d ic tio n un de r S ecti o n 404 of 

th e F e d e ra l W ater P o llu tio n C cn cr ol A ct, as emended (t h e "FVFCA") and 

t h a t d is c h a rg e s of dr ed ge d m a te ria l in to su ch a re a s " c o n s titu te d d is ­

ch arg es e n te rin g 'w a te rs of th e U ni te d S t a t e s '. "

The r e s u l t re ac hed in U .S . v . H oll and i s a ju r is d ic tio n a l m il e sto n e 

unde r th e FWFCA. W etland s ab ov e, and be lo w , th e na an hig h w ate r lin e a rc 

o f v i t a l im port ance to ou r en vi ro nm en t. The Co rps ha s ta ken an ad m ir ab ly 

fir m p o s itio n to p ro te c t w et la nds below th e mean hi gh w at ar l in e . ?.ac e n tly is su ed Co rps re g u la ti o n s s ta te d th a t: "As envir onm enta ll y v i t a l 

a re a s , [w etl ands] c o n s titu te a p ro d u cti v e an d v a lu a b le p u b li c re s o u rc e , 

th e um me cassery a l t e r a t i o n or d e s tru c tio n of wh ich sh ou ld be dis co u ra g ed 

as c e n tra — to th e p u b li c i n t e r e s t ." 33 C73. S ecti o n 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (g )( 3 ). Cur 

co nce rn i s th a t s im ila r p ro te c ti o n s be pro vid ed fo r w etl an ds ab ov e th e 

mean hig h w ate r l i n e .

.

We b e li e v e th a t th e Ho ll an d d e c is io n p ro v id es a n ecessa ry s te p f o r 

th a p r e s e r r a tio n or ou r li m it e d w et la nd re so u rc e s . M oreo ve r, v s a m 

fir m ly co nv in ce d th a t th e c o u rt p ro p erl y in te rp re te d th a ju r is d i c t i o n 

g ra n te d un der th e T.iFCA an d C ongre ssi onal pow er to sa ke su ch a g ra n t.

• U ot w itas ca m dia g th e d e c is io n in U. S. v . Holland and th e ra co g n ir a d 

im port an ce of w etl ands to th e •env iron m en t, we ha ve be en in fo rm ed th a t 

th e Co rp s ha s d e c li n e d co acq u ie sce in th a H ol la nd d e c is io n and has ad ­

v is e d Car ps i n s t a l l a t i o n s not to acce p t a p p li c a ti o n s fo r p erm it s un der 

Fh"?uA S e c ti o n 404 fo r dr ed ge and f i l l d is p o s a l in th ese a re a s . Tr.a Depar tm en t of J u s tic e ha s ta ken th e p o s itio n th a t i t w ill r.o t b ri n g en ­

fo rc em en t a c tio n a g a in s t per so ns d is p o sin g c f dr ed ge d c r f i l l m a te ria l 

in w et la nd s re a s w it h o u t S ecti o n 404 perm it s sc long as th e Co rps r e ­

fu se s to is s u e su ch p e rm it s. As a co ns eq ue nc e, w et la nd a reas ab ov e th a 

moan hig h w ate r lin e a re p re s e n tl y u n p ro te cte d fre m th e ir re p a r a b le d_ nag a ca use d by th a d is p o s a l of dr ed ge d and f i l l m a te ria ls .
350

So th an t h is im p o rt an t en d ir re p la c e a b le p a rt of th e en vi ro nm en t w ill 

n e t go u n re g u la te d , I s tr o n g ly urg e th e Co rps of E ngin eer s to re c o n sid e r 

i r e p c s itio c an d co qcmnenc e p ro cessin g S ecti on 404 perm it s f o r v eela nds 

ab ov e th e nc .in h ig h w at er lin e im m ed ia te ly . I wo uld a p p re c ia te th e op ­

p o rtu n it y to d is c u ss chis c a r t e r w it h you a t yo ur e a r l i e s t co nven ie nce .

A s e p a ra ta cut r e la te d n a tte r a ls o re q u ir e s a tte n tio n . On A p ril 3, 

15 74 , th e Co rps or en g in eers o rc su lg a te d f in a l re g u la ti o n s w it h re s p e c t 

to Co rps p erm it s fo r v a rio u s a c t i v i t i e s is navig able o r oc ea n w a te rs.

39 7e d e re i R e g is te r 12 ?1 5. Among och er th in g s, th ese re g u la tio n s s e t 

f o r th c e r ta in o ro cccure s f o r th e is su an ce of o e r c its fo r th e d is p o s a l of 

dre dged o r d i l l n a te r in i und er S ecti o n 404 of th e IVdCA.

Of p a r tic u la r co nc er n to th e E av ir o cn en ta l P ro te c ti o n Age ncy i s th e 

d e f in itio n o f "n avig able w a te rs’* s e t f o rth in th ese r e g u la tio n s , 33 C7A 

S e c ti o n 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (d )( 1 ). . In pr op os ed re g u la ti o n s publi sh ed on May 10 , 1973 

(3S F ed era l l e g i s t o r 12217) , th e Corps pr op os ed to d e fi n e th e Carta "n av ig ­

a b le w ate rs " to naa n "w ate rs of th e U ni te d S ta te s , in c lu d in g th e t e r r i t o r i 

s e e ," in ac co rd an ce w it h th e d e f in itio n of "n av ig ab le w ate rs " in te a EWPCA 

Th e f i n a l re g u la ti o n s pr om ulg at ed on A p ri l 3 , 19 74 , d e le te d th e p re v io u s 

d e f in itio n of "n avig able w ate rs " and s u b s titu te d th e re fo r th e fo ll o w in g :

"The te rn ’n av ig ab le w at er s of th e U ni te d S t a t e s ’ 

and 'n a v ig a b le w a te r s ,' as us ed h e re in ca sts th ese 

w ate rs of th e U ni te d Sca re s wh ich a re su b je c t to

_th e ebb and fl ow of th e tid e , an d /o r a re p re s e n tly 

o r ha ve be en in th e p a s t, or ca y be in th e fu tu re 

su s c e p ti b le fc r use fo r purp ose s of i n t e r s t a t e o r 

fo re ig n co cm ercs (Se a 33 C7R 2O9.2SO fo r a c o re 

c o u p le ts d e f in itio n of th ese te r n s ) ." J ' '

The pr ea m bl e to th e f i n a l re g u la ti o n d is c u sse s th e C orp s' re aso n s 

fo r ch an gi ng th e d e f in itio n and cak es i t c le a r th a t th e term "n av ig ab le 

w ate rs cf th e U nited S ta te s " es us ed in th e R iv ers and H ar bo rs Ac t of 

1S99 a n d .t h e term "n av ig ab le w ate rs " as defi ned in th e F7?CA e re to bo 

" tr e a te d sy no ny m ou sly." The pr ea m ble and th e re fe re n c e to th e C or ps ’ 

d e f in itio n a l re g u la ti o n a t 23 CIS 20 9.26 0 ca ke i t c le a r th ee th e Co rps 

in te n d s to d e lin e a te ~.A?CA S ecti o n 404 ju r is d ic tio n on th e b a s is of c o u rt 

d e c is io n s and Co rps in te r p r e ta tio n s of " n a v ig a b ility ." Cur in t e r p r e t a ­

tio n of "n av ig ab le w ate rs " w it h in th e meaning of th e F.fPCA. do es not co ndom to th e C arp s' re c e n tl y is su ed re g u la ti o n . V.'a fi rm ly b e li e v e th a t 

th e Con fe re nc e Comm erce d e le te d "n av ig ab le " from th e 7’5’CA d e f in itio n of 

"n av ig ab le w a te rs’* in o rd e r to fre e p o ll u ti o n c o n tr o l from j u r is d i c t i o n a l 

r e s t r i c t i o n s ba se d cn " n a v ig a b ility ." In dee d, as th e Con fe re nce R eso rt
351

st a te s w it h re s p e c t to th e c o d if ie d d e f in itio n of "n av ig ab le w a te rs " : 

'T h e c o n fe re es f u lly in te n d th a t th e ta rn 'r .x v ig ab le w a te rs ' 'oc g iv en t'. 

b ro a d e st p o s s ib le c o n s titu tio n a l in te r p r e ta tio n ur .e nc us be rs d by ag en cy 

d e te r e :n a tio n s which ha ve be en ca de c r ca y ce ca de io r a d c in is tr n c iv e 

p u rp o se s ."• 5 . ?.»p. 92 -1 23 6, 92c C on g. , 2d S css . a t 14 4. Per hap s a 

tr e a ti n g of th e a p p ro p ri a te p e rs o n n el of th e Co rps and of ERA sh ould be 

sc hedule d to re s o lv e th ese d is c re p e n c ie s .

S in c e re ly y o u rs ,

ys

/ Joh n Q ua rles

R u s se ll E. T ra in 

A d a in is tz a to r

L t. G en er al W. C. G rib b le , J r .

C h ie f, Co rps of E ngin eer s

DA15-2A • , . .

F c r r e s ta l B uil din g

W as hi ng to n, D. C. 2031 4

Pr ep ared by :

AS W’.uHc wa rd: .-.cd: 5 / 4/ 74: 5C76O: ?.□. 509
352

Aug ust 16 , 1974

Manning E. S e lt z e r, E sq uir e . • ... j l p

O ff ic e o f Gen er al Cou ns el • .

U .5 . Am y Corps o f Ln.5 ir.cer3 . . .

De pa rtm ent o f th e Army .• ■ .

Washin gton, D.C. 20310

De ar Han ey: • .

s

 I <sa ver y co nc er ne d over th e appare nt in a b ilit y of 

th e E n v ir o tn en ta l P ro te c ti o n Agency and th e Corps o f Eng in ee rs 

to agre e oa th e .g uid el in es re q u ir ed by 32 ctf.c n 404 o f th e F edera l 

V ete r P o ll u ti o n C ontr ol Act o f 1972 fo r use in is s u in g per m its 

unde r th a t se c ti o n . W ith ou t th e g u id e li n e s, th e Corps o f 

Eng in ee rs is unable, to e x e rc is e i t s f u l l re g u la to ry a u th o rit y 

over dr ed ge end f i l l a c t i v i t i e s and th e Departm ent o f J u s tic e 

is se v ere ly ham pere d in i t s a b i l i t y to b ri n g en fo rc em en t a c ti o n s 

to re q u ir e co m plianc e w it h se c ti o n 40 4.

I t is r.17 im pre ss io n th a t a n a jo r o b sta c le to th e 

pr om ulg at io n o f th ese g u id e li n e s ha s be en th e dis ogr cc m sn t 

be tw ee n th e Corps of E ng in ee rs and th e b n v lr c m e n ta l P ro te c ti o n 

Agency ov er th e boundar ie s o f re g u la to ry J u r is d ic tio n pr ov id ed 

by th e F edera l V et er P o ll u ti o n C ontr ol A ct, and th is 

dis ag re em en t ha s been h ig h li g h te d by A d m in is tr ato r T ra in ’s 

l e t t e r o f Juno 4 , 19 74 , to G en er al C ri b b le . In th e hope of 

b ri n g in g ab ou t a sp ce cy r e s o lu tio n o f tl ii s dis agro ers ant, 

l e t co s ta te ou r ie p a rtm e o t’ s p o s it io n on th is m a tt e r.

P rio r to th e en ac tm en t o f th e F edera l V ete r P o ll u ti o n 

A ct in 1972 , th e Co rps o f Eng in ee rs ex o rc is ed c o n tr o l ov er th e 

h n ti o n 'c w at er s n r in n r ily th ro ugh th a Ki vern and Harbo rs Act 

o f 1399, and p rim a ri ly f o r th e pu rp os e o f p ro te c ti n g and im prov ing
353

h e ir n avig able c a p a c it y . Kicaerous co u rt d ecis io n s have ho ld 

th at th e Co rp s' J u ris d ic ti o n under th e R iv er s and Harbors Ac t 

extend ed on ly to th e lj .n o .o r mean hi gh w ate r, o r, In l i t t o r a l 

a re a s, to tho li n o o f mean hi gh t id e . Al thou gh re g u la ti o n up 

to th is po in t may be s u f f ic ie n t to p ro te ct n a v ig a ti o n , i t is 

c le a r ly ina da nu ato to ach ie ve th e o b je c tiv e o f th e F ed er al Water 

P o ll u ti o n Con tr ol A c t, wh ich is to r e s to r e and c a in ta ln tho 

ch em ic al , p h y sic a l, and b io lo g ic a l I n te g r it y o f th o K a tio c 's 

w a te rs. 51 01 , FWPCA. . .

To ach ie ve th is en viro nm en ta l o b je c tiv e th e Ace 

e x e rc is e s regu la to ry ju r is d ic t io n bey ond th o lin e o f mere. hi gh 

wat er or th e line . o f mean hi gh t id e , whi ch li r. o3, by d e fin itio n , 

arn no t th e ou te r li m it s o f th o are a s u b je c t to th o re gim e o f 

tho w a te rs, bu t era on ly an in te rm edia te lim it . S ecti on 301 

p ro h ib it s th e dis ch arg e o f any p o ll u ta n t, in clu d in g dr ed ge 

s p o il, sa nd , and b io lo g ic a l m a te r ia ls , ex ce pt as in co m pl ia nc e 

w ith ‘se v e r a l oth er s e c ti o n s , -i ncl udin g s e c ti o n 404 . Secti on 

404 vest a th e S ecre ta ry o f th e Army, a c tin g throug h th e C h ie f 

o f en gin eers , w it h th e a u th o rit y to is su e pe rm its fo r th e 

dis ch arg e o f dre dge d or f i l l m a te ria l in to n av ig able w ate rs c t 

s p e c if ie d d is p o sa l sit C 3 . The te rn n avig a b le w at er s i s d efi n e 

by se c ti o n 50 2(7 ) as w at er s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s , in clu d in g th o 

t e r r i t o r i a l s e a s . '

The l e g is la t i v e h is to r y o f th e A ct chows th a t Co ngres s 

di d no t Intend to li m it th e go ve rn m en t's ju r is d ic tio n fo r 

en vir on men tal p r o te c tiv e purposes to th e sene li n e o f mean hi gh 

w at er wh ich li m it s th e Co rn s' ju r is d ic t io n fo r n a v ig a ti o n a l 

p ro te c ti v e pu rp os es , and in f a c t , .two F ed er al co u rt s th us fa r 

h«vo hel d th a t th e fe d e ra l h a te r P o ll u ti o n C on tr ol Ac t a u th o ris e 

th e e x e rc is a o f J u ris d ic ti o n ov er w at er lo r w at er q u a li ty pnrpc. 

landward o f th e li n e o f ro an hi gh w ate r: Uni te d v . h e ) 1

 -

373 F. Supp. 665 (il .D . F l a . , 19 74 ); Unit e d .-.bates v. le nd di l 

nnd T ra n sp ort ati on Co . . 364 F., Sup p. 349 (.*.!>. A y ., 19 73).
354

Vo rc cogn ls o th a t th e re are te ch n ic a l pro blems in 

e sta b li sh in g a for mu la to d e li n e ;i tc Fed er al ju r is d ic tio n under 

se c ti o n 404. N ev er th el es si wo f e e l th a t by c o n su lt in g w it h 

appro p ri ate s c ie n t is t s and oth er ex p ert s, th e o b sta c le s can bo 

sur mounted. An appro ach th a t v e b e li e v e has p a r tic u la r m er it 

io d efi n in g ju r is d ic tio n in term s o f th os e ar ea s co n ta in in g 

b io ta dep end ent on th e re g u la r inu nd ati on- o f w a te rs otl'.cr than 

ra in w ate r.

On Ju ly 13 , 19 74 , th e A tt or ney Gen er al rea ff ir m ed 

th e J u s ti c e De partm ent's cce siitir.on t to vi go ro us en forcem en t o f 

th e law s p ro te cti n g w et la nds. C it in g w et la nd s case s as a top 

p r io r ity o f th e Land and N at ura l Re so ur ces D iv is io n , Mr. Saxbc 

enum erate d th e in valu ab le fu n cti o n s se rv ed by w et la nds. For 

alm os t two ye ar s th e F ed er al Government has fa ile d to e x e rc is e 

i t s a u th o ri ty to reg u la te th e e n tir e ty o f th ese c r i t i c a l ar ea s 

th a t form a b io lo g ic a lly in te rd ep en de nt who le. Vo ur ge you to 

a ssig n hi gh p r io r it y to re ach in g an agr eem ent on th e secti o n 

404 gu id e li n es th a t w i l l pr ov id e fo r th e p ro te cti o n o f th e 

e n ti r e ecosystems dep enden t upon unpo llut ed and un di st ur be d 

w a te rs, ra th er tha n ju s t th a t p a rt a r b it r a r ily d eli n e ate d by 

mean hig h w ate r.

S in c e r e ly ,

. «• * W al la ce H. John son

. , A c sic ta n t A tt or ney Gen er al

c c : Alan G. K ir k ,I I , E sc u ir e ’

A ss is ta n t A dm in is tr ato r fo r • •

Enforce men t and G en er al Co un sel 

En vironme nta l P ro te cti o n Agency 

Fo ur th and 11 S tr e e ts , S .V .

W as hing ton, D.C. 2C4G0
355

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WAS HING TO N. O.C. 20460

16 MAY 19 75 TH E ADMIN IST RATOR

Dear General Gribb le :

I t is becoming in cr ea singly apparent th at the re cently proposed 

re gulat ions and gu idelines publis hed by the Corps of Engineers and 

EPA governing the implementation of se ction 404 o f the Federal Water 

P ollu tion Co ntrol Act are being misunderstood by the public and by 

Congress. Most of th is confusion and misunderstanding is d ir e c tl y 

a tt ri b u ta b le to the se riou sly inac cu rate and misleading press release 

issued by the Corps at the time the re gulatio ns were published. 

Because of the extreme importance of se ction 404 as the prima ry 

mechanism to pro te ct America's va luab le wetland resourc es, I consider 

i t imperative th at the Corps of Engineers take steps to remedy these 

impressions.

We are p a rti c u la rly concerned th at the fa ls e impression th at 

farm ers must ob tain permits whenever the y plow a fie ld be co rre cted . 

Since th is was cle a rl y not contemplated by e ith e r the Corps or 

EPA and is no t requ ire d by the sta tu te , we fa il to understand how 

such a statement could appear in th is press releas e. As you are 

well aware, the prima ry concern o f section 404 is to address 

situations where dredged or f i l l mater ial is discharged in to wetland 

areas. By no stretc h o f the imagina tion can the simple act of 

plowing be considered to fa ll w ithin th at categ ory.

The Corps has also sta ted to the public th at "m illio ns of 

people may be pre se nt ly vio la ti n g the law." Ob vio usly, there are 

some discha rges of dredged or f i l l material pre se nt ly oc cu rring 

which are not regu lated due to the Corps' pre sent re s tric tiv e 

d e fi n it io n . Such discharges should and would be regu lated under 

a broader approach. To say, however, th at th is number approaches 

m illio n s is to ta ll y with ou t ba sis .

The il lu s tra ti o n s contained in the press release have led to 

EPA re ce iving numerous in quirie s about the types of a c tiv it ie s 

covered by the program. The confu sion about it s a p p li c a b il it y is 

apparent. For example, i t has been suggested th at se ction 404
356

ap plies to any area where there is a body of water which has the 

pote ntial of flo odin g and th at a ri ce farmer is v io la ti n g the law 

i f he puts any acreage in to cu lt iv a ti o n with ou t a pe rm it. Cle arly 

th is is not tr ue. While there may be some rice growing opera tions 

which are loc ate d in wetland areas and which may invo lve the 

discharge of f i l l mater ial fo r the build in g of dike s, i t is 

unreasonable to assume th a t a ll ri ce operations fa ll w ith in th is 

categ ory . Merely because an agricultura l opera tion invo lves water 

does not mean th at i t is su bjec t to section 404. As we indica ted 

in our preamble to our guid elin es, we believe th at re gula tions can 

be developed which w il l pro vid e e ff ective adm in istratio n o f a permit 

program w ithin the broader d e fi n it io n of "navigable wate rs", 

with ou t in vo lvin g the extreme and unwarranted extensions o f fede ral 

ju ris d ic ti o n mentioned in your le tte r.

Both EPA and the Corps have issued polic y stateme nts recognizin g 

the need to pro te ct wetland areas. I t would be un fortun ate indeed 

i f , on the basis of these recent misconceptions, le g is la ti v e changes 

were made to re tu rn the sta tu to ry d e fi n it io n of ju ris d ic tio n to 

tr a d it io n a l concepts of n a vig a b ility. Such a change would leave vast 

areas of valua ble wetlands with ou t the pr otec tio n o f th is regu latory 

mechanism and po ss ibly su bjec t them to un co ntrolled development.

I st ro ngly urge the Corps of Engineers to work w ith us in the 

development of our se ction 404 program w ithin the s p ir it of the 

Federal Water Pollu tion Control Act and to take immediate ac tio n to 

correct the misunderstandings which your department's public 

statements have created.

Lt. Gen. William C. G ribble , Jr. 

Ch ief of Engineers 

Room 4A-245

1000 Independence Avenue 

Washington, 0. C. 20314
357

THE NEW YORK TIMES

June 16, 1975

True to the Corps

The Army Corps of Engineers has cooked up a scheme 

to evade a provision of law th at it doesn’t like by reducing a court order to such absurdity that it hopes thereby 

to force a change in the law. The strategy should be as 

unsuccessful as it is unconscionable.

Until this year, the Corps—which has always been 

more interested in building projects than in preserving 

the environment—narrowly interpreted its function of 

controlling dredging and filling operations affecting the 

country’s waterways. However, in the Water Pollution 

Control Aot of 1972, Congress had made it clear that the 

Corps’ protective program was to apply r.ot only to 

“navigable” waters, as heretofore, but also to the country ’s lakes, streams, rivers and wetlands as well. The 

Corps chose to ignore that extremely significant change 

in wording from previous law, continuing to confine its 

attentions to navigable waters only, to the grave detriment of tributaries and wetlands.

The upshot of a suit brought by the Natural Resources 

Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation 

was a United States District Court decision three months 

ago that Congress meant just what it said, whereupon 

the Corps deliberately proceeded to stretch its newly 

accepted jurisdiction beyend reason. Federal permits, the 

Corps announced, might now be required of the ’’farmer 

who wants to deepen an irrigation ditch or plow a field” 

or “the rancher who wants to enlarge his stock pond.” 

“Millions of people,” the Corps solemnly warned, “may 

be presently violating the law” and subject to severe

'■ penalties.

If such inflammatory nonsense was intended to raise 

a hue . and cry, it succeeded. Congressmen are being 

. pressed by th e/arm bloc and oiher lobbies to re-establish 

“navigable wate rs” as the only area of the Corps’ jurisdiction. This would leave at the mercy of the developers 

the 69 per cent of the nation's economically and environt- mentally invaluable wetland resources still intact.

• Public pressure should be directed not at Congress to

tamper with the Water Pollution Control Act but at the 

Corps of Engineers, the Army and the Administration 

itself to execute, not salvag e, the law of the land as 

interpreted by the courts.
358

Army Corps

Recants Farm

Permit Stance

• Associated Press

The Army Corps of Engineers backed down Tuesday 

from an earlier statem ent that 

proposed regulations might r equire some farmers to get a 

perm it to plow a field or dig a' 

ditch.

Assistant Army Secretary 

Victor V. Veysey said normal 

farming, ranching and commercial forestry operations 

would be excluded from regulations expanding corps authority over dredge and fill 

operations in waters of the 

United States.

Veysey, appe aring before a

Hous Public Works and Transportation subcommittee, said 

“nubody was more astonished 

than I” by the earlier statement. issued when the pro-| 

posed regulations were made 

public May 6.

Veysey and the assistant administrato r of the Environmental Protection Agency, Alvin Aim. said the two a. •ncics 

are close to achieving a 

“reasonab le proeram of regulations , . . [that willj protect 

serious environmental concerns but n o t. . . create an admin stralivc monster.”
359

THE NEW YORK TIMES. TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1976

New Threat to Wetlands

Last year the Arm y Corps of Engineers attempted to 

discredit a Federal court’s interpre tation of the Water 

Pollution Control Act by reducing one of Its major 

provisions to an absurdity.

The court had ruled tha t the Corps’ res ponsibility for 

controllin g dredging and filli ng operations extended not 

just to navigable waters but to all the coun try ’s waterways, including its wetlands. The Corps, which characteris tic ally has been more concerned w ith development 

than w ith environment, set up a strawman warning tha t 

every farm irrigation ditch and every rancher's stockpond might be affected. The Engineers had clearly hoped 

that the resultin g wave of pro tes t would force Congress 

to revoke the pertinent section of the law, thereby absolving the Corps of the legal obligation to curb developers’ tendency to explo it the country's dwindling 

wetlands.

But fortunate ly, the law remained in effect; and once 

the Corps accepted that fact, it carried out its new duties 

conscientiously in tandem w ith the Environmental Protection Agency. With both agencies analyzing development plans, there has been a considerable slow down in 

the disappearance of valuable wetland areas. To the 

Corps’ special credit, it recently denied permits to a 

corporation bent on fillin g 2000 acres of mangrove wetlands at Marco Island, Florida — a proposal tha t would, 

in the Corps’ words “con tribute tn unacceptible adverse 

impa ct on this aquatic resource.” • « •

Nevertheless, a fur tive attempt is ro w being made in 

Congress to return the Corps’ juris diction to its former 

res tricted lim its. It would have the effect of exposing 

to uncontrolled development— or to poiso ning w ith fi ll 

taken from stream beds lad^n w ith tox ic sui-stances— 

all co.r-tal wetlands on the shore side of the mean high 

water mark.

Amendments tha t would permit such retrogression 

already have been reported out of the House Committee 

on Public Works. They should be who lly elim inated on 

the floor. To sanction them would reduce by two-thirds 

the protection now available fo r invaluable bu ffer lands 

along the coast, while the wetlands of inte rio r streams 

and lakes would be left to the mercies of states which 

all too often have inadequate laws to preserve them.

Wetlands act as brakes to slow dow n flood waters, 

as nurseries for fish and shellfish, and as nestm? and

fc w lin e ' >- bi. 1 . 1; : .......•.a • -it.’.- !b. : ;f '

p!<»tccti'>n afforded by th e e hi ,i a ic.is si.ould

r.ow he jeop ardized by legislatio n witho ut so much as

a hearing to establish its need—or to reveal Its real pu rpose.
360

t . L o u is

Weilands

P 0 3 t-D is p a tc h

ja.Ii va nve r o

An effort by dredging, timber, land development and agricultural interests to undermine 

the legal protection of millions of acres of 

America’s wetlands may succeed this month 

unless members of Congress are made aware

of the value of these water-saturated lowland 

areas as natural water purifying systems and 

breeding grounds for waterfowl and fish and 

other marine life. Without even holding hearings, the House Publid Works Committee 

recently attached an amendment to a water 

pollution control bill which in effect eliminates 

environmental protection from 85 per cent of 

the nation’s wetlands by changing the definition of navigable waters.

Under existing law, the Arm y Corps of 

Engineers must grant permits for dredge and 

fi ll operations affe ctin g navigable waters. 

Under the more restrictive definition of navi-, 

gable waters approved by the House committee, most wetlands would no .lo ng er be 

protected under the Engineers’ permit program and would be open to development 

projects that would destroy vast areas of 

wildlife habitat.

When a Senate authorization bill for water 

cleanup programs reaches the markup stage 

in the Public Works Committee on Friday, an 

effort may be made to attach to that measure 

an amendment similar to the one on navigable 

waters (authored by Representative John 

Breaux of Louisiana) already approved by the 

House Committee, .'dem urs of the Senate 

Public Works Committee should rebuff such an 

attempt, especial!” since no h. •'•.rh ' on the

matter have been held in the Senate either.

And if the Breaux amendment it slid attacned

to the House bill when it reaches the floor, this

mischievous addition should ba stricken fn.m a 

measure which is ; >svd to protect water

resources, not destroy them.
361

The B a lti m o r e S u n , May 2 2 , 19 76

The Dirty Water Amendments

Amendments to the 1972 Clean Water A ct recen tly approved by the House Public Works 

Comm ittee are po ten tially so damaging, and the 

arguments for them so flimsy, tha t the fact they 

got through the committee —and even stand 

some rea l chance of passage—attests to the 

growing election-year strength of a well-funded, 

wh olly self-interested a nti-environmental lobby.

One technique of the lobby is to get its 

friends in Congress to write “ Dea r Colleague" 

letters to other members dec ryin g the dire 

events that purportedly w ill occur if existing 

anti-pollution laws rem ain on the books. One of 

the more egregious of these letters told House 

members that one of the amendments, which 

would repeal the Arm y Corps of Engineers’ auth or ity over non-navigable waterways, is necessary to avoid requirin g farme rs to get permits 

fro m the Corps to plow the ir fields. The Corps is 

empowered under the 1972 act to req uire permits for dredging and filli ng on al l U.S. waterways, but farmers are specific ally exempted 

under Corps and Soil Conservation Service regulations. The wholly proper intent of the 1972 

legisla tion is to pro tect irre placeable resources 

—pristine streams, wetlands, estuaries and 

beaches—from furthe r destru ctio n by largescale developers, who are the obvious behindthe-scenes supporters of the amendment.

An equally mischievous amendment would 

tra nsfer fin al autho rity fo r approving sewage 

treatm ent plants bu ilt mostly with federal 

funds fro m the Enviro nmental Protection Agency to the states. Not only would the amendment 

encourage cozy developer-contractor-politican 

relationships, it would discourage innovations in 

sewage treatm ent, especially those tha t would 

save federal dolla rs. Among such innovations is 

a Muskegon, Mich., sewage system which fe rtilizes cash crops. EPA has been lax in encouraging such new ideas, but it is certain the states 

would be even more lax, as long as the flow of 

federal dollars continued.

A third amendment would reduce the ma ximum fine for those found responsible for oil or 

chemical spills, fro m the present $5 million to 

$50,000 for the firs t offense. $100,000 for the 

second offense and $500,000 for the third offense. Proponents argue that small barge companies cannot afford oil-sp ill insurance premiums based on the current maximum fine. This 

argument may have some lim ited va lid ity , but 

reducing the potential maxim um fine to one 

one-hundredth its previous level is a certain 

way to reduce the incentive for large-scale oil 

and chemical carriers to take adequate precautions against spills. The House should reject all 

three amendments, soundly.
3G 2

Th e W ash in g to n P o s t , Ju n e 2 , 1976

Safeguards fo r the Swamps

T

HE CURRENT anti-Washington mood has compounded Congress’ perennial problem of deciding how much regulation is essential and what is too 

much. An important example Is the issue of wetlands 

protection, which is scheduled to come before the 

House today in connection w ith H R. 9560, a water resources bill.

The bill includes an amendment bv Rep. John

Breaux (D-La.) which would negate a 19?2 law and 

1975 court decision which greatly enlarged the Arm y 

Corps of Engineers' power to regulate dredging and 

filli ng In the nation's marshes, swames and other 

ecologically priceless wetland areas. The Corps' expanded program has not vet taken effect. However, 

some of that agency's own comments have helped to 

stir up fears that the Army intends to assert control 

over farm ponds, rice paddies and every other damp 

spot on the continent. The Breaux amendment is 

meant to preclude such excesses bv slashing back the 

Corps' authority to about its pre r -.2 scone.

As a reaction to alleged regulatory overkill, the

Breaux amendment is in several tmnoriant respects 

an exercise in heavy-handedness Itself. It would leave 

million s of acres of important wetlands onen to exploitation and possible ruin, it would lim it the Corps’ 

Jurisdiction so arbitrarily that In some caret the 

boundary of federal review m uni run through the 

middle of a marsh. At the same time, because no 

hearings were held on the measure, its relation to

other water pollution control laws is unclear. Some 

allege that it might permit dumping of poisonous 

wastes into rivers and lakes that serve as public water 

supplies. Others claim that, to the contrary, with ­

draw ing the Corps’ authority might bring EPA into 

the wetlands permit business instead.

In view of such difficulties, some Public Works 

Committee members who backed the amendment 

have had second thoughts. Rep. Jim Wrigh t ID Tex.I, 

for one, has been tryin g to marshal support for modifyin g the Breaux language or postponing the Corps 

program un til a study has been made. There has also 

been some discussion of giving qualified states a 

larger wetlands protection role. On the other hand, 

EPA and the Interior Department fla tly oppose the 

Breaux amendment and argue that any m3jor 

changes In the existing program would be premature.

lit the midst of this discord. Reps. W illiam H. Harsha (R-Ohiol and Janes C. Cleveland fR-N.H). in cooperation w ith several environmental groups, have proposed a sensible course. They would reject the 

Breaux amendment and respond to farmers' fears by 

providing that the Corps may issue general permits 

for minor dredging activities and may not regulate 

stock ponds, irrig ation ditches and so forth at all. This 

would solve the immediate worries without tearing 

up the whole program.
363

&MSTANT*Ar» o»*rv CrwCRM.

LANO ANO MAfUHAL PCMURCrS

DfVIStON

Scparfinmi of justice

May 23, 1976

Honorable Jennings Randolph 

Chairman, Public Works Committee 

United States Senate

Washing ton, D. C. 20510 

Dear M r . Chairman:

The purpose of this letter is to set forth the views 

of the Department of Justice on the proposed amendment to 

Secti on 40*4 of the Federal Wate r Poll utio n Contro l Act adopted 

by the Public Works and Transp orta tion Committee, House of 

Representatives, in Secti on 17 of H.R. 9560, a bill "To Amend 

the F edera l Water Pollu tion Control Act to provid e for additional 

authorisation, and for other purposes, with amen dment." We are 

writing to you at this time because the above amendment to the 

Federal Water Pollut ion Control Act, if enacted, will seriously 

undermine our ability to initiate litig atio n to protect the 

Nation's valuable wetlands.

As you know, Sectio n 301(a) of the F ederal Water 

Pollu tion Control Act of 1972 prohibits the discharge of any 

pollutant into the naviga ble waters of the United States 

except as may be au thor ized by a permit issued pursuant to S ections 402.or 404 of the Act. Sectio n 402 of the Act authorises 

the A dmin istrator of the E nviro nmental Prot ection Agency to 

issue permits for the discharge of any pollutant, and Section 

404 autho rize s the Secretary of the Army to issue permits for 

the discharge of dredge d or fill material into the navigable 

waters at specified disposal sites. The disposal site will be 

specified for each permit by the S ecret ary of the Army through 

applicat ion of guidelines developed by the Admini stra tor in conjunction with the Secretary. 40 F ed. Reg . '(1320 (1975). Sub ­

section (c) of Section 40h authorises the' Administ rato r to prc~- 

hiblt the speci fica tion of any defined area as a disposal site 

whene ver he determines, after notice and an op port unit y for 

public hearings, that the discharge of materi al into the area 

will have an "unacceptable adverse effect on munici pal water 

supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning 

and b reeding areas) wildlife, or recreational areas." In 

addition, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1C99

76-161 0 - 76 - 24
364

provides that it s hall be unla wful "to ex cavate or fill, or 

in any man ner to alter or mo dify the course, location, con dition, or capacity of, any roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, 

har bor of refuge, or enclosure with in the limits of any bre akwater or the channel of any navigable water of the Unit ed States 

unle ss the work has been rec ommended by the Chief of Engineers 

and authoriz ed by the Secr etary of the Army. . . . " 33 U.S.C.

The amend ment adopted by the House Public Wor ks and 

Transport ati on Committee in Section 17 of the bill would define 

the term "navigable waters" for purposes of Secti on 404 of the 

Federal Wate r Pollu tion Control Act to mean "all waters which 

are pres ently used, or are suscept ible to use in t heir natural 

cond ition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport 

interstate or foreign commerce shoreward to their ordi nary high 

wate r mark, including all waters whi ch are subject to the ebb 

and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark 

(mean high er high water mark on the west coast). " In addition, 

the disc harges of dredged or fill material in waters other than 

navi gable waters would not be prohibited or o therwise subject 

to reg ulation under Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the R ivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899.

The gener ally accepted definition of navigable waters 

was set forth by the Supreme Court in The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 

557, 563 (1870) wherein the Court stated: "Those river s must 

be rega rded as public navigable rivers in law w hich are navigable 

in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or 

are susceptible of b eing used, in their ordin ary condition, as 

high ways for commerce, over whi ch trade and travel are or may 

be c onducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on waters. 

And they constitute navig able water s of the Unit ed Stat es within 

the m eaning of the acts of Congress . . . when they form in their 

ordin ary condit ion by themselves, or by un itin g with other waters, 

a contin ued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on 

with other S tates or foreign countries in the customary modes in 

which such commerce is conduct ed by water." Altho ugh the def ini ­

tion in the propos ed amend ment to Section 404 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act appears to be a re state ment of the foregoing 

defin ition, the amendment does not take cognizance of later decisions of the Supreme Court. In particular, the prop osed definition ignores the decision of the Supreme Court in Economy Light 

and Power Company v. United St at es , 256 U.S. 113 (192777* lrf
365

that case, the Cour t found that the Desplaines River in Illinois 

which was used until the year 1825 for the transportation of furs 

and suppli es by canoes, but which was not ther eafter used for 

transportation was neve rtheless a navigable wate r of the United 

States and subject to regulation under the Rive rs and Harbors 

Act of 1899. The Court stated: " . . . 'that a river havi ng 

actual navigab le capacity in its natural state and capable of 

carr ying commerce amo ng the states is w ith in the power of Congress 

to prese rve for p urp ose s of future transport ati on even though it 

be not at present used for such commerce, and be incapable of 

such use accord ing to present methods, either by reason of changed 

condi tions or because of artificial obstructions." I d . at 123. 

Thus,, when once foun d to be navigable, the water way remains so. 

United State s v. Appala chi an Power Co mp an y, 311 U.S. 377

(1940). The princi ple enunciated by che Supre me Court in

Economy Power and Li gh t, and foll owed in subsequent decisions, 

is extremely important to us in our litigation to establish the 

navi gability of p art icu lar bodie s of water' including litigation 

to protect the wetlands. We rece ntly reli ed upon that principle 

to esta blish that one of the few remain ing mangrove areas located 

in Puerto Rico was navigable. PFZ v. Tr ai n, 393 F. Supp. 1770 

(D.C.D.C. 1975). Although the Committee reco gnized that the 

definiti on in Se ction 17 omitted the histor ica l test of navigability, H.R. Rep. No. 94-1107, 94th Cong., 2d Session 23 (1976), 

we are of the opinio n that the exam ples cited in the R eport 

of bodie s of wate r (small intrastate lakes ) being classified 

as navigable by the Corps of Engineers does not warrant such 

a far-reac hing a mendment. Alth ough the Corps' determin ation of 

navigabi lity is "final" in the adm inistrative lav/ sense of that 

term, navi gability is a ques tion of fact whi ch must be sustained 

upon Judi cial rev iew o f the determination. Thus, an aggrieved 

party is affor ded ample protec tio n from any arbitrary and 

capricious decisio ns of the Corps of Engineers. Also, litigation 

could be expe cted over waterways whic h have been adju dicated or 

consi dered navi gable for many years by rev iewing an issue that 

the Supreme Court dispos ed of in 1921. Moreo ver, the validity 

of C orps of E ngin eers permits issued purs uant to Sections 10 

and 13 would be o pen to question.

The propos ed amendment, moreover, may not accompli sh 

its apparent purpos e, namely, to preclude a Federal presence 

in wet lands and othe r areas above the mean high tide line.

H.R. Rep. No. 94-1107, 94th Cone., 2d Sess ion (1976). Section 17 

of the bill would only restrict the geographic area in which the 

Secretary of the Army may issue permits; it would not modif y the 

provi sions of Section 301 of the Act, which prohi bit the discharge 

of fill mater ial in navigable water s without a permit. Thus, rath 

than re m o v e '. h i l a above the mean high tide line fro m F e d o r a 

regulation, viie yio/.utru amendment could be constru ed absolutely
366

to prohibit the discharge of any fill material therein. Moreover, 

the propo sed amendment wou ld not affect the authori ty of the Administr ator of the Env iro nmental Protection Agency pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 404 to prohibit the dispo sal of fill m ateria 

at specified sites, includ ing wetlands.

In any event, a coastal wetland is pa rtially above 

and partially below the m ean high tide line. Fro m the ecological point of view, the wetland is a unit. If you fill 

that part which is ab ove the mea n high tide line, the remainder 

is adversely affected. If Section 17 were enacted, we might 

be precl uded from fili ng suit to protect those areas below the 

mea n high tide line where the fill mater ial was depo sited above 

said line, but p ollutants, nevertheless, were disc harged 

bel ow the m ean high tide line by means of leac hing or runoff.

Subs ection (e) of the amendment would apply the 

def inition set forth in subsection (d) to Se ctions 9,. 10, and 

13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This Act has been 

held to e xtend to all activities which "alter or m odify" the 

course , location, conditi on or capacity of n avig able water s 

wherev er the activities take place, without rega rd to the location o f the mean high tide line or the mean high w ater mark.

The most recent cases supporting this view are Unite d States v.

Moret tl, Inc. _______ F.2d _ (C.A. 5, 1976) and United

Stat es v. Sexton Cove Estates, In c. , _____ F.2d _____ , (C.A.

5, 1976), but the legal prin ciple goes back to United States 

v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co mp an y, 174 U.S. 690 (1899), wherein 

the Court stated: "any obstruction to the navigable capacity, 

and anything, wher ever done cr however done, with in the limits 

of the Juris diction of the Unit ed States, whic h tends to destroy 

the navigable capaci ty of one of tha navigable wate rs of the 

Unit ed States is within the terms of the proh ibition." The 

amendment could be constru ed as removing this prohibition from 

Federal law and would perm it filling activities above the high 

water line without regard to thei r effect on the navigable 

capa city of other bodies of waters. It would remove from regulatio n the placeme nt of dredged or fill materials into tributaries 

of navig able waters although these activities could pollute the 

navigable waters downst rea m from the fill.

The amend ment also has Important implications for the 

disposal of dredged spoil or fill on fastlan d in terms of 

poll ution abatement. For example, soil or dredged material 

that is highly contamin ated by arsenic, mercur y, or other toxic 

substances, could be placed on fastland adjac ent to a navigable 

wate rway and the p ollutants could wash or leach into the w ate rway. It is open to quest ion whether these d'rc’v'rro-; <• on] I be 

pena lized ox* en joined unde r the 1899 Acl , . . ... by ». • ’ >

17. •
3G7

The amendment is undesirable because it would remove 

much of the authority of the United States to protect one of 

its most valuable natural resources, the remaining coastal and 

fresh water wetlands which serve important purposes relating 

to fish and wildlife, as natural recharge areas, and protection from storm and erosive wave action. These waters are _

"the public property of the Nation," Gilman v. Philadelphia,

3 Wall. 713, 724-725 (1866) and are held in trust by the Federal 

Government for the benefit of the public, Illinois Central Rallroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 453 (1892)“ The Land and Natural 

Resources Division has made protection and enhancement of these 

irreplaceable natural resources an important part of its program to enhance environmental quality. Many, if not most, of 

these important wetland areas are physically located above the 

arbitrary line designated as mean high water. That line is 

merely an average of high tides over a lunar cycle and does not 

describe the geographic extent of the entire water body involved. 

Yet these areas are vital to the protection of the waterway as 

a viable ecosystem. Accordingly, the Department of Justice 

recommends against enactment of Section 17 of H.R. 9560.

The views expressed herein are those of the Department 

of Justice and do not necessarily reflect the Administration's 

position on the proposed amendment to Section 404 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Taft

Assistant Attorney General

Land and Natural Resources Division
368

X C U T IV E O FFIC E OF TH E PR ESID ENT 

C O U N C IL . O N E N V IR O N M E N T A L Q U A L IT Y

72 2 JACKSON PLAC E. N . « . 

WASHINGTON, 0 . C . 2 0 0 0 *

Ju ne 18 , 19 76

D ea r S e n a to r M us ki e:

Th e r e c e n t l y p a s s e d am en dm en ts t o t h e F e d e r a l W at er P o l l u t i o n 

C o n tr o l A c t (FWPCA) r e g a r d i n g t h e e x t e n t o f C or ps o f E n g i n e e r 's 

r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y u n d e r S e c ti o n 4 0 4 r a i s e s e r i o u s e n v ir o n ­

m e n ta l p o l i c y i s s u e s o f c o n c e rn t o th e C o u n c il on E n v ir o n m e n ta l 

Q u a l i t y . I w an t t o t a k e t h i s o p p o r t u n it y t o b r i n g t h e s e 

c o n c e rn s t o y o u r a t t e n t i o n .

As s t a t e d i n tw o l e t t e r s o f m in e t o C on gr es sm en L e g g e tt a n d 

F o r s y th e , e n c l o s e d , t h e C o u n c il s t r o n g l y o p p o se d th e am en dm en t t o H .R . 9 5 6 0 o f f e r e d by C ongre ss m an B re au x w h ic h 

r e d e f i n e d th e te rm " n a v ig a b le w a t e r s . " We d i d so on th e 

g ro u n d s t h a t i t w ou ld u n d e rm in e many o f th e g o a ls an d 

p o l i c i e s d e c l a r e d i n th e FWPCA, t h a t th e am en dm en t wa s 

u n n e c e s s a r y an d t h a t th e B re au x am en dm en t i t s e l f wa s n o t 

s u b j e c t e d t o h e a r in g s o r o t h e r p u b l i c re v ie w by C o n g r e s s .

Th e am en dm en t w a s , o f c o u r s e , n o t s u p p o r te d by th e ad m in ­

i s t r a t i o n . I n s t e a d th e C o u n c il , i n a c c o rd a n c e w it h th e 

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 's p o s i t i o n , h a s s u p p o r te d t h e C le v e la n d - 

H a rs h a am en dm ent t o H .R . 9 5 6 0 t h a t w ou ld h av e e s t a b l i s h e d 

c l e a r p e r m it e x e m p ti o n f o r a r a n g e o f n o rm al fa rm in g an d 

s i l v i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s w h il e r e t a i n i n g f e d e r a l r e g u l a t o r y 

r u t h o r i t y o v e r th o s e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t w ou ld m ost s i g n i f i c a n t l y 

a f f e c t th e n a t i o n ' s w a t e r q u a l i t y an d w a te r r e s o u r c e s .

U n f o r t u n a t e ly th e Ho us e h a s a c c e p te d C on gr es sm an W r ig h t's 

am en dm en t t o H .R . 9 5 6 0 t h a t w o u ld s u b s t a n t i a l l y c u r t a i l 

t h i s e s s e n t i a l f e d e r a l r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y . T h is new 

am en dm en t w o u ld r e s t r i c t th e f e d e r a l S e c ti o n 4 0 4 p e r m it 

p ro g ra m t o c o a s t a l w e tl a n d s an d t o w a te r s t h a t a r e o r 

m ig h t b e u s e d to t r a n s p o r t i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e i g n co m m er ce .

We s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e t h a t su c h an am en dm en t, i f a c c e p te d 

by t h e S e n a te , w ou ld c o n s t i t u t e a d r a s t i c s t e p b a ck w a rd s 

i n th e f e d e r a l . e f f o r t s u n d e r t h e FWPCA " t o r e s t o r e an d 

m a in ta in th e c h e m ic a l, p h y s i c a l an d b i o l o g i c a l i n t e g r i t y 

o f th e n a t i o n ' s w a t e r s . " Many h u n d re d s o f m il e s o f s m a ll 

w a te rw a y s , an d th e v a s t i n l a n d w e tl a n d r e s o u r c e s o f t h i s 

n a t i o n t h a t p r o v id e n a t u r a l p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l , w i l l go 

u n r e g u la te d an d u n p r o t e c te d .
369

The Council is of the opinion that the Seciton 404 Program should

be give n a re aso nab le chance to devel op as present ly constit uted

withou t crea tin g ne w and poss ibly m ore o nerous problems. We

ask the Sena te Car efu lly to consider the va lue of this

exist ing progra m, par tic ula rly when such im portant ecological and

econo mic res ources a re at stake.

Plea se let m e kno w if the Council can be of further assistance

in this matter .

Sincerely,

Rus sell W. Pete rson

Chairm an

Hono rable Edmu nd Mus kie

Unit ed Stat es Sena te

Washington, O.C. 20510
370

OMMENTS ON THE “ WRIGHT AMENDMENT" TO H.R. 9560 

Federal Water P o ll u ti o n C ontrol Act Amendments o f 1976

The N ational Marine F is heri es Serv ice o f th e N ational Oceanic and Atmospheric A d m in is tr a tio n has re se rv a tio n s co nc er ning the replac em en t amendment o ff e re d by Congressman W right co nce rn ing "P erm its fo r Dredged or 

F i l l M a te ria l, " and app roved by th e House o f Repre se nta tiv es on June 3, 

1976.

Section 404 o f the Fe de ral Water P o ll u ti o n Control Ac t (P .L . 92-50 0) 

esta blish es a Fede ral perm it program fo r re g u la ti n g the disch arg e of 

dredged or f i l l m ate ri a l in "w ate rs o f the Uni te d .S ta te s ." Proposed 

developme nt a c tiv itie s ar e review ed by the Fish and W il d li fe Serv ic e, 

th e N ational Marine F is heries S erv ic e, and the Sta te ag en cies administe rin g fis h and w ild lif e re so ur ce s under pro vis io n s o f the Fish and 

W il d li fe C oord in ation Ac t (FWCA). Federal and Sta te fis h and w ild lif e 

agency re pre senta tives are c o n tin u a ll y wor king to geth er to improve the 

co o rd in a tio n proced ures fo r perm it a p p lic a ti o n s and fo r o th er a c tiv itie s . 

Alth ough the amendment o ff e re d by Congressman W rig ht would appea r to 

g iv e g re a te r re g u la to ry c o n tr o l to Sta te governm ents, th e e x is ti n g 

p ro vis io n s o f the FWCA now as su re th a t Sta te views and recommendations 

are an In te g ra l p a rt o f th e decis io n-m aki ng process fo r Fede ral perm its.

The P.L . 92-500 addre sse s navi gable wa ters w it h the fo ll o w in g broad 

d e fin it io n : "The term 'n avig able w ate rs ' means the water s o f the United 

Sta te s In clu din g the t e r r it o r ia l seas." The Corps o f Eng inee rs, however, sought to o nly re gula te those waters wh ich were used in the past, 

ar e p re se n tly used, or co uld be used w it h reas on ab le improvement to 

tr a n s p o rt In te rs ta te commerce. Based on the d e fin it io n o f navigabl e 

waters 1n P.L. 92 -500 , the U.S. D is tr ic t Cou rt fo r the D is tr ic t o f 

Columbia decid ed on March 27, 1975 th a t the Corps o f En gin eers must 

expand Its re g u la to ry program to in clu de a ll waters o f the United S ta te s. 

Regula tio ns publis hed by the Corps on July 25, 1975 pro vid e co n tr o l ov er 

a ll waters and adja cent w etlands, in clu d in g tho se wetland s above mean 

hig h w ate r. .

The W rig ht amendment a t Su bs ec tio n (d )(1 ) pro vide s an a lt e rn a tiv e d e fin it io n o f navig able wa ters wh ich ex clu de s the h is to ric a l use o f the 

waterway as a te s t o f it s n a v ig a b il it y . This r e s tr ic tiv e d e fin it io n

f/b u ld remove Federal ju r is d ic tio n from a ll spawning grounds in headwater 

streams used by anadromous fis h such as salm on. Thus, valu able salmon 

spawning streams in Alask a, Washing ton, Oregon and C a li fo rn ia would no 

lo nger be pro te cte d by p ro vis io n s o f the Fish and W il d li fe Coord in ation 

A ct.

The W right amendment als o a ffe c ts Sec tio ns 9, 10 and 13 o f the Act o f 

March 3, 1899, such th a t the r e s tr ic tiv e d e fin it io n o f navi gable wa ters 

als o a p p lie s to th e perm it prog rams the se sections cover. I t is importa n t to no te th a t Sect io n 402 o f P.L . 92-500 is no t changed by th is
371

amendment, and the National Po llutant Discharge Elimina tion System 

permits covered by th is section would continue to be Issued by EPA fo r 

a ll waters of the United States. This inconsistency could re sult In 

confusion and situations lacking 1n ju d ic ia l or ad ministra tiv e remedy.

For example, ma terials placed on the banks of a stream which could 

subsequently wash into a navigable waterway would not be regulated by 

the Act of March 3, 1899 with enactment of the Wright amendment.

Subsection (f) of the Wright amendment would provide fo r the es tablishment of a Federal permit program 1n the State waters other than navigable waters, i f the Governor of the State and the Secretary of the 

Army, acting through the’ Chlef of Engineers, determine that these waters 

should be regulated because of th e ir eco logical and environmental importance. I f the Governor does not conclude that the waters of his State 

are environmentally or ec olog ically sig nific ant, no such agreement w il l 

re sult, and the State w il l exercise complete control over these waters 

and wetlands.

Subsection (j) of the Wright amendment states that au th ority to regulate 

wetlands adjacent to navigable waters may be delegated to a State. 

Although some States have existing programs and polic ie s which would 

re strain development pressures in wetlands, most States lack le gis la tion 

and funding to e ff ectively reg ula te dumping and f illin g . Subsections 

( f) and ( j, could clea r the way fo r innumerable water resource development projects witho ut the requirement to consult with Federal and State 

fish and w il d li fe agencies under the Fish and W ild lif e Coordination Act. 

This situation could re sult 1n irre tr ie vable and Ir re vers ib le diminution 

of th is Nation's wetland resources.

Wetlands in and adjacent to th is country 's navigable waters are a v it a l 

lin k in the lif e support system of livin g marine resources. No natural 

ecosystem, regardless of it s in d iv id u a lity , is iso lated from adjacent 

systems. Nu trien t exchange occurs between the adjacent land and the 

estuary via surface ru noff, and in turn between the estuary and the 

ocean through tid a l curre nts . High marshes, which exist both in regula rly flooded and ir re gula rly flooded ele vations, are productive natural 

areas upon which numerous animals depend fo r food, sh elte r, nursery 

areas or fo r breeding grounds. The production of wetland nu trien ts may 

be modified by many of man's a c ti v it ie s . Encroachments by developers 

into the high marsh may reduce the pro duct ivity of the estuary by lim ­

it in g food sources of various organisms, from bacteria to predatory 

fish . When the pro duct iv ity of the estuarine waters adjacent to the 

affected wetland is reduced, lower catches of commercial and recreational 

fish and shellf is h re sult.

Hany species are dependent on estuaries fo r eith er a considerable part 

of th e ir lives, or fo r c rit ic a l stages in th eir lif e his to ry . In 1973 

the dockside value of fish and shellf is h landed in the United States was 

approximately $900 m illio n . Of th is , eig ht of the ten most valuable
372

species were dir e ctly dependent on estuaries and represented $660 m illion In dockside revenue (Tihansky and Meade 1974).

Strong pressures exis t fo r developing wetlands. L a nd-f ill and dredging, 

draining of marshes. Increasing use of fresh water and many other actlvl 

ties have taken, and are taking , th e ir to ll of estuarine areas. The 

U.S. Department of the In te ri o r (1970) reported tha t during 1950-1969, 

640,000 acres of estua rine ha bitat were destroyed through dredging and 

f illin g (Table 1). In dustr ia l, conmercial and other sources of water 

pollu tion affect marine resources as well. In 1964, 27,000 acres of 

North Carolina estua rie s were closed to shellf is hin g. Ten years la te r 

th is loss had jumped to nearly 700,000 acres, representing a loss of 

shellf is hin g area which approximates 30 percent of the to ta l estu arine 

water area 1n the State (Brown 1974).

From 1930-1960, the pop ulation in the coastal counties of the United 

States grew 78 percent while the to ta l population grew 45 percent; these 

coastal counties represent only 15 percent of the land area of the 

contiguous U.S. By the year 2000, 1t is estimated th at 70 percent of 

the Na tion's population w il l resid e in th is coastal region. Presently, 

40 percent of a ll in dust rial pla nts are located along the coast (Thayer 

1975). As our pop ulation increases so w il l the demands fo r fish , shellfi s h , and uses of estua ries.

In summary, marshes are a valua ble , integral part of the aquatic ecosystem. To perm it them to be destroyed in disc rim inately is an ecologic al aff ro n t which ignores th e ir productive capacity. I t 1s fo r these 

reasons that we have supported the existing Section 404 perm it program 

and strong ly opposed the Breaux ammendment. It is also our conclusion 

th at the Wright amendment does not Improve on the existing provisions of 

Section 404.
373

Table 1. Acres of es tu arine habitat important to fi sh and w ild life

• estim ated as lo st from dredging and f i ll i n g ope ra tio ns ,

1950-19 69. Taken from USDI (1 970).

Es tuarine

Zone

Acres of

Important

Hab itat

(Thousands)

Acres Lost

Through Dredging

and F il li n g Percent Lost

(Thousands) 1950-1969

North A tl an ti c 271.0 2.5 0.9

Mid dle A tl an ti c 2,2 01.8 77 .0 0.4

Chesapeake 603.3 5.0 • 0.9

South A tl an ti c 82 3.8 42 .3 5.1

Biscayne & Flo rida Bay 922.2 21.1 2.4

Gulf of Mexico 8,3 25.0 42 6.7 5.1

S.W. P acific 38 8.0 46 .2 12 .0

N.W. P acif ic 2 ,1 4 2 .0 ^ 21 .0 1.0

Alaska 593.4 1.5 2/

Gre at Lakes 432.O l/ 2.6 0.1

To ta l 16 ,702 .5 64 5.9 ' 3.9

Includ es Puget Sound

2/

In sig n if ic an t

1/

Shoal wa ter under 6 fe et in depth
374

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, J.T . 1974. North Car olina co as tal zone management. In te rs ta te 

Seafood Seminar, A tl a n ti c Beach, North Ca rolin a.

Thaye r, G.W. 1975. The es tu ary - an area of env ironmental concern, 

p. 59-72. In S. Baker (e d.) Coastal development and areas of 

envIronmentaT concern. Proc. o f a Symposium. U niv ers ity of North 

Carolina Sea Grant Program, North Ca rolina State U n iv ers ity, Raleigh.

Tihansky, O.P. and N.F. Meade. 1974. Es tim ating the economic value of 

es tu ar ie s to U.S. commercial fi s h e ri e s . P re print o f chap ter in the 

Na tio na l Estuary Study. 59 p.

U.S .O .I. 1970. Na tiona l estuary stud y. Vo l. 2, Appendix A.

Washington, D.C. 303 p<
375

uiu icu ocatcs ue pa rtm cn t of the Inte rior

FISH ANU WILDLIFE SERVICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

Memorandum

Tot Legislative Counsel »

Through: Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks 

From: Director, Fish and Wildlife Service

Subject: Amendments to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollutio. 

Control Act

As requested by your memorandum of June 9, 1976, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the subject amendments 

passed on June 3 by the House of Representatives. Our comments 

follow:

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 

(the Water Act) is an admirably comprehensive piece of 

legislation. Embodied within the statute are numerous water 

pollution control programs designed, in the aggregate, to 

reach out and control all forms of water pollution at their 

sources, wherever those sources might be found. The breadth of 

the Act logically and necessarily follows from its stated 

objective and goals, among which are the following:

wr

. . . to restore and maintain che chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the Nation's waters 

(Section 1 01. (a)) '

. . . that wherever attainable, an interim goal of 

water quality which provides for the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and 

provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved 

by July 1, 1983. (Section 101. (a)(2))

Pursuant to these and other goals and objectives, the Congress 

devised several' permit programs to regulate discharges of 

pollutants into the Nation's waters. Of these, perhaps the 

best known is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit program (Section 402 of the Water Act)
376

which is administered by the EPA and which regulates the discharges of municipal and industrial pollutants "into the 

navigable wate rs." A closely related program, jointly 

administered by EPA and the Corps of Engineers pursuant to 

Section 404 of the Act, requires permits for the " . . . 

discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable 

waters at specified disposal sites." (emphases added). The »

Act, at Section 502 (7) provides a single definition of 

"navigable waters," namely, "The waters of the United States, 

including the territorial seas." Although this definition was 

not more fully expanded and clarified within the statute, the 

legislative history of the Act leaves no doubt that the intent 

of Congress was to broaden the concept of "navigable waters" 

prevailing prior to the Act. The Committee report states that:

One term that the committee was reluctant to define •

was the term "navigable waters." The reluctance was 

based on the fear that the interpretation would be read 

narrowly. However, this is not the committee's intent. •

The committee fully intends that the term "navigable 

waters" be given the broadest possible constitutional 

interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations 

which have been made or may be made for administrative 

purposes.

The only previous agency determinations of "navigable waters" 

were those which had been made by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard. It is evident, then, 

that the Congress originally intended to prevent the Water 

Act from being encumbered by these or any other interpretations 

of^"navigable waters" which would obstruct the goals and objectives 

of the Act.

The Wright Amendment provides a definition of "navigable waters" 

that is intended to be applied for purposes of administering 

Section 404 (presumably the current definition of "navigable 

waters," as expressed in the statute and interpreted by the 

courts, will continue to apply to the remainder of the Act) .

This new definition, together with other provisions of the 

amendment, has the potential to radically reduce the current 

geographical jurisdiction of the Section 404 program. It 

does' this by excluding numerous classes of waters from the 

definition proper and from the definition of "adjacent wetlands," 

and by providing that such waters or portions thereof, may be 

regulated only upon formation of State-Federal agreements 

revokable at any time, in whole or in part, at the discretion 

of the Governor.

Among the classes of waters which are excluded from the Wright 

Amendment's definitions of "navigable waters"and "adjacent 

wetlands" are:
377

(1 ) Most coastal fresh marshes and coastal open fresh

marshes. The amendment requires that all coastal "adjacent 

wetlands” be ". . .normally characterized by the prevalence

of salt or brackish water vegetation. . . ." This would exclude 

most of the approximately 3.8 million acres of coastal wetland 

Types 12 (coastal shallow fresh marshes), 13 (coastal deep «. 

fresh marshes), and 14 (coastal open fresh waters) . These 

wetlands have long been defined as "coastal," but they are not 

characterized ". . .by the prevalence of salt or brackish water 

vegetation. . .," and.thus would apparently be excluded from 

the definition of "adjacent wetlands," except when lying 

adjacent to navigable fresh waters, which most do not. These • 

categories of coastal fresh waters are highly significant in 

the production of sport and commercial 'fishes, including many 

which are taken in ocean waters, and also provide essential 1 

wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. Together with 

downstream brackish and saline wetlands, they form a complex 

coastal wetlands ecosystem, the components of which are linked 

together and energized by flows of water and nutrients. Degradation or destruction of the freshwater wetlands of this 

system would reduce the vitality and productivity of the 

saline and brackish components. If the national goal, as 

expressed in Section 101.(a)(2) of the Water Act, is to be 

achieved, it is essential that conservation and development 

of these wetlands be accomplished through a comprehensive 

and consistent regulatory scheme that includes all elements 

of the coastal wetlands. The Wright Amendment provides to 

the States the prerogative to exclude most 'coastal fresh 

wetlands from the Section 404 permit program, and thus paves 

the'way to uneven jurisdiction, whereby discharges into 

fresh coastal wetlands would be regulated in some States 

and unregulated in others.

(2) Freshwater streams lying above the head of navigation 

of "navigable waters" as defined in the Wright Amendment 

(new subsection (d)). This would include most, of the small 

headwaters streams which furnish spawning habitat for anadromous 

species such as salmon and steelhead trout. Some of these 

streams are so shallow that at times spawning fishes are

not even completely covered by water. Such waters are clearly 

incapable, in their present condition .of transporting interstate 

or foreign commerce, and are so remote from existing navigable-ir. 

fact waters as to make it improbable that they ever would support 

such commerce, even "with reasonable improvement." Thus, the 

commercial implications of anadromous fishery production notwithstanding, these waters could not meet the tests of "navigable 

waters" or "adjacent wetlands" in the Wright Amendment, and would 

be regulated only with the approval of the Governors of the State 

in which they occur.
378

(3 ) Freshwater marshes, swamps, bogs, lakes, basins, and other 

shallow vegetated fresh wetlands which escape the definitions 

of "navigable waters" or "adjacent wetlands" provided in the 

Wright Amendment. Large swamps, such as the Okeefenokee, and 

inland fresh marshes such as the Florida Everglades would 

apparently be excluded, along with a host of lesser bodies.

The quality and productivity of these categories of waters 

varies considerably from one locality to another. In the 

aggregate, however, their contribution to the protection and 

propagation of fish and wildlife is monumentally important.

Such waters frequently' provide nesting sites for waterfowl 

and for aquatic wading birds such as herons and egrets; habitat 

for beaver, mink, muskrat and other furbearers; and spawning 

and rearing grounds for freshwater fishes and invertebrates 

which furnish food for numerous other species, including man.

Other examples could be cited. However, from the foregoing, it 

should be readily apparent that numerous ecologically vital 

classes of waters will receive a substantially diminished 

quality of protection should the Wright Amendment pass into 

law.

The proposed new subsection (f) provides for joint FederalState agreements, at State option, to extend the Section 404 

program to waters other than navigable waters or adjacent 

wetlands. Central to such an agreement would be a finding, 

by the Governor of a State and the Chief of Engineers, that 

discharges in such waters ". . .should be regulated because of 

the ecological and environmental importance of such waters. . . . " 

Programs undertaken pursuant to such an agreement may, however, 

be revoked, in whole or in part, by the Governor of a State. Thus, 

waters declared to have "ecological and environmental importance" 

and made subject to regulation under Section 404, could subsequently 

be withdrawn from this jurisdiction, without any requirement for 

either (1) a reassessment of their ecological value or (2) 

implementation of an effective State program for'regulating use 

of such waters. The provisions of subsection (f) could well 

result, then, in fragmentary and unstable programs — or no 

programs at all — for regulating discharges of dredged and 

fill materials in ecologically important waters of many States.

It is difficult to reconcile this very real possibility with 

the objective of restoring and maintaining the ". . .chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"

(Section 101 .(g) of the Water Act) and with the Act's national 

goal that, ", . .wherever attainable, an interim goal of water 

quality which provides for the protection and propagation of 

fish, shellfish and wildlife, be achieved by July 1, 1983"

(Section 101.(a)(2)1. Many of these same waters would continue 

to be rigorously protected, under Section 402 of the Act, 

from pollution by discharges of industrial and municipal
379

wastes. It seems incongruous, therefore, that waters

protected from these kinds of discharges, at great public

expense, should remain vulnerable to wholesale pollution .

by the unregulated discharge of contaminated dredged or

fill materials.

The proposed new subsection (g) provides for the issuance of 

general permits for discharges which are determined by the 

Secretary of the Army to be in the public interest. We 

favor the general permit concept. . However, we believe that 

general permits should be issued only for those classes of 

activities which, individually and cumulatively, would cause 

minimal adverse environmental impact. Hundreds, and perhaps «• 

thousands, of such activities are performed annually in the 

Nati on’s waters, and it would be administratively cumbersome 

and unnecessarily time-consuming to process an individual 

permit for each such activity. A smaller number of activities 

have a high potential for degradation of water quality and 

should not be regulated by any general permit, but should instead 

be individually processed, with a view to the development of 

appropriate project modifications or alternatives, where 

necessary, to avoid the unnecessary degradation of water 

quality and habitat values. The Wright Amendment, however, 

in its provision for general permits, provides no distinction 

between projects having insignificant impacts and those having 

potentially major and destructive ecological impacts. Such 

distinction presumably would be at the discretion of the 

Secretary of the Army. We believe that enlightened regulation 

of the use of the Natio n’s waters requires that major, significant 

filling and disposal activities be individually scrutinized. 

Accordingly, we find Subsection (g) unacceptably broad in the 

latitude it grants for issuance of general permits.

The proposed subsection (h) exempts numerous types of

farming, silvicultural, ranching, water control, and transportation maintenance activities from the jurisdiction of 

Section 404. We concur in this approach to the'avoidance of 

overregulation. In our view, overregulation is best accomplished 

not by diminishing the geographical reach of the Act, but by 

seeking out and exempting activities which, consistent with 

the objectives of the Act, either require no regulation or 

may be more logically and expediently regulated through other 

provisions of the Act (e.g. Section 208).

Subsection (i) exempts from the provisions of Section 404 those 

congressionally-authorized Federal or Federally assisted projects 

for which the effects of dredged or fill materials discharges 

have been included in an environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and submitted to the Congress in 

connection with the authorization or funding of such a project.

We point out that many projects are funded or authorized

76-161 0 - 76 - 2 5
380

n the Congress prior to the exact specification of disposal 

sites for discharges of dredged or fill material. The probable 

impact of subsection (i) would be to encourage construction 

agencies to specify such sites in order to obtain specific 

congressional authorization for the discharge activity, and 

thus avoid the requirement for a Section 404 permit. This ,

procedure would impair the opportunity for flexibility in the 

refining of project desiqn features, since the involved aqcncy 

would evidently be required to seek the consent of the Congress 

for any substcintive change in the disposal site. The Congress 

has traditionally delegated to the Executive Branch the 

responsibility for developing those specific features of 

project design necessary to achieve a balance in the development 

and preservation of the Nation's water resources. We believe 

that this approach, which requires compliance with numerous 

Acts of Congress (e.g. the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

Department of Transportation Act, the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969) provides the most practicable vehicle for 

refining individual developmental features of Federal projects.

Subsection (j) provides for delegation to a State, upon its 

request, of any or all functions related to regulation of 

discharge activities in "adjacent wetlands" of the State.

Such delegation could be made upon determination by the 

Secretary of the Army (a) that such State has the authority, 

responsibility, and capability to carry out such functions 

and (b) that such delegation is in the public interest. It 

is not inconceivable that delegated programs- of such nature 

could eventually be an affective alte.rr.ctf-a to Federal 

agency regulation. At this time, however, it is unlikely 

that many States possess the human and fiscal resources 

necessary to the carrying out of effective delegated programs.

For this reason, we believe it is highly probable that 

States will seek to obtain Federal funding to assist in the 

dev elo p m en t o f su c h p re g ra m s.

The previsions for delegation of programs to tne States arc 

broad and general, and would undoubtenl. require the develop?end 

of detailed guidelines, by the Department of the Army, for 

determining whether a State has the authority, xv -rgibi 1 it 

and capability requisite to the conduct of such a progur.. and 

for evaluating the general public interest implications of any 

such delegation. We note that several proponents of the Wright 

Amendment, during the floor debate, expressed the viewpoint 

that administration of the current Section 404 permit is encumberc 

with excessive and complicated rulemaking by the Executive 

Branch, i.e., the Corps of Engineers. We point out that, in 

the absence of a detailed delegation mechanism (such as that 

provided in Section 402) , it will once more become necessary 

for the Corps to promulgate detailed guidelines. (The same 

observation is applicable to the proposed subsections (f) and
381

(g,, governing, respectively, discharges into waters other than 

navigable waters or adjacent wetlands and general permits, . If 

there is, ultimately, to be a delegated program, as contemplated 

in subsection (j) we believe it would be preferable for the 

delegation mechanism to be described in detail within the 

statute, in a manner similar to that provided in Section r

402.

In conclusion, the Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that 

the Wright Amendment, as proposed, not be adopted. With 

refinements described above, we would not object to amendments 

which provide specific statutory authorization for general 

permits. We concur in the design of the proposed Subsection (h,, 

which exempts from regulation certain activities which either 

require no regulation, consistent with the objectives of the 

Act, or which may be more effectively regulated by other 

provisions of the Act. With regard to the remainder of the 

Amendments, we recommend that further legislative action be 

deferred, at least until the existing program has been further 

tested and evaluated on the basis of operational experience.
382

Le ag ue of Wo men Voters of the United States

L J / * W z L / l 7 3 O M St.. NW . W ashing ton. D. C 20 036 (202) 296-1770

i w y V / 7

v 26 July 1976

Senator Jennings Randolph, Chairman

Senate Public Works Committee

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The League of Women Voters of the United States urges you to reject amendments 

to Section 404 of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act that would eliminate 

protection of our nation's wetlands.

With over half of our nation's wetlands already destroyed by dumping of dredging materials and filling for development, we cannot afford to lose the remainder. With only minimal legislative changes, the permit program already developed 

by the Corps of Engineers in its July 1975 regulations can give these vital 

resources the protection they deserve and need.

Any amendment that limits a dredge and fill permit program to waters used for 

interstate commerce will eliminate protection for 80 percent of our inland and 

coastal wetlands. Similarly, exempting federal activities from Section 404's 

protection creates the potential for many of the largest dredge and fill programs to proceed without adequate environmental safeguards.

The regulations developed by the Corps in July 1975 have already addressed 

many of the concerns about excessive federal regulation. If Section 404 is 

to be amended, the League urges you to incorporate those regulatory provisions into law.

Proposed changes in law should include authority for a general permit to be 

used for minimal or environmentally insignificant discharges of dredge or fill 

material; the exemption of normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities 

from permit requirements, and the retention of federal authority o«ier the 

activities that would most significantly affect the nation's water resources.

The existing Corps' regulations give the states a significant role in determining whether a permit for proposed dredge or fill discharges should be granted. 

Any major changes in this federal-state relationship will only introduce new 

bureaucratic and judicial delays in the program and create inconsistencies 

within the Water Pollution Control Act.

>“ ip* w

WJIMC LUGtH . .. . . ,

CTUffPS

v- c Iiomu.-

(Adh I »Wv<*ti4t

tx

wnnfca kv

t o n Wit.- N M.w I »»» J (XECUIIVE DtfftCIOR
383

Our n a ti o n 's e co lo g ic all y and ec on om ically v ita l wetland s cannot aff o rd fu rth e r 

a ssa u lt s. The League th ere fo re st ro ngly ur ge s you to re je c t cri p p li n g amendments to Sec tion 404.

S in cer ely ,

Ruth C. Clu sen 

Pre si den t

Arn cburs

Jean Anderson,

En vironme nta l Q ual ity Chairman

0Tv-/
384

Senator Randolph. Gentlemen, we will go from the problems of 

farming and agriculture and associated activities and come over to 

the problems of mining.

Mr. G. L. Barthauer, of the American Mining Congress, we will 

ask you to testify.

STATEMENT OF G. L. BARTHAUER, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, CONSOLIDATION COAL CO.

Mr. Barthauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Gerald L. Barthauer and I am vice president, environmental affairs, for Consolidation Coal Co. My business address is 924 

North Washington Road, McMurray, Pa. 15317.

I am appearing today as a witness on behalf of the American Mining 

Congress. The American Mining Congress is a trade association whose 

membership includes companies tha t produce most of the Nation’s 

metal, coal, and industrial and agricultural minerals.

Membership also includes over 200 companies that manufacture 

mining and mineral processing equipment, as well as engineering and 

contracting companies and financial institutions tha t serve the mining industry.

We do have a statement to submit for the record, but I would like 

to brief tha t statement in a few comments.

My own company, Consolidation Coal Co., is a major coal producer 

employing over 20,000 persons. In my testimony, I will refer chiefly 

to problems encountered or anticipated by the coal industry. However, 

I wish to emphasize tha t the impact of the 404 regulations of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act are not limited simply to coal 

mining, b ut also have impact on all types of surface mining including 

gravel pits, rock quarries, and so forth. Indeed, many of these problems will affect surface operations associated with underground mines.

The American Mining Congress was invited to appear today to 

discuss the statutory basis for and the implication of the Corps of 

Engineers regulations implementing section 404. Two sets of regulations are involved, the guidelines of the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the permit regulations promulgated by the Corps of 

Engineers.

The American Mining Congress supports the authority of the corps 

over the disposal of dredge and fill material in truly navigable waters. 

Section 404 of the act was initially interpreted by the Corps of Engineers as doing just that. But, as you are aware, a U.S. district court 

ordered the promulgation of regulations extending the corps’ regulatory authority over all of the Nation’s waters to the maximum extent 

possible under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

The corps has even gone beyond tha t directive and has actually 

included land areas as “navigable waters” by the use of the term 

“wetlands.” Wetlands are defined as areas tha t are periodically inundated. In addition, the navigable waters have now been defined 

to include all streams where the flow is greater than 5 cubic feet per 

second.

The members of this committee and the Senate will be the final 

judges as to whether the corps’ jurisdiction and permit authority 

should be so extensive. The House, in passing H.R. 9560, has clearly 

expressed its intent tha t the term “navigable waters” should not be 

so all-inclusive.
385

IMPACT ON MIN IN G IN DU ST RY

The regulations promulgated under section 404 will have a significant impact on the mining industry. This, in turn, will impact on 

the Nation’s drive to increase coal production in an effort to decrease 

dependence on foreign oil.

A large proportion of the needed increase in coal production will 

come from surface mining, and under these regulations, dredge and 

fill permits will be required even where the impact on the environment is minimal. Let me briefly discuss several typical activities associated with surface mining which, under the present regulations, 

will require dredge and fill permits.

In the course of surface mining, it is frequently necessary to divert 

a small stream around a proposed mining operation. This becomes 

necessary since it is virtually impossible to surface mine in a logical 

sequence along the banks of a meandering stream. Up to 500 feet of 

surface area on either side of the stream must be bypassed in order to 

prevent possible encroachment on the stream itself, thereby negating 

the recovery of valuable coal reserves.

This could well make the entire project uneconomical since it might 

not be profitable to mine tha t area without recovery of this coal. 

Stream diversion around the property is frequently practiced and, in 

normal practice, permits for such diversion are obtained from State 

agencies.

Movement of large-scale equipment frequently involves constructing bridges or culverts to cross small streams. Either activity would 

require a corps permit, even though the impact on the stream would 

be temporary and minimal. This problem is particularly acute in 

moving a large stripping shovel or dragline across a stream to reach 

a new mining area. It is normal practice to use the dragline to build a 

temporary causeway over which the equipment travels.

Upon reaching the other side, the same equipment removes the 

causeway and any affected areas are immediately replanted. This 

whole operation may take only 24 to 48 hours and is usually carried 

out in dry weather. If a delay is encountered in obtaining a permit, a

• $10 million piece of equipment would become idle during the delay.

I might point out that such equipment makes possible the extraction 

of roughly 15,000 tons of coal a day, equivalent in heating value to 

roughly 50,000 barrels of oil a day.

The activities such as I have described are only several examples of 

common practices associated with surface mining. The impact on 

streams in virtually all cases is minimal and temporary. We see little or 

no justification for the involved administrative procedures and permit 

requirements promulgated under phase II and phase I II of the corps 

regulations.

NEE D FO R AS SU RA NC E TH AT PE RM IT S WILL BE OB TA IN ED

As this committee knows, the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act requires specific standards of performance for the mining industry 

with respect to water pollution control. These requirements are 

clearly spelled out in regulations promulgated under other sections 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We expect to meet 

these requirements and can plan accordingly.
386

However, the regulations set forth under 404 for issuing permits are 

subjective in nature and cannot be examined from an objective 

point of view to determine whether or not a permit will ever be issued. 

The definitions even leave open the question of the exact waters and 

land areas which fall within the scope of the regulations. I think we 

have seen some examples of that in the discussion a few minutes ago.

This factor is highlighted in the discussion accompanying the corps 

regulations [40F.R. 31320-21]. It is stated:

We realize th at some ecologically valuable water bodies or environm entally 

damaging practices may have been omitted. To insure th at these waters are also 

protected, we have given the Distric t Engineer discretionary autho rity to also 

regu late them on a case by case basis.

In many cases, a coal company will be unable to determine whether 

or not it will need a dredge or fill permit for a particular activity. 

This problem is made even more serious by the provision which 

requires the district engineer to issue a cease-and-desist order if he 

believes tha t an ongoing activity falls within the dredge and fill 

permit program. Under these circumstances, the district engineer 

cannot accept for processing any permit application on this activity 

while any civil or criminal proceedings are pending. A company must 

use an extremely conservative approach, thereby placing an additional 

burden on the Corps of Engineers when it is doubtful tha t the corps 

will be able to expeditiously process the anticipated workload.

House Report No. 74-1107 which accompanied H.R. 9560 pointed 

out tha t the Corps of Engineers would probably require an increase 

in personnel of approximately 600 simply to administer the anticipated 

workload. The report noted that it was doubtful tha t either Congress 

or the administration would approve such an increase. It appears 

clear to us tha t the mining industry will be unable to receive timely 

approval for all of the permits required under the Corps of Engineers 

regulations.

It is also not clear to us whether or not the estimated personnel 

increase of 600 includes sufficient trained people to prepare any 

necessary environmental impact statements. As you know, the 

issuance of a corps permit is a Federal action and falls within the 

purview of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

We foresee, as a result of past experiences, numerous objections to 

proposed activities, even where those activities will have little impact 

upon the environment. Under these circumstances, the corps will 

frequently be forced into preparing environmental impact statements 

prior to issuance of the permits. Therefore, the estimate of 600 additional persons may be vastly understated.

The industry’s problems with the corps regulations are both short 

and long term. From a short-term standpoint, implementation of 

phase II and phase II I portions of the program can impose substantial 

delays on current mining operations. The corps simply is not equipped 

at the present time to process in a timely manner all of the permit 

applications which will be generated.

Many stream crossings and planned activities are imminent and 

operations cannot be shut down to wait for permits. This could result 

in a number of undesirable effects such as the layoff of employees and 

the inability to fulfill commitments to supply coal necessary for 

electric power generation.
387

The problems are also long term. In order to obtain financing and 

make the necessary contractual commitments with proposed new 

coal-fired electric generating plants, there must be a high degree of 

certainty tha t permits will be issued so that the mine can become 

operative. The long leadtime for ordering new mining equipment 

requires that we place these orders at the earliest possible moment.

For example, a dragline large enough to be used as a primary 

stripping tool must be ordered 4 to 5 years in advance of starting 

operations. Substantial penalties are involved in canceling such orders. 

Also, the potential customer must be assured of a particular reserve 

of coal so tha t the generating plant can be designed and constructed 

to use this specific fuel.

PR OT EC TION OF WET LA ND S

The issue of protecting the wetlands has become one of the chief 

issues with respect to section 404. The Environmental Protection 

Agency in its guidelines has s tat ed :

From a na tional perspective, the degradation or destruction of aqu atic resources 

by filling operations in wetlands is considered the most severe impact covered by 

these guidelines * * *. The guiding principle should be th at the destruction of 

highly productive wetlands may represen t an irretrievable loss of a valuable 

aquatic resource. (40 C FR 240.4-1 (a) (1)).

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act has thus been converted 

into a mechanism for protecting the wetlands. The mining industry 

recognizes the ecological importance of certain wetlands but questions 

whether the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 

Agency are the appropriate authorities to oversee their protection 

and whether a single section of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act which does not even mention the term “wetland” is the appropriate 

method of dealing with the issue.

Mining deposits are unique in tha t they must be extracted where 

they are found by a method dictated by geologic, environmental and 

economic factors. The regulations fail to recognize this uniqueness 

and could prevent the extraction of minerals based solely on aquatic 

consideration. The American Mining Congress suggests tha t the 

proper approach to the protection of the wetlands would involve 

completion of a survey to identify the critical wetlands with an analysis 

of the potential uses of the area including mineral development.

CO NC LU SIO N

Under section 404, a program has been developed which is impractical, virtually impossible to administer, and will result in unwarranted delays in producing the minerals which this Nation so 

badly needs to maintain a viable economy and provide a greater 

degree of national security. The American Mining Congress urges 

tha t the regulatory authority over the discharge of dredge or fill 

material into navigable waters be restricted to discharges into truly 

navigable waters.

Thank you.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, very much, Mr. Barthauer.

Many of us in the Senate and the House come from States that are 

substantial coal producers, both deep and surface mining. I am interested in an aspect that I wish you would address.
388

In w ha t stage of the a dv an cement of a new min e wou ld subm ission of 

a p erm it app lica tion be mad e? Wh en is it done? When do you proce ed 

with the app lica tion?

Mr. B art hau er. Ju st as soon as yo u have developed the con cept of 

a pro bab le ope ration , where you have po ten tial custome rs and you 

hav e com pleted your analysis, and you know yo u have a large enou gh 

field with sufficiently high qu ality coal or ore to be able to exp loit 

it p rof itably . After this, you norm ally would apply for yo ur perm it.

Se nator R and olph. You mean aft er the mine has been open ed and 

is in pro duction, is th at wh at y ou are saying?

Mr. B art hau er. N o, no, qu ite to the contr ary . On ly after you — 

aft er drillin g and exp loration—have determ ine d wha t the dep osit is; 

th at you do hav e sufficient coal the re for a pro fita ble opera tion. Of 

course, you mu st have yo ur perm its before you can open th at mine. 

In fac t, you mu st have your perm its before, mo st im po rta ntly, you 

can comm it cap ital for ope ning th at mine.

Se na tor R andolph. Th en y ou are saying i t is in the early s tages of 

the dev elo pm ent of the mine?

Mr. B art hau er. Right.

Se na tor R andolph. Is the re an y delay in the opening of a mine 

th at could or does resu lt from the req uir em ent of the issuance of 

a permit?

Mr. B art hau er. Oh, yes.

Se na tor R andolph. Tell us ab ou t th at , sir.

Mr. B art hau er. I thi nk all you have to do, Se na tor Ra nd olph , is 

to look at the n orthe rn Gr eat Plain s pro gram and the diff iculty which 

In terior has had in bein g able to issue leases and appro ve new mining 

applicat ion s in th at are a until the environme nta l im pa ct stat em en t 

has been pre pared for the entire no rth ern Gr eat Pla ins area. I believe 

the leasing mo ratorium star ted in ab ou t 1971.

Se nator R andolph. Do you have an estim ate of the nu mb er of 

perm its th at are issued under the cu rre nt section 404 reg ula tions th at 

would be required in a coal mining ac tiv ity or act ivities?

Mr. B art hau er. Of cours e, it would depend on whe re th at activ ity is loc ated. I mi gh t tak e a pa rti cu lar coal mine in the State of 

Illin ois and from com paring wha t I know of the hydro log y of th at 

area, the nu mber of perm its th at we perha ps w ould req uir e, assu min g 

th at we di dn ’t have general perm its—and I think thi s is a fai nt hope 

the re could be perh aps as m any as 8 or 10 du ring the life of th at m ine— 

we would need permits for str eam crossings of various typ es.

We would need perm its for culve rts to protect the str eam for the 

prep aration pla nt. We would need permits for any ac tiv ity . If we had 

to do an y rer outin g of a str eam, we would need a pe rm it for th at .

Se na tor R and olph. Ha s the Corps sugg ested a section 404 pe rm it 

with refe renc e to the items you are suggestin g?

Mr. B art hau er. Yes; we have talked with the St. Louis dis trict.

Se nator R and olph. Pardon?

Mr. B art hauer. We have tal ked with the St. Lou is distric t Cor ps 

and section 404 seems to be the type of pe rm it th at th ey believe is 

nec essary for the type of opera tio n th at I ju st describ ed.

Senator R andolph. That is s urface m ining?
389

Mr. Barthauer. Right.

Senator Randolph. Does the permit contain a regulator}" feature 

tha t applies to land reclamation?

Mr. Barthauer. Does the requirement for reclamation involve the 

application? Is tha t your question?

Senator Randolph. Yes; I am interested in the reclamation feature 

because certainly tha t is a part of the surface mining program, is it 

not?

Mr. Barthauer. Right.

Senator Randolph. H ow does the permit situation work? Does the 

Corps monitor the permit?

Mr. Barthauer. In the particular case of reclamation, you submit 

your mining and reclamation plans to the proper regulatory group at 

the State level. Then, of course, you are committed to that reclamation 

plan. That is entirely separate from the section 404 procedures.

Senator Randolph. That is all I wanted to clarify. They have n’t 

suggested they have any regulatory power, is tha t correct?

Mr. Barthauer. The Corps has no regulatory power over the 

reclamation.

Senator Burdick. I have one question. I was listening carefully to 

what you said about moving your equipment. When you move across 

a mountain stream or something, you might find it necessary to go to 

a causeway and then remove it afterwards?

Mr. Barthauer. Right.

Senator Burdick. And you would have to get a permit under 

section 404 to do that?

Mr. Barthauer. That is right.

Senator Burdick. You were concerned about the time factor.

Mr. Barthauer. About the administrative delays in processing 

tha t permit and all of the obstacles we might have in trying to get a 

permit in hand to do that, right.

Senator Burdick. Since this involves fill, then this might trigger 

section 404 also?

Mr. Barthauer. This would trigger section 404. We would have 

to have a permit.

Senator Burdick. Then you have to have NEPA clearance, too.

Mr. Barthauer. T hat is a potential, of course, for NEPA clearance.

Senator Burdick. A I see the act here, there is an exception for 

section 402, but n ot exception for section 404.

Mr. B arthauer. Section 404, it is my understanding, and you may 

correct me on this, states tha t the Corps has the authority to delcare 

this as an act which is not of sufficient significance to require the 

preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental 

impact statem ent. The Corps has the authority to do that, but 

whether or not that declaration would stand up if someone wanted 

to challenge it, is another question.

Senator Burdick. But it could require an impact statement for this 

causeway?

Mr. Barthauer. Very much so, which, as you know, would take 

up to 2 years.

Senator Randolph. Thank you, very much, Mr. Barthauer.
390

STATEMENT OF LOUIS CLAPPER, NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

FEDERATION

Mr. Clapper. Senator, I am Louis Clapper, conservation director 

for the National Wildlife Federation. With me is Kenneth S. Kamlet, 

the federation counsel, who assisted in the preparation of this statement and he also will be available to answer questions. We welcome 

the invitation to appear here tonight. I was present last night and 

also enjoyed the colloquy there. We provided the committee staff with 

a detailed statement. I would like to point out tha t in your folder is 

a list of 21 organizations and 13 affiliates of the National Wildlife 

Federation which endorsed or asked to be associated with the principles of the detailed statement. Collectively, these groups represent 

millions of Americans.

Also on hand to help answer questions are two distinguished 

ecologists: Dr. Laurence Jahn, of the Wildlife Management Institute, 

and John Clark, of the Conservation Foundation.

Water pollution control has been a major objective of the National 

Wildlife Federation since its organization in 1936. Our concerns have 

related to the values of clean water for public health, agricultural, and 

industrial purposes as well as for fish and wildlife and outdoor 

recreation.

Overall, we have been disappointed with the rate of progress 

toward achieving by 1985 the national goal of eliminating discharges 

of pollutants into navigable waters. And, we view H.R. 9560, as 

passed by the House, as a giant step backward.

As Senator Muskie pointed out last night and tonight, it is probable 

that none of us would be here tonight were it not for a deceptive press 

release issued by the Office of the Chief of Engineers on May 6, 1975. 

Widely disseminated, this release threatened farmers who plowed their 

fields and ranchers who enlarged their stock ponds with a $25,000 fine 

and jail term if they failed to obtain a permit under regulations being 

proposed by the Corps of Engineers. A deluge of protests from rightfully angry citizens flooded corps’ offices as well as Capitol Hill.

The inflammatory release was a final effort of the corps to avoid 

expanding its jurisdiction. Decisions by the courts had confirmed 

contentions tha t the corps was improperly and illegally limiting itself 

in regulating dredged and fill waterways. In desperation, the corps 

took its case to the press and the effort backfired. The May release 

was roundly criticized by Members of the Congress, administration 

officials, and conservationists as being both inflammatory and distorted. Editorial writers condemned the scare campaign.

The corps saw the light. Not only was the release retracted but, on 

July 25, the corps issued interim final regulations under section 404 

which made it quite clear tha t farmers, foresters, and ranchers would 

not require permits from the Army to engage in their normal activities. 

Moreover, the corps and the Department of the Army have shown over 

the last year reasonableness and moderation in administering the 404 

program, relying heavily on the use of blanket general permits to 

ease the task.

That these efforts have succeeded in resolving the concerns of most 

Americans is indicated by the large numbers of citizens who have 

indicated their support for section 404 protection of all waters of the 

United States. For example, of the 2,084 public comments received on
391

the July 25 interim final 404 regulations, more than 53 percent— or 

1,040— of those expressing a clear opinion, favored an expanded 

program— 893 opposed program expansion.

We believe tha t the Corps of Engineers has demonstrated tha t it 

will not abuse its authority. The American people have demonstrated 

their support for a 404 program which protects all waters— and not 

simply classically navigable waters— of tne United States. We believe 

the Corps’ present regulations are sound and workable. The Corps 

should be given a chance to carry on.

I would like to take the balance of our time to explain what interests 

are at stake in this section 404 program. We feel tha t every living 

American and their children and grandchildren, every one of our 

interests are in pure water, abundant fish and wildlife, and a healthy 

environment. At the heart of their concern and ours are the effects tha t 

changes in section 404 will have on the protection of important inland 

and coastal wetlands.

Put in economic terms, a single acre of coastal wetland has a value 

to society ranging from $50,000 to $80,000, with fresh water wetlands 

being valued at up to $50,000 an acre.

Wetlands offer all of the following benefits without cost and without 

depleting our energy resources:

One: They provide spawning and nursery areas for commercial and 

sport fish and shellfish.

Two: They provide natural treatment of waterborne and airborne 

pollutants.

Three: They recharge the groundwater for public water supply.

Four: They provide natural protection from floods and storms.

Five: They provide essential nesting and wintering areas for 

waterfowl.

Six: They are a high-yield food source for aquatic animals and 

waterfowl.

Seven: They constitute an important filtration system for lakes and 

streams.

At least two-thirds of the cash value of fish and shellfish species 

harvested on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts depend on coastal wetlands 

and estuaries. The landed value of shrimp alone exceeded one-quarter 

of a billion dollars in 1975. This figure does not include the additional 

profits and jobs associated with handling, transporting, processing and 

marketing this seafood.

Ninety-eight and a half percent of the commercial seafood harvest in 

Maine in 1975 consisted of species dependent on estuaries for at 

least part of their life cycles.

In Louisiana, fishermen spend an estimated $160 million a year jus t 

on sport fishing.

Inland, freshwater wetlands offer vital breeding, feeding, resting, 

molting, and wintering grounds for all migratory waterfowl. They are 

also essential to at least 19 species of small game, 7 species of big 

game, and 11 species of fur-bearing animals. Without them, the 27 

million fishermen and 16 million hunters who held licenses in 1974 

might just as well turn in their rods and guns.

At least 60 Massachusetts cities and towns have water supplies 

dependent upon wetlands. A study by two agricultural economists 

concluded tha t wetlands with a high potential for municipal water 

supply are worth $60,000 or more per acre for tha t purpose alone.
392

Without wetlands, the current $4 billion a year cost of flood damage 

to the U.S. taxpayer would probably rise sharply.

Wetlands a few hundred acres in size purify the water and air of 

tons of pollution a day, and help replenish the atmosphere’s oxygen 

supply besides. One study found tha t a 1,000-acre marsh could purify 

the nitrogenous wastes of 20,000 people.

Wetlands retain silt and sediment carried by floodwaters which 

otherwise would deposit them in navigation channels and shellfish 

beds.

We discuss these and other wetland functions in greater detail on 

pages 22 through 30 of our prepared statement, which I hope has been 

filed with your staff.

A professor of forest and wildlife management at the University of 

Rhode Island sums things up nicely. He said:

It is high time tha t the Federal Government took strong leadership in the area 

of wetland protection. Waterfowl and marsh bird populations have suffered 

enough habitat destruction; enough homes have been washed from stream floodplains ; enough groundwater supplies have been irreparably polluted from garbage 

dum ps and road salts. To strip the Army Corps of Engineers of their recently 

granted jurisd iction over all wetlands of the United States would suggest tha t my 

work, and th e work of the people like myself is all for naught.

To cut back on the section 404 program also would suggest that the 

work of the Congress in passing a strong water pollution law had been 

largely for naught a t least in part.

Wetland losses in this country have been alarming. Of the 127 

million acres of wetlands during colonial days in what are now the 

lower 48 States, more than half, have been destroyed.

High rates of loss have been experienced within the past two 

decades in Minnesota, the Dakotas, California, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and many other parts of the country. In the Southeastern United States, 3 to 4 million acres of bottomland forest 

floodplains have been destroyed since 1950 by Federal projects 

alone.

The statistics paint a truly bleak picture. The Nation’s wetlands 

are in trouble.

These wetlands, tha t are so valuable to society, unfortunately are 

valued by the marketplace only when they are drained or developed. 

Only the Congress can insure tha t they are protected for the benefit 

of this and future generations.

The last thing we need is to further relax what controls now exist 

to protect the vital national treasures which are our wetlands.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we are providing the committee with 

a number of documents and references which relate to the value of 

wetlands. These are:

First: A list of other organizations endorsing our testimony.

Second: Comments submitted by other organizations and individuals on section 404 and the action taken by the House, including 

a letter from the chairman of the Department of Marine Sciences of 

Louisiana State University.

Third : Research reports on the economic value of wetlands from 

scientists at the University of Georgia, Rutgers University, and the 

University of Massachusetts.

Fourth: Research reports on the public service value of wetlands 

from scientists at the Georgia State University, New Mexico State 

University, and Connecticut College.
393

Fifth: A copy of the NRD C versus Callaway court decision and 

excerpts from seven of the several other court decisions which have 

interpreted jurisdiction under the Water Act in the same way.

Sixth: Copies of the infamous May 6 Corps press release of last 

year and of some of the correspondence and media reaction generated 

as a result of it.

Seventh: A tabulation of comments received by the Corps of 

Engineers indicating widespread public support for the Corps’ 

present regulatory program.

Eighth: Examples of Corps efforts to proceed in a reasonable way 

to carry out the 404 program.

Copies of the first two of these items— the list of endorsements 

and some of the comments received from other organizations and 

individuals— have been made available to each member of the 

committee.

We ask tha t the full set of these materials be incorporated into the 

hearing record.

Senator Randolph . We will have all of the material as a part of 

the record.

Mr. Clapper . Thank you.

Senator Randolph . One question only. I understand tha t in the 

State of Alabama there are scores of ponds tha t have been created 

for the specific purpose of fish production, notably catfish. A new 

industry has come into being. Is tnis true?

Mr. Clapper . This is very true through many parts of the South. 

Arkansas has a commercial catfish production program. Many States 

throughout the South where you have a long growing period for fish 

is a very popular and a profitable operation. w

Senator Randolph . The reason I bring this up is tha t those ponds 

were not originally there, but have been created for the purpose of 

propagation of fish.

Mr. Clapper . Th at is correct.

Senator Randolph . How were those ponds brought into being?

Mr. Clapper . They were created either on small streams or from 

water catchment basins of some sort or another.

Senator Randolph . Sometimes governmental, sometimes private, 

is th at correct?

Mr. Clapper . That is correct.

Senator Randolph . Then it is an entirely new industry?

Mr. Clapper . Cost sharing is quite prevalent.

Senator Randolph . Cost sharing?

Mr. Clapper . Yes; I mean the Federal Government is not in this 

picture. It is largely in the State and the other groups that cooperate 

with the establishment of, in some cases, the farm pond programs. 

The Soil Conservation Service cost share them as well. B ut they are 

very prevalent and very popular and very fine, we think.

Senator Clapper . Thank you, Mr. Clapper.

Mr. Clapper . Thank you.

[Mr. Clapper’s statement and exhibits follow:]
394

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS S . CLAPPER AND 

KENNETH S. KAMLET ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC 

WORKS, OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON 

SECTION 40 4 OF P .L . 9 2 -5 0 0 , JULY 

2 8 , 1976

Mr. C hair m an, Members o f th e C om m itte e, I am L ouis S. C la p p e r, D ir e c to r o f 

C o n se rv a ti o n fo r th e N a ti o n a l W ild lif e F e d e ra tio n , w hi ch h as i t s h e a d q u a rte r s 

a t 1412 S ix te e n th S t r e e t , N.W., h e re in W ash in g to n , D.C . K ennet h S . K am le t, 

who a s s i s t e d in th e p r e p a r a tio n o f t h i s te s tim o n y , i s c o u n s e l to th e F e d e ra ti o n 

He w i l l be a v a i la b le to answ er q u e s tio n s from th e c o m m it te e . The F e d e ra ti o n 

i s a p r i v a t e , n o n - p r o f it o r g a n iz a tio n w hic h s e e k s to a t t a i n so und c o n s e rv a ti o n 

g o a ls th ro u g h e d u c a tio n a l mea ns . A f f i l i a t e s o f th e N a ti o n a l W ild lif e F edera t i o n a r e fo und in a l l 50 s t a t e s , Guam, P u e rto R ic o an d th e V ir g in I s la n d s . 

A f f i l i a t e m em be rs, A s s o c ia te mem be rs, an d s u p p o r te r s to g e th e r nu mbe r ap p ro x —

'i m a t e l y 3 1 /2 m illio n in d i v i d u a l s , mak ing th e F e d e ra ti o n by f a r th e la r g e s t 

p r iv a te c o n s e r v a tio n o r g a n iz a tio n in th e U n it e d S t a t e s .

The is s u e b e fo re t h i s Com m itte e h as n o th in g w h a te v e r to do w it h th e i n t e r e s t s 

o f a few W ash in g to n -b ase d e n v ir o n m e n ta l g ro ups v e rs u s th e i n t e r e s t s o f many 

fa rm e rs , tl m berm en, r o a d - b u il d e r s , m in e rs , an d d e v e lo p e r s . The i n t e r e s t s 

a t s ta k e a re th o se o f e v e ry l i v i n g A m er ic an an d o f t h e i r c h ild r e n an d g ra n d ­

c h i ld r e n in p u re w a te r , abu n d an t f i s h an d w i l d l i f e , an d a h e a lth y e n v ir o n m e n t.
395

he se i n t e r e s t s a r e n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w it h th e p ro d u c ti o n o f fo od an d f i b e r 

an d c o n ti n u e d ec onom ic g ro w th . What i s n e ed e d — and w ha t wa s p ro v id e d f o r in 

P .L . 9 2 -5 00— i s b la n a c e d g ro w th w hi ch r e s p e c t s e n v ir o n m e n ta l v a lu e s .

The F e d e ra l W at er P o ll u tio n C o n tr o l A ct Am endm ents o f 19 72 ("FWPCA")— P u b li c 

Law 9 2 -5 0 0 — e s t a b l i s h e d a co m p re h e n siv e pro gra m f o r p r e s e r v in g an d e n h a n c in g th e 

" c h e m ic a l, p h y s ic a l, and b i o l o g i c a l i n t e g r i t y o f th e N a tio n ’s w a te r s " (S e c ti o n 

1 0 1 ( a ) ) . W he re as in th e p a s t , f e d e r a l p r o t e c t i o n had been a c c o rd e d o n ly to 

" i n t e r s t a t e " b o d ie s o f w a te r , o r to w a te r s w hic h w er e c o m m e rc ia ll y " n a v ig a b le ," 

th e FWPCA re c o g n iz e d th e e c o l o g ic a l i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p an d in te r- d e p e n d e n c e 

bet w ee n i n t e r s t a t e an d i n t r a s t a t e w a te r s , betw een n a v ig a b le w ate rw ays an d 

t h e i r n o n -n a v ig a b le t r i b u t a r i e s , an d b etw een eac h o f th e s e an d a s s o c ia t e d w etla n d s a r e a s . I n t e r s t a t e an d n a v ig a b le w ate rw ay s c o u ld n o t be k e p t f r e e o f p o ll u t i o n , i f th e t r i b u t a r i e s an d w e tl a n d s w hic h n o u r is h th em w er e l e f t un p ro ­

te c te d an d a ll o w e d to d e t e r i o r a t e . In th e w ord s o f th e S e n a te R e p o rt:

"W at er mo ves in h y d ro lo g ic c y c l e s . . .a n d t h e r e f o r e , r e f e r e n c e to th e

c o n tr o l re q u ir e m e n ts m ust be ma de to th e n a v ig a b le w a te r s , p o r tio n s

th e r e o f , and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s . " S. R e p t. No. 4 1 4 , 92 d C o n g ., 1 s t S e s s .

77 (1 9 7 1 ).

The a b se n c e o f a more e x p l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te r s " in S e c ti o n

50 2 (7 ) th a n " a l l w a te r s o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s , " was e x p la in e d a s fo ll o w s by

th e House R e p o rt (No. 9 1 1 , 92 d C o n g ., 2d S e s s . 131 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ):

One te rm th e C om m itte e was r e l u c t a n t to 

d e f in e wa s th e te rm " n a v ig a b le w a t e r s ."

The r e lu c ta n c e was b a se d on th e f e a r 

t h a t any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w ould be re a d

76-161 0 - 76 - 26
a rro w ly . How ev er, t h i s I s n o t Che 

C om m it te e 's i n t e n t . The Com m itte e 

f u l l y in te n d s t h a t th e te rm " n a v ig a b le

w a te r s " be g iv e n th e b r o a d e s t p o s s ib le

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n un en cu m be re d

by agen cy d e te rm in a ti o n s w hic h have b een

ma de o r may he ca de f o r a d m in is tr a tiv e

p u r p o s e s . (E m pha si s a d d e d ).

No m a tt e r how o f te n th e o p p o n e n ts o f p o ll u t i o n c o n t r o l say th a t Ju dge R obin so n 

m is c o n str u e d th e i n t e n t o f C ongre ss in h o ld in g , in NRDC an d NWF v . C a ll a w a y , 

t h a t S e c ti o n 40 4 c o v e rs d is c h a r g e s in to " a l l w a te r s o f th e U n it ed S t a t e s , " 

th e f a c t re m a in s t h a t th e Ju dge was sim p ly an d a c c u r a te ly i n t e r p r e t i n g th e 

p la in la n g u ag e (s e e S e c ti o n 5 0 2 (7 )) an d e q u a lly p l a i n l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y 

o f P .L . 9 2 -5 0 0 . And no m a tte r how many Membe rs o f C o n g re ss , who m ig ht 

li k e to s e e S e c ti o n 404 ch an g e d , say t h a t th e C o u rt wen t be yo nd w hat th e y 

in te n d e d , th e f a c t re m a in s t h a t S e c ti o n 40 4 (c o v e rin g d is p o s a l o f d re d g e d 

m a te r ia l) an d S e c ti o n 40 2 (c o v e rin g d is p o s a l o f e v e r y th in g e ls e ) ha ve 

e x a c tly th e sam e s c o p e , y e t no ne of th e s e Me mbers have be en h e ard to co m p la in 

t h a t S e c ti o n 4C2 goes f u r t h e r th a n th e y in te n d e d .

S ta te m e n ts by S e n a to r M us ki e o f t h i s C om m itte e, who mor e th a n an y o th e r 

Member o f C o n g re ss d e s e rv e s c r e d i t f o r th e W at er A ct an d wha t i t s a y s , 

s tr o n g ly r e f u t e th o s e who c o n te n d t h a t C ongre ss n e v e r m ea nt fo r S e c ti o n 

404 to hav e an y g r e a te r sc ope th a n S e c ti o n s 10 an d 13 o f th e R iv e rs an d

H arb ors A ct o f 189 9:

P r io r to th e e n actm en t of th e 19 72 am en dm en ts , 

F e d e ra l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r w a te r p o l l u t i o n co nt r o l was lim ite d to a p p ro v a l o f S ta te w a te r q u a l i t y 

s ta n d a r d s an d a s s o c ia t e d im p le m e n ta ti o n p la n s f o r 

I n t e r s t a t e s tr e a m s . I n t e r s t a t e s tr e a m s were 

d e fin e d a d m in is tr a tiv e ly to in c lu d e o n ly a 

s m a ll p o r tio n o f th e N a tio n 's s u r f a c e w a te r s .

Few s o u rc e s o f p o l l u t i o n w ere a c t u a l l y s u b je c t to 

F e d e ra l ab ate m e n t a c t io n . The r e s u l t wa s an in a d e -
397

u a te u n s y s te m a ti c w a te r p o l l u t i o n pro gra m w hic h 

wa s In no way re s p o n s iv e to th e N a tio n 's dema nd 

f o r c le a n w a te r .

The o n ly s i g n i f i c a n t e n fo rc e m e n t to o l a v a i l a b l e to 

th e E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o te c tio n Age nc y was th e l i t t l e - 

known 1899 R efu se A ct w hic h b a r r e d th e d is c h a rg e 

o f m a te r ia l in to th e N a tio n 's n a v ig a b le s tr e a m s 

w it h o u t a p e rm it . Th e d e c i s io n to u se t h a t 

s t a t u t e , co m bin ed w it h th e r e c o g n itio n o f th e 

in a d e q u ac y o f th e w a te r q u a l i t y s ta n d a rd s a p p ro ach 

to p o l l u t i o n c o n tr o l le d th e C o n g re ss to r e v is e 

th e b a s ic n a t i o n a l w a te r p o l l u t i o n la w .

. . . . A ls o , In 1972, th e C ongre ss b ro a d e n ed th e 

t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs in 

r e c o g n itio n o f th e f a c t t h a t p o l l u t a n t s m ig ra te d 

In to th e N a tio n 's w a te r s th ro u g h w a te r c o u r s e s , 

sw am ps , c r e e k s , an d u n d e rg ro u n d s o u r c e s , many o f 

w hic h w ere sim p ly n o t " n a v ig a b le " in th e t r a d i ­

t i o n a l se n se b u t th e p o l l u t i o n im p act wa s s u f ­

f i c i e n t to m e rit r e g u l a t i o n .

C ong.R ec. S 9760-6 2 (J u n e 5 , 1 9 7 5 ).

P u b li c Law 92-5 00 i s an d wa s in te n d e d to be a w a te r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l la w —

n o t a n a v ig a tio n la w . I f C ongre ss had w is h e d to s t i c k w it h th e 18 99 d e f in ­

i t i o n o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s , th e r e wou ld have been no nee d w h a te v e r to 

in c lu d e th e d is c h a r g e o f d re d g e d an d f i l l m a te r ia l amo ng th e m a tte r s g iv e n 

s p e c i f i c a t t e n t i o n in th e W at er A ct Am endm ents o f 1972. Th e f a c t i s , 

an d t h i s i s r e f l e c t e d by th e A c t's d e f i n i t i o n o f th e te rm " p o l l u t a n t s " 

to in c lu d e " d re d g e s p o i l , " t h a t d re d g e d m a te r ia l c a n be e v ery b i t as 

da m ag in g to th e w a te r q u a l i t y , to th e s u r v i v a l o f f i s h an d w i l d l i f e , an d

to human h e a l t h an d w e lf a r e , a s an y o th e r p o l l u t a n t .

In d e e d , d re d g e d m a t e r i a l — sed im en t d re d g e d up fr om th e b ott om o f r i v e r s and 

h a rb o rs — i f i t come s fr om a lo c a tio n t h a t i s p o l lu te d w it h se wag e o r 

i n d u s t r i a l c h e m ic a ls , w i l l i t s e l f be p o llu te d w it h th e s e v e ry sam e c o n s t i t u e n t s
398

re dg ed m a te r ia l from th e Hu dson R iv e r c an be an d p ro b a b ly I s p o llu te d w it h

PCBs. D re dged m a te r ia l fr om th e Ja m es R iv e r can be an d p ro b a b ly i s p o llu te d

w it h k e p o n e. D re dg ed m a te r ia l from A n ti e ta m C re ek— a t r i b u t a r y o f th e 

Po tom ac — c an be an d p ro b a b ly i s c o n ta m in a te d w it h DDT an d PCBs. D re dg ed 

m a te r ia l fr om th e w a te r f r o n t n e a r th e B og le C hem ic al Company In A le x a n d ria 

can be an d p ro b a b ly I s p o llu te d w it h a r s e n i c , m e rc u ry , p e s t i c i d e s , h e r b ic id e s ,

an d PCBs.

Do th e me mb ers o f t h i s Com m itt ee w is h to t e l l th e A m er ic an p e o p le t h a t th e y 

d on’ t c a r e i f PCBs, DDT, k ep o n e, m erc ury an d a r s e n ic g e t heap ed i n t o t h e i r 

la k e s , r i v e r s , an d w e tl a n d s — as lo n g a s th e s e w a te rs a r e n o t " n a v ig a b le " ? Do th e 

me mb ers of t h i s Com mitt ee w is h to t e l l th e A m er ic an p e o p le t h a t th e 

Shen an doah R iv e r, th e O kee fe nokee Swamp, an d th e F lo r id a E v e rg la d e s , a r e n o t

th e c o n c e rn o f th e F e d e ra l W at er P o ll u tio n C o n tr o l A ct o r o f t h i s

C on g re ss ? Do th e members o f t h i s Com m itte e w is h to t e l l th e A m er ic an p e o p le 

t h a t fa rm e rs , f o r e s t e r s , ro ad b u i l d e r s , an d d e v e lo p e r s — as im p o rta n t a s t h e i r 

c o n tr ib u tio n s a re to th e A m er ic an econom y an d to A m er ic an l i f e — do n o t ha ve

th e sam e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a s ev ery o n e e l s e to p re s e r v e th e e n v ir o n m e n t a g a in s t 

n e e d le s s d e g ra d a tio n ? Do th e me mb ers o f t h i s Com m itte e an d t h i s C ongre ss 

w an t to t e l l th e A m er ic an p e o p le t h a t th e y d o n 't c a r e w h e th e r o r n o t o u r 

c h ild r e n an d g ra n d c h il d re n ha ve th e b e n e f i t s o f w e tl a n d s an d c le a n la k e s

an d r i v e r s an d th e f i s h an d w i l d l i f e w hic h dep en d up on the m?

I s t h i s th e p r e s e n t w hic h t h i s Com m itte e an d t h i s C ongre ss w is h to g iv e

to th e N a ti o n on i t s tw o -h u n d re d th b ir th d a y ?

For a l l o u r s a k e s , we hope n o t.
399

The Members o f t h i s d is tin g u is h e d C om m itte e h a v e b e f o r e them a nu mbe r

o f b i l l s s e e k in g t o ame nd P .L . 9 2 -5 0 0 , by re d u c in g o r m o d if y in g th e

c o v era g e o f S e c tio n 404. M ost o f th e s e , I n c lu d in g th e W ri g h t- B re a u x am endme nt w hic h p a ss e d th e H ouse , wer e i l l - c o n c e i v e d , n o t n e c e s s a ry even to 

s e rv e th e p u rp o s e f o r w hic h th e y w er e o s t e n s i b l y in te n d e d , and e x tr e m e ly 

da m ag in g in t h e i r p o t e n t i a l im p a c ts on t h i s N a tio n 's a b i l i t y to s a f e ­

g u ard i t s a q u a t ic r e s o u r c e s f o r f u tu r e g e n e r a t io n s .

On ly on e b i l l w hic h we have s e e n , th e H a rt- C le v e la n d b i l l , a d d re s s e s

r e s p o n s ib le c o n c e rn s a b o u t S e c ti o n 40 4 in a m e a su re d , m o d e ra te , an d

c a r e f u l l y c o n s id e re d way . T h is b i l l , w hic h wa s c o -s p o n s o re d in th e

Ho use by R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s Ja m es C. C le v e la n d an d W il li a m H. H ars ha

(a nd w hic h wa s r e in tr o d u c e d in th e S e n a te a s S. 5 6 6 3 ), e a rn e d th e s u p p o rt

n o t o n ly o f m ost e n v ir o n m e n ta lis ts , b u t o f m ost o f th e E x e c u ti v e B ra nch — 

in c lu d in g th e P r e s i d e n t , an d even o f one o f th e c o u n t r y 's l a r g e s t fa rm in g 

o r g a n iz a tio n s , th e N a tio n a l Farm ers U nio n. We a r e p e rs u a d e d t h a t t h i s 

b i l l wa s n o t a d o p te d by th e House o n ly b e c a u s e o f th e s k i l l f u l e f f o r t s 

o f C ong re ss m an Jim W ri g h t who wa s a b le to p e rs u a d e a m a jo rity o f th e 

Me mbers t h a t h i s own b i l l — in tr o d u c e d on th e m orn in g o f th e v o te , w it h o u t 

h e a r in g s , an d w ith o u t an y o p p o rtu n ity by th e Me mb ers to e v a lu a te i t — wa s 

a co m pro m is e a c c e p ta b le to e v e ry o n e . In f a c t , a s we s h a l l d e m o n s tra te ,

n o th in g c o u ld be f u r t h e r fr om th e t r u t h .

C on gr es sm an W ri ght c o u ld n o t be mo re w ro ng.

The W ri ght b i l l wa s a d i r e c t o u tg ro w th o f an am en dm en t o f f e r e d by R e p r e s e n ta ti v e 

Jo hn B re au x a t a Hou se P u b li c Wo rks C om m itte e m ar ku p s e s s io n . The C om m itt ee

- u -
400

ad opte d th e Breau x amendment, n o t only w it hout p r io r h e a rin g s , but w it hout

even p rio r Su bcom mittee re vie w . The Breau x amendment p u rp o rt ed to do 2 th in g s :

(1 ) R e s tric t th e d e f in itio n o f ''n av ig ab le w a te r s ,” fo r pu rp ose s of 

S ecti o n 404, to w ate rs p re s e n tly us ed or s u s c e p ti b le to use as a means to 

tr a n s p o r t I n t e r s t a t e o r fo re ig n conm erce .

(2 ) Ex clud e d is c h arg es o f dr ed ge d or f i l l m a te ria l In to w ate rs and 

w etl ands no t co ve re d by th e new d e f in itio n fro m p ro h ib it io n or re g u la ti o n 

un de r an y b th e r p ro v is io n of th e Wa ter Act (I n c lu d in g S e c ti o n 4 0 2 ), o r 

un de r S ecti o n s 9, 10 , o r 13 of th e 1899 R iv er s and H ar bo rs A ct .

T his amendment was in c o rp o ra te d In H.R .9560 by an A p ri l 13 v o te o f th e 

House P u b li c Works Comm itte e—w ith o u t, I t sh ou ld be n o te d , e ith e r

h e a rin g s o r Subcom mi tte e c o n s id e ra ti o n .

Mr. Breau x sa id h is amendment was n ecessa ry to " r e d ire c t th e Co rps to th e

envir onm en ta l p ro te c ti o n m is si on en vis io ned by Co ng ress when th e 1972 

amendm ents we re e n a c te d ." He f e l t th a t un de r h is amendment, ’’th e Corps

wo uld gu ar d a g a in s t p o llu tio n fro m dr ed ge d o r f i l l m a te ria l wh ich Im pact 

on or r e s u l t from m ai nt en an ce o f th e n a tio n 's co mmercial w at er w ay s, " and 

[we] would be fre e o f th e c u rre n t [C or ps ] re g u la tio n s which giv e th e 

D i s t r i c t Eng in ee r of th e Co rps th e p re ro g a ti v e o f d e s ig n a ti n g any 

is o la te d t r a c t o f la n d , ho we ver f a r remo ved from any bod y o f w at er or 

t r ib u t a r y , as 'w et la nd* and un de r th e sc op e o f 4 0 4 .'’

U n fo rt u n a te ly , Mr. B re aux's amendment went fa r bey ond I t s s ta te d purpose .

- 7 -
401

I ts r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n wou ld ha ve re m ov ed f e d e r a l p r o te c tio n from 

85 2 o f th e n a t i o n 's w e tl a n d s an d from many r i v e r s an d o th e r w a te r s — 

in c lu d in g man y r e g u la te d even u n d e r th e 18 99 R iv e rs and H arb o rs A c t. The

B re au x am en dm en t wou ld t h e r e f o r e n o t hav e s e rv e d i t s s t a t e d p u rp o se o f 

g u a rd in g a g a i n s t p o l l u t i o n from d re d g e d o r f i l l m a te r ia l w hic h r e s u l t s 

fr om th e m a in te n a n c e o f th e n a t i o n 's c o m m erc ia l w a te rw ay s— s in c e much 

d re d g e d m a te r ia l d e r iv e d fr om m ain te n an c e d re d g in g a c t i v i t i e s i s 

d e p o s ite d on o r in th e v e ry w e tl a n d s an d w ate rw ay s re m ov ed fr om 

r e g u la tio n by th e B re au x am en dm en t.

An d, w h il e i t w ould ha ve a c c o m p li sh e d Mr. B re a u x 's p u rp o se o f r e s t r i c t i n g 

th e C o rp s' d i s c r e t i o n to r e g u la te a r e a s d e s ig n a te d a s " w e tla n d s ," i t 

w ou ld have go ne muc h f u r t h e r . By e f f e c t i v e l y e x c lu d in g fr om a l l 

f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n an y d is c h a r g e s of d re d g e d o r f i l l m a te r ia l o u ts id e 

o f n a rr o w ly d e f in e d " n a v ig a b le w a te r s ," th e B re au x am en dm en t wou ld hav e 

e f f e c t i v e l y t i e d th e F e d e ra l (a n d , in som e c ir c u m s ta n c e s u nder S e c ti o n 

4 0 2 , even S ta te ) g o v e rn m e n t' s a b i l i t y to p r o t e c t p u b lic h e a l th an d th e 

e n v ir o n m e n t a g a i n s t v e ry h a rm fu l p o l l u t a n t s . For e x am p le , po wde red 

a r s e n ic o r any o th e r s o l i d p o l l u t a n t c o u ld be d e p o s ite d a s a " f i l l " 

m a te r ia l in an y w a te r o r w e tl a n d o u ts id e th e B re au x am endm ent's nar ro w 

d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te r s ," an d n o t be s u b je c t to th e p o llu ta n t 

d is c h a r g e re q u ir e m e n ts o f S e c ti o n 402.

The B re au x am en dm en t wa s a d i s a s t e r .
402

A ft e r re v ie w in g th e am en dm en t, th e F is h an d W ild lif e S e rv ic e s t a t e d th a t 

i t p o sed "su ch p o t e n t i a l l y en or m ou s lo s s e s o f an d dama ge to th e N a tio n 's 

f i s h , w i l d l i f e , an d w a te r re s o u rc e s a s to w a rra n t o p p o s itio n to H.R .9 56 0 

[a s a w hole ] . The E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o te c tio n Age nc y em phasi zed th a t 

th e B re aux am endm ent "w ou ld underm in e many o f th e g o a ls an d p o l i c i e s

d e c la r e d in th e F e d e ra l W at er P o ll u tio n C o n tr o l A c t" an d " l i m i t o u r

a b i l i t y to c o o r d in a te e n v ir o n m e n ta ll y so und d e c i s io n s c o n c e rn in g d is c h a rg e s 

o f d re d g e d o r f i l l m a te r ia l in to w a te r ." The P r e s i d e n t 's C o u n c il on 

E n v ir o n m e n ta l Q u a li ty n o te d r a t h e r t e r s e l y t h a t th e A d m in is tr a tio n , "o f c o u r s e ," 

d id n o t s u p p o rt th e B re au x am en dm en t.

When i t cam e ti m e fo r th e Ho use to v o te on H .R .9 560, no e f f o r t was

mad e to p a ss th e B re au x am endm ent in i t s o r i g i n a l fo rm .

In th e m eantim e, a n o th e r p ro p o s a l was made to amend S e c ti o n 4 0 4 , b u t

t h i s ti m e in a m o d e ra te , re a s o n e d , an d c a r e f u l l y c ir c u m s c r ib e d way .

The p ro p o s a l s u b m it te d by R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s C le v e la n d an d U ars ha on

May 26, w ou ld hav e do ne th r e e th in g s :

(1 ) R e ta in i n t a c t th e d e f i n i t i o n o f n a v ig a b le w a te r s an d th e r e l a ­

t i o n s h ip o f S e c ti o n 404 to o th e r p a r t s o f th e A c t, b u t p ro v id e exem pti ons

fr om p e rm it re q u ir e m e n ts f o r th r e e c la s s e s o f d re d g e an d f i l l d is c h a r g e s —

(a ) th o s e r e s u l t i n g fr om norm al fa rm in g , s i l v i c u l t u r e , an d 

ra n c h in g a c t i v i t i e s fo r th e p ro d u c ti o n o f fo o d , f i b e r , an d f o r e s t p ro ­

d u c ts ;

(b ) th o s e p la c e d f o r th e p u rp o se o f m a in te n an c e o f c u r r e n tly

s e r v ic e a b le s t r u c t u r e s ; an d

- 9 -
403

( c ) th o s e p la c e d f o r th e c o n s tr u c t io n o r m a in te n an c e 

o f fa rm an d s to c k pon ds an d I r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s , and th e m a in te n an c e o f 

d ra in a g e d i t c h e s .

(2 ) P ro v id e s p e c i f i c a u th o r i z a t i o n to th e C orp s f o r th e is s u a n c e 

o f e x p e d ite d g e n e r a l p e r m its f o r c a t e g o r ie s o f a c t i v i t i e s w it h m in im al

a d v e rs e i n d iv id u a l o r c u m u la ti v e e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p a c t.

(3 ) R e q u ir e th e C orp s to f i l e a d e t a i l e d r e p o r t to th e C ongre ss

by th e en d o f 1 9 77, on th e im p le m e n ta ti o n o f S e c tio n 40 4 an d th e o b je c tiv e s

o f th e A r t.

Th e ex em p ti o n s c r e a t e d u n d e r t h i s a p p ro a ch w ould have a l l e v i a t e d many o f

th e c o n c e rn s a b o u t o v e r r e g u la tio n o f f a rm e rs , f o r e s t e r s , an d r a n c h e r s .

A lt h o u g h m ost o f th e e x c lu s io n s p ro v id e d w ere a lr e a d y em bo di ed in th e 

C o rp s' " I n te r i m F in a l" r e g u l a t i o n s , th e y w en t be yond th o s e r e g u la tio n s in 

p ro v id in g e x e m p ti o n s f o r th e c o n s tr u c t io n (a s w e ll a s m a in te n a n c e ) o f 

fa rm p o n d s, s to c k p o n d s, an d i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s . I n c o r p o r a tin g th e

e x c lu s io n s a s a w hole i n t o th e l e g i s l a t i o n w ould a l s o hav e remov ed th e 

c o n c e rn , e n t e r t a i n e d by ma ny, t h a t "w ha t th e C orp s g a v e th , th e Cor ps 

c o u ld ta k e th a w ay ."

The " g e n e r a l p e r m it" p r o v is io n o f th e C le v e la n d -H a rs h a b i l l a ls o wou ld

have in c o r p o r a te d in t o la w an a p p ro a ch a d o p te d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y by th e 

C o rp s. A g a in , t h i s w ou ld hav e e lim in a te d c o n c e rn t h a t th e Cor ps 

m ig ht l a t e r c hange i t s m in d, o r t h a t a C ourt o f la w m ig ht d e c id e 

t h a t th e C orp s la c k e d s t a t u t o r y a u th o r i t y to is s u e g e n e r a l p e rm it s .

The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f g e n e r a l p e rm it s wou ld g r e a t l y re d u c e th e im pact 

o f S e c ti o n 40 4 on fa rm e rs , f o r e s t e r s , an d many o t h e r s — even w he re th e r e 

was no t o t a l e x em p ti o n fr om p e rm it re q u ir e m e n ts .

-1 0 -
404

L a stl y , th e re p o rtin g re quir em en t was des ig ned to en ab le th e

Con gr es s to m onitor th e prog ram and det er m in e how I t was wor king In 

p r a c tic e . I f pr ob lem s a ro se and le g is la tiv e ch an ge s we re c a lle d f o r, 

Co ng ress would th en be In a p o s itio n to remedy th in g s . E xte nsi ve 

ch an ge s would n o t be made m er el y on th e b a s is of c o n je c tu re or

sp e c u la ti o n ab out wh at might happen in th e fu tu re .

The C le vela nd-H ar sh a b i l l ea rn ed th e su pport of most co ns e r v a tio n is ts , of th e N ati o n al Farm ers Un ion, and of A d m in is tr ati o n

o f f i c i a l s , up to and In clu d in g th e P re sid e n t. We wi sh to su bm it

fo r th e re c o rd , co p ie s of some of th ese sta te m e n ts of su p p o rt.

U n fo rt u n ate ly , th e House was ne ver gi ve n an o p p o rtu n it y to vo te

on th e C le vela nd-H ar sh a amendm ent.

On Ju ne 3, 19 76 , when H.R.9 360 came b efo re th e f u l l Hou se fo r a v o te , 

R e p re sen ta ti v e C le vel an d got no fu rth e r th an o ffe rin g h is amendment 

when R e p re sen ta ti v e Jim W righ t o ffe re d as a s u b s titu te fo r th e Cle ve la nd 

p ro posa l a br an d- ne w amend ment, wh ich had be en made a v a ila b le to th e 

Members only sin c e th a t m or ning . Congr essman W rig ht em ph as ized h is 

b e lie f th a t th e W rig ht s u b s titu te "a ns wer s th e le g itim a te co nce rn s of 

both s id e s ." He a ls o arg ued th a t: " I t w ill p ro te c t th e Im port an t 

w et la nds from e x p lo ita tio n . I t w ill p ro te c t th e Con gr es s fro m ex ecu ti v e 

and j u d ic ia l law makin g and a ls o i t w ill p ro te c t th e c itiz e n s from th e 

n eed le ss har as sm en t by an ov erz ealo u s re g u la to ry a g e n c y ."

-1 1-
405

In f a c t , th e W ri g h t am en dm en t I s J u s t a s ba d a s th e B re au x am en dm en t.

When C on gre ss m an A sh bro ok a sk e d Mr. B re au x w h e th e r " th e r e [w as ] so m eth in g 

la r k in g In [ th e B re aux am en dm en t] t h a t I s now b e in g r e c t i f i e d by th e 

W ri ght am endm ent, " Mr. B re au x c a n d id ly acknow le dged t h a t th e "m ai n th in g 

t h a t was la c k in g wa s v o t e s . " And p ro p e rly s o . B ut t h a t d i d n 't s to p th e 

s ilv e r - to n g u e d o r a t o r fr om T exas (M r. W ri g h t) fr om p e rs u a d in g h is fe ll o w 

Membe rs to a d o p t h is "c o m p ro m is e ."

The W ri ght am en dm en t p u r p o r ts to do 8 th in g s :

(1 ) R e s t r i c t th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te r s " in th e 

sam e way a s th e B re aux am en dm en t (P a ra g ra p h ( d ) ( 1 ) ) .

(2 ) Add to th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r n a v ig a b le w a te r s (b u t 

o u ts id e o f th e r e v is e d d e f i n i t i o n o f t h i s te r m ) , j u r i s d i c t i o n 

o v e r " a d ja c e n t w e tl a n d s " (P a ra g ra p h ( d ) ( 2 ) ) .

(3 ) Ex em pt, fr om r e g u l a t i o n o r p r o h i b i t i o n u n d e r an y

o th e r p r o v is io n o f th e W ate r A ct an d u n d er S e c tio n s 9 , 1 0 , an d 13 

o f th e 18 99 R iv e rs an d H a rb o rs A c t, d re d g e and f i l l d is c h a r g e s 

in t o n a v ig a b le w a te r s (a s r e d e fin e d ) o r a d ja c e n t w e tl a n d s (P a ra g ra p h 

( e ) ) .

(4 ) Ex em pt v a r io u s a c t i v i t i e s fr om p e rm it re q u ir e m e n ts in 

much th e sam e way a s th e C le v e la n d -H a rs h a am en dm en t (P a ra g ra p h ( h ) ) .

(5 ) A u th o riz e th e is s u a n c e o f g e n e r a l p e rm it s in th e same 

way a s th e C le v e la n d -H a rs h a am endm ent (P a ra g ra p h ( g ) ) .

-1 2 -
406

(6 ) P ro v id e fo r th e r e g u la tio n o f w a te rs o th e r th a n n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs (a s r e d e fin e d ) o r a d ja c e n t w e tl a n d s , w her e th e G overn or of 

th e S ta te an d th e C h ie f o f E n g in e e rs j o i n t l y a g re e t h a t th e s e w a te rs 

s h o u ld b e r e g u la te d b e ca u se o f t h e i r e c o l o g ic a l an d e n v ir o n m e n ta l 

im p o rta n c e (P a ra g ra p h ( f ) ) .

(7 ) Exem pt fr om th e need f o r a p e rm it, d re d g e an d f i l l 

d is c h a r g e s w hi ch a re p a r t o f th e c o n s tr u c t io n , a l t e r a t i o n , o r r e p a i r 

o f a F e d e ra l o r f e d e r a l l y a s s i s t e d p r o j e c t a u th o riz e d by C o n g re ss,

i f an e n v ir o n m e n ta l im pact s ta te m e n t o r e n v ir o n m e n ta l a ss e ss m e n t i s su b ­

m itte d to C ongre ss in c o n n e c ti o n w it h a u th o r iz a tio n o r fu n d in g o f th e 

p r o j e c t (P a ra g ra p h ( i ) ) .

(8 ) A u th o riz e th e C or ps to d e le g a te p e rm it f u n c tio n s to a 

S ta te i f th e C orp s d e te rm in e s (A) t h a t th e S ta te h a s th e c a p a b i l i t y 

to c a r r y o u t su ch f u n c tio n s , an d (B) t h a t su ch d e le g a tio n i s in

th e p u b lic i n t e r e s t . I t w ou ld a ls o s u b je c t an y d e le g a tio n to 

te rm s an d c o n d itio n s dee me d n e c e s s a ry by th e C o rp s, in c lu d in g 

s u s p e n sio n an d r e v o c a tio n f o r c a u se (P a ra g ra p h ( j ) ) .

Of th e s e 8 a s p e c ts o f th e W ri ght am en dm en t, o n ly 2— it e m s 4 an d 5 

(P a ra g ra p h s (g ) and ( h ) ) — a r e j u s t i f i e d o r a p p r o p r ia te . The 

W ri ght am en dm en t, in i t s o th e r a s p e c ts , w ou ld c r e a t e th e fo ll o w in g 

p ro b le m s :

(1 ) L ik e th e B re au x am en dm en t, i t s r e s t r i c t i o n o f th e 

sc ope o f 'n a v ig a b le w a te r s ' (it e m (1 ) an d P a ra g ra p h ( d ) ( 1 ) ) , 

r o l l s th e c lo c k b ack n o t o n ly p r i o r to th e 19 72 FWPCA am en dm en ts ,

-1 3 -
407

b u t p rio r ev en to th e co ver ag e of navig ab le w ate rs in th e 1899 R iv er s

and H ar bo rs A ct . Among th e w ate rs and a c t i v i t i e s co ver ed by th e 

1899 Ac t (a s c o n str u ed in Se ptem be r 9, 1972 Co rps r e g u la tio n s ,

33 C.F .R . § 2 0 9 .2 6 0 ), not co ver ed by th e W rig ht and Br ea ux amendm ents

a re —

(a ) W at er s use d in th e p a st fo r i n t e r s t a t e o r fo re ig n 

com merce, b u t no lo nger us ed fo r th is p urp ose —p erh aps be ca us e of th e 

e re c tio n o f dams o r Im pou ndm ents in th e w at er w ay . Examples wou ld

be th e Potomac and Shenando ah R iv ers .

(b ) I n t r a s t a t e w ate rs us ed fo r co m m er ci al tr a n s p o rta tio n 

of goods d e s ti n e d to go to a n o th er s t a t e , o r wh ere th e i n t r a s t a t e 

bod y se rv es a lin k in i n t e r s t a t e commerce ( e . g . , wh ere good s are

sh ip ped ac ro ss an I n t r a s t a t e la k e from an i n t e r s t a t e r a i l te rm in a l

on one sid e to an i n t e r s t a t e r a i l te rm in a l on th e o th e r) .

(c ) N on -N av ig ab le tr ib u t a r i e s of n a v ig ab le w a te rs fro m wh ich 

p o llu ta n ts may fl ow in to n a v ig ab le w a te rs.

(d ) Ban ks of n av ig a b le w ate rs and th e ir tr ib u t a r i e s 

fro m wh ich m a te ria ls may wa sh in to n av ig ab le w a te rs.

(e ) W ater s used fo r i n t e r s t a t e co m m er ci al purp ose s o th e r 

th an co mmercial tr a n s p o r ta tio n , su ch as i n t e r s t a t e co m m er cial 

r e c r e a tio n , f is h in g , o r w ate r su pply .

A ls o, a s in th e ca se o f th e Br eaux amendment, th e re would be no 

j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r r e s t r i c t i n g th e co ver ag e of S ecti o n 404 to c la s s ic a lly

n a v ig ab le w ate rs — ev en i f th e r e d e f in itio n was id e n tic a l to th a t 

in th e 1899 law — be ca use P .L . 92 -500 is a p o llu tio n c o n tro l la w ,

not a n a v ig a ti o n la w .

-1 4 -
408

(2 ) M ore over , Che r e s t r i c t i o n In th e W ri g h t/ B re a u x am en dm en t on th e

scope o f " n a v ig a b le w a te r s ," c o u p le d w it h th e b a r a g a i n s t r e g u la tin g 

d re d g e and f i l l d is c h a r g e s in to w a te r s o u ts id e th e new d e f i n i t i o n (I te m

(3 ) and P a ra g ra p h ( e ) ) , e lim in a te s an im p o rta n t p r o te c tio n to human 

h e a l t h a g a i n s t s u b s ta n c e s su ch a s PCBs, DDT, k e p o n e, m erc u ry , an d 

a r s e n i c — a l l o f w hic h a r e o f te n p r e s e n t In d re d g ed and f i l l m a te r ia l a s 

c o n ta m in a n ts . In o th e r w o rd s, c o n ta m in a te d d re d g e d o r f i l l m a te r ia l 

c o u ld b e d e p o s it e d In th e O keef en okee Swamp, th e F lo r id a E v e rg la d e s , th e 

Shen an do ah R iv e r, o r th e Po tomac n o t o n ly w it h o u t a S e c ti o n 40 4 p e r m it, 

b u t w it h o u t even a p o l l u t a n t d is c h a rg e p e rm it u n d er S e c ti o n 4 02.

(3 ) In d e e d , n o t o n ly does P a ra g ra p h (e ) o f th e W rig h t/ B re aux 

a p p ro a c h make i t p o s s ib le to d is c h a rg e to x ic c h e m ic a ls w it h o u t r e g u la tio n 

when th o s e c h e m ic a ls a r e p r e s e n t a s c o n ta m in a n ts i n d re d g ed o r f i l l 

m a t e r i a l , b u t i t even ma kes i t p o s s ib le to d e p o s it a p u re p o is o n ( e . g . , 

a r s e n i c po w de r) a s a " f i l l * ' m a te r ia l t o t a l l y w it h o u t r e g u l a t i o n — a s lo ng 

a s th e f i l l i s p la c e d o u ts id e o f w hat W ri ght an d B re au x w ou ld re g a rd as 

" n a v ig a b le w a te r s ." T h at t h i s i s mo re th a n j u s t a h y p o th e tic a l pro ble m 

i s e v id e n c e d by th e f a c t t h a t th e common m ea nin g o f " f i l l m a t e r i a l ," an d 

th e one in c o rp o ra te d in th e C o rp s' S e c ti o n 40 4 r e g u la tio n s i s : "a ny 

p o l l u t a n t used to c r e a t e f i l l in th e t r a d i t i o n a l s e n s e o f r e p la c in g an

a q u a t ic a r e a w it h d ry la n d o r o f c h an g in g th e b o tt o m e le v a tio n o f a w a te r 

bo dy f o r any p u rp o s e ." (S ee S e c ti o n 2 0 9 .1 2 0 (d )( 6 ) o f th e C o rp s' J u ly 

25 , 19 76 I n te r im F in a l R e g u la tio n s , 40 Fed. Reg . 31319 , e t . s e q . ) .

(4 ) A n o th e r p o t e n t i a l l y s e r io u s p u b lic h e a l th an d e n v ir o n m e n ta l 

p ro b le m i s c r e a te d by th e W ri ght am endm en t's a l t e r a t i o n o f on e p a r t o f an 

in te g r a t e d s t a t u t o r y sc hem e. On th e one han d , s in c e an y c o v e ra g e of

w e tl a n d s a ll o w e d f o r by W ri ght i s p ro v id e d fo r o u ts id e o f th e d e f i n i t i o n

-1 5 -
409

of n a v ig ab le w a te rs , th e re Is a r e a l q u e sti o n a s to w he th er some one who 

d is c h a rg e s dre dged o r f i l l m a te ria l In to a w etl an d —ev en one co ver ed by

th e W righ t amend ment—w it h o u t a perm it ca n be p ro secu te d (u nd er S ecti o n 301) 

fo r v io la tin g S e c ti o n 40 4. T hi s I s so , bec au se S ecti o n 30 1, th e only 

p ro h ib it io n a g a in s t d is c h a rg in g p o llu ta n ts (in c lu d in s dre dee s p o il)

w it h o u t a p e rm it , p r o h ib its su ch d is c h a rg e s o n ly when th ey a re in to 

"n av ig ab le w a te r s ." But w etl ands a re not "n av ig ab le w ate rs " un de r th e 

W rig ht amend ment. On th e o th e r ha nd, ev en i f on e arg u es th a t n av ig ab le 

w ate rs a re d e fin e d more b ro ad ly in S ecti o n 301 th an in th e amended

S ecti o n 404— so th a t S e c ti o n 301 do es co ver w etl an d s—one re aches an ev en

more ab su rd r e s u l t : d is c h a rg e s in to any n a v ig a b le w ate rs o th e r th an 

th ose s p e c i f i c a l l y co ver ed by th e W righ t amendm ent a re i l l e g a l un de r an y

cir c u m sta n c e s. T his i s so be ca us e S ecti o n 301 p r o h ib its su ch d is c h a rg e s

w it h o u t a p e rm it , an d S ecti o n 404 (a s amended by W ri gh t) p ro v id es no 

p erm it s fo r su ch d is c h a rg e s . Tha t t h i s i s a r e a l i s t i c h y p o th esis i s 

ev id en ce d by th e f a c t th a t a 1971 f e d e ra l c o u rt d e c is io n constr u ed

s im ila r d is c re p a n c ie s in th e th e 1899 R iv ers and H ar bo rs Ac t as ma kin g i t

i l l e g a l to d is c h a rg e w aste s un de r any cir cu m sta n ces in to t r ib u t a r i e s of 

n av ig ab le w ate rs ( i . e . , th e Ac t pro vid ed fo r p e rm it s on ly fo r n av ig ab le

w ate rs th em se lv es, y e t p ro h ib it e d d is c h a rg e s w it h o u t a pe rm it in to 

t r ib u t a r i e s as w e ll) . K al ur v . R eso r, 335 F. Su pp . 1 , 9-10 (D .D.C.

197 1). P .L . 92 -5 00 was pas se d j u s t in tim e to c o r re c t t h i s pr ob le m . The 

W rig ht amendment wo uld b rin g ba ck th e pr ob lem — and make i t wor se .

(5) By all o w in g "F e d e ra l o r f e d e r a lly a s s is te d " p r o je c ts to be 

exem pted fro m a l l S e c ti o n 404 re g u la tio n i f an E nvir onm en ta l Im pa ct 

Sta te m en t has be en su b m it te d to Con gr es s (i te m (7 ) and Par ag ra ph ( 1 ) ) , 

th e W righ t amendm ent co uld g r e a tly r e s t r i c t th e o p p o rtu n it y of S ta te and

1C-
410

lo c a l o f f i c i a l s , as w ell as members of Che p u b lic , Co m ea nin gfu lly

In fl u en ce w he re , w he ch er , and un de r whac c o n d lc lo n s , m ajor Fed er al

ac C lv lC le s w ill Cake p la c e .

(6 ) The WrlghC amendmenc pen nie s de le ga C lo n Co Che SCaCes of Che 

Corp s' re ma i n i ng SecC lon 404 auCh orlC y, wlChouC e x p l l d c g u id e li n e s or 

c r l c e r ia fo r a s su rin g ch ac Che re cip ie nC SCaCes a re capable of assu ming 

su ch au Cho rlC y, wichouC p ro v id in g fu nd in g Co re cip ie n C SCaCes fo r pro gram 

c o s e s, and wlChouC p ro v id in g fo r Federa l re as su m pc lo n of pro gra m 

auCh orl Cy (I n in d iv id u a l c a s e s , as w ell as pr og ra m -w id e) wh ere a 

re cip ie nC ScaCe pro ve s u n w il li n g or una ble Co Cake ap pro pri aC e ac C io n.

The del eg aC lo n p ro v is io n a ls o le av es u n cle ar Che re cip ie n C SCa Ce's 

auC horlC y Co re gula C e F ed era l p ro je cC s, ev en Chose fo r which no 

Envlronme nC al ImpacC SCaCemenC Is p re pare d. T hi s is so bec ause , abs enC 

s p e c ific sCaC uCory au Ch orlCy Co Che SCaCes Co re gula C e F ed era l 

acC lv lC le s, Che SCaCes may la c k Che co nsC lC udonal powe r Co do so . The 

del eg aC lo n p ro v is io n a ls o ig n o re s Che nee d fo r co ord in aC in g

p o ll u clo n conC ro ls a c ro ss SCace b o undari es.

In ad d ic lo n Co Che fo re g o in g c o n s id e ra c io n s, a rece nC su rv ey of SCaCe

gover nm enc s by Che InC ers Ca Ce Co nf eren ce on WaCer Pr ob lems In di ca C es ChaC 

as few as fiv e SCaCes could be re ad y (in Cerms o f l e g i s l a d v e 

a u c h o ric le s , wichouC re g a rd Co fin a n c ia l re a d in e s s ) , Co re c e iv e a 

de le ga C lo n of Se cC ion 404 auCh orl Cy in Che fo re s e e a b le fu C ur e. Sin ce few 

SCaCes a re re ady now, why Che ru sh Co Chrow Che prog ram Co Che SCaCes? A 

le gic lm ace argumenC may ex iaC fo r evenCu al SCaCe de le gaC lo n o f some p are s 

of Che pr og ram . BuC s u re ly su ch de le ga C lo n ca n and sh ould aw aic Che

-1 7 -
411

d ev elo p m en t o f a c a p a b i l i t y on th e p a r t o f a m e a n in g fu l nu mbe r o f S ta te s 

to p r o p e r ly d is c h a r g e th e d e le g a te d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . M ore over , u n le s s 

C ongre ss p r o v id e s th e C orp s w it h v e ry s p e c i f i c d e le g a tio n c r i t e r i a , th e 

Cor ps w i l l b e f o r c e d to d e v elo p a n o th e r s e t o f ( d e le g a tio n )

r e g u l a t i o n s — th e ty p e o f " l e g i s l a t i n g " by th e E x e c u ti v e B ra nch w hic h Mr. 

W ri ght d i s l i k e s so much.

In s h o r t , th e W ri g h t am en dm en t (a s wa s tr u e o f th e B re au x am en dm en t 

b e fo re i t ) f a l l s to p r o t e c t th e w a te r s o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s a g a i n s t b e in g 

u sed a s th e n a t i o n 's du mping gro u n d s f o r p o l l u t e d an d u n p o ll u te d d re d g e d

m a te r ia l.

A f te r th e d ouse p a ss e d H.R . 95 60 — in c lu d in g th e W ri g h t am en dm en t— and p a ir e d 

i t w it h S. 27 10 (a S e n a te -p a s s e d money b i l l ) , th e a c t i o n , an d th e w il d 

e m o ti o n a li s m w h ic h ha d c h a r a c te r iz e d th e d e b a te i n th e H ou se , s h i f t e d to

th e S e n a te .

On J u n e 2 1 , t h i r t y S e n a to rs jo in e d in a l e t t e r to th e P r e s id e n t, a s k in g 

hi m to " d i r e c t th e C or ps o f E n g in e e rs an d th e E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o te c tio n 

Age nc y to d e la y im p le m e n ta ti o n an d e n fo rc e m e n t o f S e c ti o n 404 r e g u la tio n s 

p e n d in g a f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n o f th e p ro b le m by th e C o n g re s s ." U si ng th e k in d 

o f o v e r s ta te m e n t t h a t h a s so t y p i f i e d th e S e c tio n 40 4 is s u e , th e l e t t e r 

c h a r a c te r iz e d th e "p ro p o se d r e g u la tio n s d e a l in g w it h S e c ti o n 404" (th e y 

w ere n o t p ro p o s e d , th e y w ere f u l l y o p e r a tiv e " in te r im f i n a l " r e g u l a t i o n s ) , 

a s c o n s t i t u t i n g an is s u e w hic h h a s " in fla m e d th e s e n s i t i v i t i e s o f . . . a w id e [r] 

gro up o f A m eri cans" th a n any o th e r " [ i ] n th e h i s t o r y o f f e d e r a l e n v ir o n ­

m e n ta l l e g i s l a t i o n . "

76-161 0 - 76 - 27

- 1 3 -
412

Th e l e t t e r w ent on to a c c u s e th e C o u rt ( i n NRDC an d NWF v . C all aw a y ) o f

m is in te r p r e tin g th e i n t e n t o f C o n g re ss in d e f in in g " n a v ig a b le w a te r s " a s 

" a l l w a te rs o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s , " an d s a id i t w ou ld be " f o o li s h " to "g o 

fo rw a rd w it h im p le m e n ta ti o n o f th e s e r e g u la tio n s " in th e fa c e o f th e Hou se 

a c t i o n a p p ro v in g th e W ri ght am en dm en t. What th e l e t t e r d id n o t p o in t o u t

was t h a t i t w ould be i l l e g a l n o t to go fo rw a rd w it h im p le m e n ta ti o n o f th e

S e c ti o n 40 4 r e g u l a t i o n s . T h is i s so f o r two r e a s o n s . F i r s t , th e r e g u la ­

t i o n s w ere Is s u e d p u rs u a n t to d i r e c t c o u r t o r d e r . S econd, an y a l t e r a t i o n 

i n im p le m e n ta ti o n d a te s l a i d o u t in d u ly a d o p te d r e g u la tio n s may la w f u lly

be ma de o n ly th ro u g h am endato ry ru le m a k in g a c t io n o r by A ct o f C o n g re ss.

D e s p it e th e c l e a r i l l e g a l i t y o f w hat wa s b e in g r e q u e s te d , th e P r e s id e n t 

c o m p li e d . On J u ly 2 , on o r d e r s fr om th e W hite H ou se , th e A s s is ta n t S e c re ­

t a r y o f th e Army ( C iv il W or ks ) d i r e c t e d th e C h ie f o f E n g in e e rs to m odif y 

im p le m e n ta ti o n o f th e in te r im f i n a l r e g u la tio n s by d e f e r r i n g P hase I I p e rm it

re q u ir e m e n ts f o r 60 d a y s. Th e o n ly re d eem in g f e a tu r e o f t h i s d i r e c t i v e 

was t h a t i t c a l l e d up on D i s t r i c t E n g in e e rs to " c o n ti n u e to m o n it o r a l l d i s ­

c h a r g e s o f d re d g e d o r f i l l m a te r ia l in t o a l l w a te r s o f th e U n it e d S ta te s 

and ta k e a p p r o p r ia te a d m in is tr a tiv e and e n fo rc e m e n t a c t io n p u rs u a n t to 

[C o rp s r e g u la tio n s ] w it h r e s p e c t to an y a c t i v i t y t h a t w i l l hav e s e r io u s 

Im p a c ts on w a te r q u a l i t y . "

P e rh a p s th e m ost u n f o r tu n a te f e a tu r e o f t h i s a c t i o n to d e la y im p le m e n ta ti o n

o f P hase I I i s t h a t i t e lim in a te d an y o p p o rtu n ity t h i s C om m itt ee m ig ht have 

had to e v a l u a te a c t u a l w ork in g e x p e rie n c e ( i f o n ly 28 da ys* w o rt h ) i n 

a d m in is te r in g P hase I I . In d e e d , o n ly a few d a y s e a r l i e r (o n June 2 5 ), th e 

C orp s o f E n g in e e rs , in an n o u n cin g t h a t P hase I I w ou ld p ro c e e d a s s c h e d u le d

-1 9 -
413

on J u l y 1 , e m p h asi zed t h a t " I t w i l l c o n tin u e to u se m o d e ra ti o n an d a 

r e a s o n a b le a p p ro a c h In th e a d m in is tr a tio n and e n fo rc e m e n t o f th e p ro g ra m ," 

a n d t h a t " [ g ] e n e r a l p e rm it s w hic h p ro v id e b la n k e t a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r comp a r a b le a c t i v i t i e s w it h no s i g n i f i c a n t a d v e r s e e n v ir o n m e n ta l Im pact In d es ig n a t e d a r e a s w i l l be is s u e d a s much a s p o s s ib le to make th e p ro gra m mo re 

m anageable and p r a c t i c a l by re d u c in g th e nu m be r o f p e rm it s r e q u i r e d ."

Th e W hit e Hou se a c t i o n ma de i t Im p o s s ib le to t e s t t h i s r e s o lv e . I t n e v e r

gave P h ase I I a f a i r c h a n c e .

Th e m ovin g f o r c e s b e h in d th e l e t t e r t o th e P r e s id e n t an d e f f o r t s i n th e 

S e n a te t o " c l a r i f y th e C o n g re s s io n a l i n t e n t o f S e c ti o n 40 4" w ere S e n a to rs 

Jo h n To wer and Bob D o le . A y e a r e a r l i e r , th e s e S e n a to rs had sp o n so re d b i l l s

o f t h e i r own (S . 18 43 and S. 187 8) to r e s t r i c t th e sco p e o f S e c tio n 4 04.

Th e D ole b i l l i s e v en w ors e th a n th e W ri g h t am en dm en t. The Towe r b i l l i s

a b o u t a s b a d .

S. 18 43 and S. 18 78 w ould b o th r e s t r i c t th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le w a te r s " 

i n th e same way a s i n th e W ri g h t/ B re a u x am en dm en t. The Towe r b i l l (S . 18 78 ) 

s to p s t h e r e . Th e D ole b i l l (S . 184 3) g o es on t o do ev en more m is c h ie f .

Among th e o t h e r th in g s i t w ou ld do a r e :

1 . D e le te j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r f i l l d e p o s it io n a l t o g e t h e r .

2 . L im it r e g u la te d " d re d g e d m a te r ia l" to t h a t remov ed fr om a 

c l a s s i c a l l y n a v ig a b le w ate rw ay ( i . e . , m a te r ia l d re d g e d fr om an yw her e 

e l s e w ould n o t b e r e g u la te d no m a tte r w here i t was d is c h a r g e d , ev en in to 

a c l a s s i c a l l y n a v ig a b le w a te rw a y ).

- 2 0 -
414

In s u p p o rt o f t h e i r am en dm en ts , S e n a to rs D ole and To we r sp oke o f th e C or ps 

r e g u l a t i o n s a s s e r i o u s l y e n c ro a c h in g "u pon th e m ost r e g u la r an d sim p le 

fa rm in g a c t i v i t i e s , " an d a s a ss u m in g " c o n tr o l o v e r th e a c t i v i t i e s o f a 

g r e a t p o r tio n o f o u r N a tio n 's f a r m e r s ." In f a c t , th e r e g u la tio n s th e s e 

tw o S e n a to rs w ere ta lk in g a b o u t w ere "p ro p o se d " r e g u la tio n s (a nd t h i s w a s n 't 

e v en a n a c c u r a te c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f th em ). Th e in te r im f i n a l r e g u la tio n s 

is s u e d n e a r ly two m on th s l a t e r (o n J u ly 2 5 , 197 5) mad e q u ite c l e a r (a nd 

th e C le v e la n d -H a rs h a b i l l w ould have mad e e v en c l e a r e r ) t h a t norm al fa rm in g

a c t i v i t i e s a r e ex em pt from r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e i r d re d g e an d f i l l d is c h a r g e s .

D ole and To we r a ls o r e l i e d h e a v i ly on " s c a r e t a c t i c s " em plo ye d by th e 

C orp s o f E n g in e e rs and th e D ep art m en t o f A g r ic u ltu r e i n e a r l y p r e s s r e ­

l e a s e s is s u e d by th e s e a g e n c ie s . The C or ps p r e s s r e l e a s e wa s l a t e r d i s ­

ow ne d an d r e t r a c t e d by th e D ep art m en t o f th e Army . The USDA r e l e a s e d ie d 

a q u i e t d e a th (e x c e p t fo r c o n ti n u e d r e f e r e n c e s to i t by s c a re -m o n g e rs on 

a n d o f f C a p ito l H i l l ) .

S e n a to r Towe r s tr o n g ly a c c u se d th e ju d g e i n NRDC v . C all aw ay o f u s u rp in g

l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c tio n s by t e l l i n g C o n g re ss i t c o u ld n o t have m ea nt w hat i t

s a i d and s u b s t i t u t i n g h i s own vie w o f w hat C ongre ss o u ght to have s a i d .

N o th in g c o u ld be f u r t h e r fr om th e t r u t h , a s a sim p le c o m p ari so n o f th e 

J u d g e 's o r d e r w it h th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f P .L . 92-5 00 w i l l d e m o n s tra te .

The J u d g e 's o r d e r (3 92 F .S u p p . 685) was v e ry b r i e f . In r e le v a n t p a r t

i t s a i d :

C ongre ss by d e f in in g th e te rm " n a v ig a b le w a te rs " in 

S e c ti o n 5 0 2 (7 ) o f th e F e d e ra l W at er P o ll u tio n C o n tr o l A ct 

Am end me nts o f 1972, 86 S t a t . 8 1 6 , 33 U .S .C .S 12 51 e t s e q .

( th e "W ate r A c t" ) to mean " th e w a te r s o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s , 

in c lu d in g th e t e r r i t o r i a l s e a s ," a s s e r t e d f e d e r a l j u r i s -

-2 1 -
415

d i c t i o n o v e r th e n a t i o n 's w a te r s to th e maxim um e x te n t p e r ­

m is s i b le u n d e r th e Com merce C la u se o f th e C o n s ti tu tio n . 

A c c o rd in g ly , a s u sed i n th e W at er A c t, th e te rm i s n ot 

l i m i t e d to th e t r a d i t i o n a l t e s t s o f n a v i g a b i l i t y .

A co py o f th e f u l l o r d e r i s s u b m it te d f o r in c lu s io n in th e re c o r d .

Th e C o u rt’ s c o n c lu s io n may be co m par ed w it h th e fo ll o w in g la n g u a g e o f th e

Hou se R e p o rt:

Th e C om m itte e f u l l y in te n d s t h a t th e te rm " n a v ig a b le 

w a te r s " be g iv e n th e b r o a d e s t p o s s ib le c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n unencu m ber ed by a g en cy d e te r m in a tio n s 

w h ic h have b e en ma de o r may b e made f o r a d m in is tr a tiv e 

p u rp o s e s .

H.R. R e p t. No. 911, 92 d C o n g ., 2d S e s s . 13 1 (1 9 7 2 ).

T h is C om m itte e c a n d e c id e f o r i t s e l f w h e th e r th e C o u rt wa s i n t e r p r e t i n g th e

i n t e n t o f C o n g re ss o r m a n u fa c tu rin g i t .

Our a n a l y s i s o f th e p ro p o s a ls to am end S e c tio n 40 4 and o f th e a s s o c ia t e d 

l e g a l i s s u e s i s now c o m p le te , e x c e p t t h a t r e f e r e n c e m ust be made to S. 3663, 

in tr o d u c e d by S e n a to r G ar y H a rt on J u ly 2 . T h is b i l l i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i ­

c a l t o , a n d s h a r e s th e v i r t u e s o f (s e e p re v io u s d i s c u s s i o n ) , th e C le v e la n d - 

H ars h a am en dm en t d e v e lo p e d on th e Hou se s i d e . I f t h i s Com m itte e co nc lu d e s t h a t am en dm en t o f S e c ti o n 40 4 i s n e c e s s a r y , th e H a rt/ C le v e la n d 

a p p ro a c h i s , i n o u r v ie w , th e r e s p o n s ib le wa y to go.

V alu e t o th e N a ti o n o f W etl an d s an d W at er w ay s L e f t U n p ro te c te d by th e 

W ri g h t/ B re a u x Amendmen t

At th e h e a r t o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s ' c o n c e rn s — and th e c o n c e rn s o f m illi o n s 

o f a v e ra g e c i t i z e n s — a b o u t c h an g e s in S e c tio n 40 4 a r e th e e f f e c t s o f su ch 

ch an g e s on th e p r o t e c t i o n o f im p o rta n t in la n d an d c o a s t a l w e tl a n d s . W etl ands

-2 2 -
416

p e rfo rm a l l o f th e fo ll o w in g f u n c tio n s a t no c o s t and w it h o u t d e p le tin g our

e n e rg y r e s o u r c e s :

1) p ro v id e sp aw nin g an d n u rs e ry a r e a s f o r com m erc ia l an d s p o r t 

f i s h an d s h e l l f i s h ;

2) p ro v id e n a t u r a l tr e a tm e n t o f w a te rb o rn e an d a ir b o r n e p o l l u t a n t s ;

3) re c h a r g e th e g ro u n d w a te r f o r w a te r s u p p ly ;

4) p ro v id e n a t u r a l p r o te c tio n fr om f lo o d s an d s to rm s :

5) p ro v id e e s s e n t i a l n e s ti n g an d w in te r in g a r e a s f o r w a te r fo w l;

6) c o n s t i t u t e a h ig h - y i e ld fo o d s o u rc e f o r a q u a tic a n im a ls ; an d

7) p ro v id e an im p o rta n t f i l t e r sy ste m f o r la k e s and s tr e a m s .

C o a s ta l w e tl a n d s (b o th f r e s h - an d s a lt w a te r ) p la y an e s s e n t i a l r o le in th e

l i v e s o f f i s h an d s h e l l f i s h . T w o -th ir d s o r more o f th e c a s h v a lu e o f

s p e c ie s h a r v e s te d on th e A t la n tic an d G u lf c o a s ts a r e e s t u a r i n e d e p e n d e n t.

D r. Eug en e T u rn er o f L o u is ia n a S t a t e U n iv e r s ity h a s show n t h a t on a w o rl d ­

w id e b a s i s th e r e i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e o f f s h o r e h a r v e s t o f 

sh ri m p and th e t o t a l a r e a o f th e s a l t m ars h up on w hic h t h a t f i s h e r y d e p en d s. 

Th e p r o d u c tio n o f b lu e c r a b s , c la m s , and sh ri m p — w hi ch r e l y on c o a s t a l w etla n d s — was down 7 to 8 p e rc e n t i n 1975, co m par ed w it h 1974 . As more c o a s ta l

w e tl a n d s a r e d r a in e d , pav ed o v e r , an d d e s tr o y e d , se a fo o d p ro d u c tio n and

m a rin e l i f e g e n e r a l ly , c an be e x p e c te d to d e c lin e f u r t h e r .

Shri m p w as th e m os t v a lu a b le co m m erc ia l s e a fo o d s p e c ie s in 1975, w it h a 

la n d e d v a lu e a p p ro a c h in g $2 26 m i l l i o n . I r o n i c a l l y , T ex as — th e S ta te from

w h ic h h a s com e much o f th e p r e s s u r e to c u r t a i l th e S e c ti o n 40 4 pro gra m — le d

th e s t a t e s i n th e sh ri m p c a tc h f o r 1975: $ 8 7 .9 m illi o n in la n d e d v a lu e .

T hese f i g u r e s do n o t in c lu d e th e a d d i t i o n a l p r o f i t s an d jo b s a s s o c ia t e d 

w ith h a n d lin g , tr a n s p o r t i n g , p r o c e s s in g , and m a rk e ti n g t h i s s e a fo o d .

- 2 3 -
417

In a d d i t i o n t o c o m m erc ia l u s e s o f th e c o a s t a l z o n e , s p o r ts f is h in g in som e 

a r e a s i s o f e v en g r e a t e r ec onom ic im p o rta n c e . For ex am p le , L o u is ia n a a lo n e 

h a s two m i l l i o n lic e n s e d fis h e rm e n . Th e a v e ra g e e a c h c o a s t a l s p o r t s f i s h e r ­

man sp e n d s e a c h y e a r on s p o r t f i s h i n g , a c c o rd in g to a r e c e n t G e o rg ia s tu d y , 

i s §80. On t h i s b a s i s , $ 1 6 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 a y e a r i s s p e n t in L o u is ia n a f o r

s p o r t f i s h i n g .

O th e r im p o r ta n t e s t u a r i n e - and w e tl a n d -d e p e n d e n t s p e c ie s a r e m en ha den , 

s t r i p e d b a s s , b l u e f i s h , and s p o tte d s e a t r o u t . Menha de n la n d in g s to p p e d 

th e 19 75 s t a t i s t i c s f o r c o m m erc ia l f i s h , w h il e s t r i p e d b a s s , b l u e f i s h an d 

s p o tte d s e a t r o u t ra n k e d 1 , 2 , an d 3 i n r e c r e a t i o n a l f is h in g s t a t i s t i c s . 

W hite p e r c h , w e a k f is h , r e d f i s h , m u lle t a n d b la c k dr um a ls o depen d on c o a s t a l 

w e tl a n d s a t k e y s ta g e s in t h e i r l i f e c y c l e s .

As a n exam ple o f th e im p o rta n c e o f w e tl a n d s to f i s h e r y p o r d u c ti o n in New 

E n g la n d , th e c o m m erc ia l f i s h i n g in d u s tr y i s one o f th e m ost s t a b l e and p ro ­

d u c tiv e i n d u s t r i e s in th e S t a t e o f M ai ne, w it h a 19 75 h a r v e s t v a lu e d a t 

$ 4 8 .5 m i l l i o n . N in e ty - e ig h t and a h a l f p e r c e n t o f t h i s h a r v e s t c o n s is te d o f 

s p e c ie s d e p e n d e n t on e s t u a r i e s f o r a t l e a s t p a r t o f t h e i r l i f e - c y c l e s . 

W it h o u t e s t u a r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y th e a s s o c ia t e d c o a s t a l m a rs h e s, th r e e 

s p e c ie s — l o b s t e r , c la m s, and sh ri m p — w hic h make up t h r e e - q u a r t e r s o f th e 

t o t a l c a t c h , w ould be s e r i o u s l y je o p a r d iz e d .

In s h o r t , c o a s t a l w e tl a n d s a r e th e b a s i c l i n k in th e m a ri n e fo od c h a in t h a t 

p ro d u c e s h ig h q u a l i t y , p r o t e i n - r i c h se a fo o d f o r ma n. T hes e w e tl a n d s l i t e r ­

a l l y f e r t i l i z e th e s e a f o r th e b e n e f i t o f m an , w a te r fo w l, f i s h , an d w i l d l i f e

-2 4 -
418

I t s h o u ld be n o te d t h a t , a lt h o u g h th e W ri ght am en dm en t p u r p o r ts to en co m pa ss 

w e tl a n d s a d ja c e n t o r c o n ti g u o u s t o c o a s t a l w a te r s , In f a c t I t e x c lu d e s th o s e

c o a s t a l w e tl a n d s w hic h a r e in u n d a te d by f r e s h r a t h e r th a n s a l t o r b r a c k is h 

w a te r (a m o u n ti n g to th e e x c lu s io n o f a t l e a s t o n e - th ir d o f th e t o t a l c o a s ta l 

w e tl a n d a c r e a g e ) . The W ri ght am en dm en t w ou ld a ls o e x c lu d e ev en th o s e 

s a l t w a t e r w e tl a n d s w hic h a re a s s o c ia t e d w it h s a l i n e o r b r a c k is h p o r tio n s 

o f n o n -n a v ig a b le r i v e r s (w hic h em pty i n t o c o a s t a l w a te r s , b u t a r e n o t 

th e m s e lv e s " c o a s t a l " ) .

I n la n d , f r e s h w a te r w e tl a n d s a ls o p e rf o rm v i t a l e c o l o g ic a l f u n c tio n s — d e s ­

p i t e th e a ll -t o o -c o m m o n m is c o n c e p ti o n t h a t o n ly c o a s t a l w e tl a n d s a r e v e ry 

im p o r ta n t. ( R e p r e s e n ta tiv e W rig h t, f o r ex am p le , in th e Hou se d e b a te s on 

h i s am en dm en t, a rg u e d t h a t h i s p r o p o s a l w ould p r o t e c t th e " im p o r ta n t 

w e tl a n d s " fr om e x p l o i t a t i o n — a s th o u g h th e 70 to 75 p e rc e n t l e f t u n p ro te c te d 

w ere u n im p o r ta n t.)

F o r e x am p le , in la n d w e tl a n d s o f f e r v i t a l b r e e d in g , f e e d in g , r e s t i n g , m o lt in g

and w in te r in g gro u n d s f o r a l l m ig r a to r y w a te rfo w l. The w a te rfo w l o f

N o rt h A m er ic a a r e , p h y s ic a lly an d l e g a l l y , an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e w hic h

th e U n it e d S ta te s (u n d e r t r e a t i e s w it h G re a t B r i t a i n , M ex ico and Ja p a n )

i s bound t o p r o t e c t . Th e c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n s u s ta in in g th e s e w a te rfo w l i s

th e am ou nt o f a v a i la b le w e tl a n d h a b i t a t .

W ate rf o w l a r e im p o rta n t to and b e n e f i t n o t o n ly th e nu m erou s h u n te r s in th e

c o u n try a n d th o s e who e n jo y th e t a s t e o f r o a s t duck o r g o o se , b u t th e even

more nu m er ou s b i r d e r s , r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , and o th e r o u td o o r e n t h u s i a s t s who

a r e u p l i f t e d by th e s i g h t o f w il d b i r d s on th e w in g . Who amo ng u s w is h es

to d e p r iv e f u tu r e g e n e r a tio n s o f A m eri cans o f t h i s o p p o rtu n ity ?

-2 5 -
419

F r e s h w a te r w e tl a n d s a r e a ls o e s s e n t i a l to ma ny s p e c ie s o f n o n -a v ia n w i l d l i f e .

F is h an d W ild lif e S e r v ic e C ir c u la r 39 l i s t s , f o r ex am p le , 19 s p e c ie s o f 

s m a ll ga m e, 7 s p e c ie s o f b ig game— in c lu d in g b e a r , d e e r , elk . an d m oose , 

a n d 11 s p e c ie s o f f u r - b e a r in g a n im a ls — e . g . , b e a v e r , fo x , m in k, o t t e r —

w hic h i n h a b i t and depend upon w e tl a n d s .

W e tl a n d s , i n s h o r t , p ro v id e a v a lu a b le r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e f o r f i s h i n g , 

h u n tin g , b i r d w a tc h in g , h i k in g , and a p p r e c i a t i o n o f n a t u r e . D ata c o l l e c t e d 

by th e U .S . F is h and W ild lif e S e rv ic e show g r e a t e r th a n 27 m illi o n f i s h i n g 

li c e n s e h o ld e r s and i n e x c e s s o f 16 m i l l i o n h u n tin g l i c e n s e h o ld e r s in 1974 .

In a d d i t i o n , w e tl a n d s o f a l l s i z e s o f f e r a r e c r e a t i o n a l an d e d u c a tio n a l 

e x p e r ie n c e f o r a d u l t s an d c h i l d r e n . Th e a e s t h e t i c s o f w e tla n d s , w ith 

f l o u r i s h i n g fa u n a and f l o r a , may b e " a s c lo s e to n a tu r e " a s som e o f u s

e v e r g e t .

In a d d i t i o n to th e f i s h and w i l d l i f e b e n e f i t s fr om b o th f r e s h w a te r and s a l t 

w a te r w e tla n d s , h o w ev er, a l l w e tl a n d s ma ke o th e r " p u b lic s e r v ic e " c o n t r i b u t i o n s

W etl an d s p la y a m a jo r r o l e i n th e h y d ro lo g ic c y c l e . Th ey h o ld b a ck s to rm 

w a te r s and re d u c e th e s e v e r i t y o f f lo o d i n g , h u r r i c a n e s , an d o cean s to rm s .

At th e sa me ti m e , th e y p la y a n im p o r ta n t r o l e i n gro unckra te r an d a q u i f e r 

r e c h a r g e . T h u s, w e tl a n d s a c t a s h y d r o lo g ic a l b u f f e r s o r r e s e r v o i r s , r e ­

l e a s in g w a te r d u rin g d ry p e r io d s and h o ld in g i t b a c k d u rin g heavy r a i n s an d 

f lo o d s . Eve n s m a ll b o g s , p o th o le s and b o tt o m la n d s c an tr a p s i g n i f i c a n t 

volu m es o f w a te r fo ll o w in g t o r r e n t i a l r a i n s o r ic e - th a w s . B ecause o f t h e i r 

w a te r s to r a g e r o l e , w e tla n d s — u n d ra in e d an d i n t a c t — b e n e f i t fa rm e rs an d 

r a n c h e r s who r e l y on w e lls f o r w a te r s u p p ly .

-2 6 -
420

A c co rd in g Co one s tu d y by Cwo M a s sa c h u se tt s g e o l o g i s t s , " [ a ] t l e a s t 60 

M a s sa c h u se tt s c i t i e s an d to w ns hav e m u n ic ip a l w a te r p r o d u c ti o n w e lls i n o r 

v e r y n e a r w e tla n d s ." D re dged an d f i l l m a te r ia l d is c h a rg e in th e s e w e tl a n d s 

w i l l d im in is h th e q u a l i t y o f th e s e w e tl a n d a q u i f e r s . The v a lu e o f su ch

w e tl a n d s wa s e s tim a te d in a n o th e r p a p e r by two a g r i c u l t u r a l e c o n o m is ts .

The y c o n c lu d e d t h a t "a m u n ic ip a lity c a n a f f o r d to pay $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 o r mo re p e r 

a c r e f o r w e tl a n d s w hic h have a h ig h p o t e n t i a l f o r m u n ic ip a l w a te r s u p p ly ."

In th e c a s e o f M a s s a c h u s e tt s , " a s much a s 502" o f th e w e tl a n d s f a l l in 

t h i s c a te g o r y . We su b m it a co py o f t h i s ec onom ic a n a l y s is f o r th e r e c o r d .

W etl an d s p ro v id e t h e i r flo o d c o n t r o l an d w a te r su p p ly s e r v i c e w it h o u t 

c h a rg e t o U .S . ta x p a y e r s . F lo o d da mag e a lo n e p r e s e n tl y am ounts to $ 3 .8 

b i l l i o n a y e a r (e x c lu d in g th e l o s s o f 50 l i v e s ) . B e t te r c a r e o f now d e ­

f u n c t w e tl a n d s m ig h t have p re v e n te d muc h o f t h i s dam ag e. For ex am p le , a

r e c e n t s tu d y o f th e 19 73 M is s is s ip p i R iv e r flo o d c o n clu d ed t h a t i t s s e v e r i t y

was a t t r i b u t a b l e t o w a te r s b e in g lo c k e d w ith in c h a n n e ls in s te a d o f b e in g

a ll o w e d t o s p re a d o v e r th e f lo o d p l a in and w e tl a n d a r e a s .

W etl an d s a ls o p la y a v i t a l r o l e in p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l . Th ey t r a p , r e t a r d , o r

tr a n s fo rm m a t e r i a l s , su ch a s p e s t i c i d e s , to x ic m e ta ls , o rg a n ic m a tte r , and 

s i l t . Th e m ic ro o rg an is m s fo und in w e tl a n d s b re a k down a i r p o l l u t a n t s ( e . g . , 

s u l f a t e s ) an d w a te r p o l l u t a n t s ( e . g . , n i t r a t e s ) . W etl ands a c t a s l i v i n g 

f i l t e r s , re m ovin g n i t r a t e s a n d p h o s p h a te s an d s to r in g th e s e n u t r i e n t s in

t h e i r v e g e t a tio n and b o tt o m mud . At th e sam e ti m e , w e tl a n d s g e n e r a te imp o r ta n t am ount s o f ox yg en — by way b o th o f t h e i r p l a n t - l i f e and t h e i r

n i t r o g e n - f i x i n g an d s u lf a t e - r e d u c i n g b a c t e r i a .

-2 7 -
421

A r e c e n t s tu d y d e m o n str a te d t h a t a 5 1 2 -a c re m ars h in P e n n s y lv a n ia was a b le 

t o re d u c e 7 .7 to n s o f b io c h e m ic a l oxygen de man d ("BOD"), 4 .9 to n s o f 

p h o s p h a te , and 4 .3 to n s o f a m m o n ia -n it ro g e n , w h il e p ro d u c in g 20 to n s o f 

oxygen — in a s i n g l e day! Human te c h n o lo g y c a n p a r t i a l l y remov e p lx is p h a te s 

a n d n i t r a t e s fr om w a s te w a te r— b u t o n ly by mea ns o f v e ry c o s tl y a d v an ced

w a ste tr e a tm e n t f a c i l i t i e s .

A n o th e r s tu d y fo und t h a t a 1 0 -m il e G e o rg ia swamp f o r e s t ha d c le a n s e d a 

p o llu te d s tr e a m o f o r g a n ic m a tte r an d c a u s e d c o lif o r m c o u n ts and d is s o lv e d 

oxygen v a lu e s t o r e t u r n to a m or e f a v o r a b le l e v e l .

A t h i r d s tu d y c o n c lu d e d t h a t "a m ars h o f 10 00 a c r e s may b e c a p a b le o f 

p u r if y in g th e n itr o g e n o u s w a s te s fr om a town o f 2 0 ,0 0 0 o r more p e o p le ."

T here a r e l i m i t s , o f c o u r s e , to th e p o llu tio n - a b s o r b in g c a p a b i l i t i e s o f 

a w e tl a n d . E x c e s s iv e p o l l u t i o n ( o r c h a n g e s in i t s p h y s ic a l m ake-u p) c an 

t o t a l l y d i s r u p t a w e t l a n d 's e c o l o g ic a l b a la n c e and tr a n s fo rm i t fr om an 

a e s t h e t i c , h e a l th y a n d v a lu a b le r e s o u r c e in to a s m e lly , p o l l u t e d , m o sq u it o -

r id d e n l i a b i l i t y .

R e la te d t o t h e i r tr e a tm e n t o f c h e m ic a ls , w e tl a n d s a r e im p o rta n t i n tr a p p in g 

a n d r e t a i n i n g s i l t . W etl an d s r e t a i n s i l t and s e d im e n t c a r r i e d by flo o d 

w a te r s w h ic h o th e rw is e w ould w in d up in n a v ig a tio n c h a n n e ls ( n e c e s s i t a t i n g 

c o s t l y m a in te n a n c e d re d g in g ) and s h e l l f i s h b e d s . T hese s i l t p a r t i c l e s 

o f te n c a r r y p e s t i c i d e s an d o th e r p o l l u t a n t s . W etl an d s h e lp keep th e s e o u t 

o f th e w a te r . K eepin g even p u re s i l t p a r t i c l e s o u t o f th e w a te r i s a ls o 

im p o r ta n t b e c a u s e su sp e n d e d s i l t b lo c k s s u n l i g h t , re d u c in g p h o to s y n th e s is 

and th e g ro w th o f b o tt o m p l a n t s and p h y to p la n k to n . In c re a s e d t u r b i d i t y

- 2 8 -
422

a ls o h in d e r s fe e d in g by man y f i s h an d may im p a ir m ig ra to ry an d re p ro d u c tiv e 

b e h a v io rs . A t h i n la y e r o f s i l t , fo r exam ple , c an p re v e n t o y s te r la r v a e 

fr om a tt a c h i n g and can s u f f o c a te f i s h eggs a f t e r sp aw n in g . S edim ent ac cu mu l a t i o n on r i v e r bo tt o m s c a n a ls o a d v e r s e ly im pact o th e r b o tt o m d w e ll in g 

o rg a n is m s.

Wh at i s an a c r e o f w e tl a n d w o rt h — n o t in te rm s o f r e a l e s t a t e v a lu e s , b u t

i n te rm s o f b e n e f i t s to man ? vT h e answ er i s s u r p r i s i n g . D rs . Odum, G o s s e li n k ,

an d Po pe h a v e e s tim a te d th e t o t a l s o c i a l v a lu e o f c o a s t a l w e tl a n d s a s

ra n g in g fr om $50,0 00 to $ 8 0 ,0 0 0 p e r a c r e . Thes e e s ti m a te s a r e b a se d on d e ­

t a i l e d s t u d i e s . D r. O rie L oucks, a U n iv e r s ity o f W is c o n sin b o t a n i s t , h a s 

fo und t h a t o n e a c r e o f fr e s h w a te r w e tl a n d c a n be w o rt h up to $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 , 

b a se d on th e c o s t o f r e p la c in g a l l o f th e f u n c tio n s th e s e w e tl a n d s now p e rfo rm .

Why i s n ' t t h i s h ig h v a lu e o f w e tl a n d s r e f l e c t e d i n th e m a rk e tp la c e ? Why 

d o e s n 't i t e n co u rag e p r i v a t e c o n s e rv a tio n e f f o r t s ? Th e answ er i s a f a m i l i a r 

o n e : th e d o l l a r b e n e f i t s a p p ly to s o c ie ty a s a w h o le , n o t to in d iv id u a l

la n d o w n e rs. No sp e n d a b le b e n e f i t a c c ru e s to th e p r i v a t e ow ne r who le a v e s

w e tl a n d s a lo n e t o w or k f o r s o c i e t y .

In s h o r t , w e tl a n d s w i l l s u r v iv e to b e n e f i t s o c i e t y o n ly i f govern m ent p ro ­

t e c t s th em ( o r a l t r u i s t i c p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s a c q u ir e th em f o r p r e s e r v a ti o n ) .

G ov er nm en t p r o te c tio n i s a s much needed f o r w e tl a n d s n o t c o v e re d by th e 

W ri g h t am endm ent a s i t i s f o r th o s e t h a t a r e . U n f o r tu n a te ly , u n le s s th e

F e d e ra l G ov er nm en t p ro v id e s t h i s p r o t e c t i o n , no o th e r g o v e rn m e n ta l u n i t w i l l

do so ( a t l e a s t i n th e v a s t m a jo r ity o f S t a t e s ) .

-2 9 -
423

n la n d s tr e a m s and w a te rs h e d s — ev en n o n -'' n a v ig a b le " o n e s— a ls o p e rf o rm a 

nu mbe r o f " p u b lic s e r v ic e " f u n c tio n s , in c lu d in g : (1 ) s e r v in g a s th e f i r s t 

s te p i n r e t a r d i n g and h o ld in g back, f lo o d w a te r s ; (2 ) p re v e n tin g s o i l e r o s io n ; 

(3 ) p r o v id in g spaw nin g and n u rs e ry g ro u n d s f o r f i s h i n h a b itin g l a r g e r 

s tr e a m s a n d r i v e r s ; and (4 ) d e te rm in in g i n many way s th e w a te r q u a l i t y c f

dow nst re am w a te r s .

Of t h e s e , p ro b a b ly th e m ost Im p o rta n t r o l e o f s m a ll s tr e a m s i s i n f i s h 

p r o d u c tio n . Mo 8t r i v e r f i s h th ro u g h o u t th e c o u n try swim u p s tr e a m to sp aw n, 

f r e q u e n tly m ov in g i n t o th e s m a l le s t o f t r i b u t a r i e s and sm a ll s tr e a m s . In 

a d d i t i o n , th e anad ro m ous f i s h — salm o n , s h a d , r i v e r h e r r in g — depend on th e 

u p p e r re a c h e s o f s m a ll s tr e a m s and t r i b u t a r i e s . Of th e s e f i s h , sa lm on 

wa s l i s t e d a s sec o n d i n v a lu e among 19 75 co m m e rc ia l f i s h la n d in g s .

T hus, th e e x c l u s io n o f w ate rw ay s a s w e ll a s w e tl a n d s by th e W ri g h t am en dm en t, 

c o u ld h a v e d i s a s t r o u s c o n se q u e n ce s— n o t o n ly f o r th e e n v ir o n m e n t, b u t a ls o

f o r th e ec on om y.

W et la nd L o sses i n th e U n it e d S ta te s

Two h u n d re d y e a r s a g o , w hat a r e now th e lo w er 48 s t a t e s c o n ta in e d an 

e s tim a te d 12 7 m i l l i o n a c r e s o f w e tla n d s . Tw en ty y e a r s ag o a t l e a s t 45 m ill i o n a c r e s o f o u r p r im itiv e m a rs h e s, sw am ps , and s e a s o n a lly fl o o d e d b o tt o m ­

la n d s h a d b e e n l o s t to d ry la n d u s e s th ro u g h c l e a r i n g , d r a in a g e , an d 

flo o d c o n t r o l . W it h in th e l a s t 20 y e a r s , a n a d d i t i o n a l 6 m illi o n a c r e s

have b e e n l o s t .

-3 0 -
424

A lt h o u g h e s ti m a te s v a ry a s to th e p r o p o r tio n o f o r i g i n a l w e tl a n d a c r e s

re m a in in g , som e a u t h o r i t i e s b e lie v e mor e th a n h a l f have b e en l o s t , an d

a t l e a s t one (D r. K ai C u rry -L in d a h l, an i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y re kn ow ne d e c o l o g is t) 

h a s s t a t e d t h a t : "O f th e 12 7 m illi o n a c r e s o f w e tl a n d s e x i s t i n g in th e 

U n it e d S ta te s i n C o lo n ia l tim e s , mo re th a n IOC m illi o n a c r e s have b een

d r a in e d ."

Of th e 6 m illi o n a c r e s o f w e tl a n d s d e s tr o y e d i n th e l a s t 20 y e a r s , " a b o u t 

o n e - h a lf o f t h i s a r e a , " a c c o rd in g to F is h an d W ild lif e S e rv ic e D ir e c to r 

Ly nn A. G re e n w a lt , "h ad s i g n i f i c a n t v a lu e to w a te r fo w l."

T h u s, im p o rta n t w a te rfo w l b re e d in g gro u n d s and h a b i t a t a r e a s in N o rt h and

S o u th D akota and M in n eso ta w ere l o s t d u rin g th e m id -1 9 6 0 's a t th e r a t e o f 

$ 3 5 ,0 0 0 a c r e s a y e a r . B et wee n 19 64 an d 1974, M in n eso ta a lo n e l o s t o v e r 

40% o f i t s pri m e w a te rfo w l h a b i t a t , r e p r e s e n ti n g 24% o f i t s re m a in in g w e tla n d a c r e a g e . In th e D a k o ta s, 100 ,0 0 0 to 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 w e tl a n d a c r e s w er e 

d r a in e d b etw een 19 60 an d 1970, so t h a t by 1970, th e w e tl a n d a c re a g e In 

N o rt h D ak ota had d e c lin e d fr om an o r i g i n a l 3 m illi o n a c r e s to 2 m i l l i o n .

A r e c e n t s tu d y c o n d u c te d f o r th e N a ti o n a l P a rk S e rv ic e ( e n t i t l e d , " I n la n d 

W etl an d s o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s " ) , su rv e y e d 35 8 s i g n i f i c a n t in la n d w e tl a n d s

i n th e lo w er 43 s t a t e s .

A f te r su m m ari zin g th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l e n cro ach m en ts on th e s e w e tl a n d s , th e 

s u rv e y c o n clu d ed t h a t th e p i c t u r e p r e s e n te d was " a la r m in g ." Among th e 

e n c ro ac h m e n ts d e s c r ib e d w er e th e fo ll o w in g :

-3 1 -
425

. L in c o ln M ars h e s, N ebra sk a

A c re ag e : 20 00 e s tim a te d

E n cro ach m en t: " C ity may f i l l th e s e a r e a s . S a l t La ke in 

L in c o ln h a s a lr e a d y b een ta k e n o v e r f o r a h o u sin g 

d e v e lo p n e n t."

2 . W es t V ir g in i a

" In n u m e ra b le t h r e a t s have b e e n r e p o r te d on th e lim it e d 

w e tl a n d r e s o u r c e s o f t h i s s t a t e . "

3 . D ela w are

"M ajo r t h r e a t s in c lu d e c u t t i n g , d r a i n i n g , an d d e v e lo p m e n t.

In 19 5 5 , 76% o f th e s t a t e ' s w e tl a n d s w ere c o n s id e re d s a f e , 

b u t by 19 59 o n ly 23% w ere i n t h i s c a te g o r y (USDI, 1 9 5 9 )."

Th e U .S . F is h and W ild lif e S e r v i c e 's 197 0 N a tio n a l E s tu a ry S tu d y c o n c lu d e d 

t h a t 73% o f th e e s t u a r i e s h a v in g s i g n i f i c a n t f i s h an d w i l d l i f e v a lu e w ere 

m o d e ra te ly t o s e v e r e ly d e g ra d e d by 1969. N e a rly 6 6 6 ,0 0 0 a c r e s o f 

c o a s t a l h a b i t a t w ere d e s tr o y e d a s a r e s u l t o f d re d g in g an d f i l l i n g o p e ra ­

t i o n s a lo n e b etw ee n 19 50 and 1969, in c lu d in g 4 2 7 ,0 0 0 on th e G u lf c o a s t .

The h i g h e s t r a t e o f l o s s was fo und i n C a l i f o r n i a w her e 12% o f i t s c o a s t a l

w e tl a n d s w ere d e s tr o y e d d u rin g t h i s 2 0 -y e a r p e r i o d , le a v in g l e s s th a n a 

t h i r d o f C a l i f o r n i a 's c o a s t a l m a rs h es i n t a c t to d a y . T o ta l w e tl a n d lo s s e s 

( c o a s t a l a n d o th e r ) i n C a l i f o r n i a h a v e b e e n e v e n g r e a t e r , w it h o n ly

4 0 0 ,0 0 0 re m a in in g o f som e 3 .5 m i l l i o n a c r e s .

By 1 9 69, m or e th a n 70% o f th e o r i g i n a l 24 m illi o n a c r e s o f flo o d e d

b o tt o m la n d ha rd w ood ti m b e r o f th e M is s is s ip p i D e lta had been c l e a r e d ,

d r a in e d a n d p la c e d i n t o a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c tio n . C le a r in g an d d r a in a g e i s 

p r e s e n tl y ta k in g p la c e a t a r a t e o f 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 a c r e s e v e ry y e a r . Th e f u tu r e 

lo o k s b le a k f o r th e o n e - t h i r d o f th e M is s is s ip p i F ly w a y 's w in te r in g 

w a te rfo w l w h ic h d epend on th e s e flo o d e d b o tt o m la n d s . Th e f o r e s t r y

i n d u s tr y i s p ro b a b ly n o t to o d e lig h te d e i t h e r .

-3 2 -
426

In th e S o u th e a s te r n U n it e d S t a t e s , 3 to 4 m illi o n a c r e s o f b o tt o m la n d f o r e s t 

f lo o d p la in s hav e b e en d e s tr o y e d s in c e 19 50 by f e d e r a l p r o j e c t s a lo n e .

By th e 1 9 6 0 's , 65Z o f th e r a in w a te r b a s in w e tl a n d s an d 15Z o f th e san d ­

h i l l w e tl a n d s i n N ebra sk a h ad b e en l o s t on a n a c r e a g e b a s i s .

In W is c o n sin , 54% o f th e w e tl a n d a c re a g e had b e e n d r a in e d i n i t s s o u th ­

e a s t e r n c o u n tie s by 1958. A n o th e r 7Z w er e l o s t betw een 19 59 and 1968 .

B et wee n 10 an d 15 p e r c e n t o f th e t r u e e s tu a r i n e e n v ir o n m e n t had been 

w ip ed o u t i n Hew Y ork , New H am p sh ir e, C o n n e c ti c u t, an d New J e r s e y , by th e 

l a t e 1 9 6 0 's .

At l e a s t f i f t y p e r c e n t o f C o n n e c tic u t's t i d a l m ars hes have b e en o b l i t e r a t e d , 

w it h th e d e s t r u c t i o n c o n tin u in g to e a t i n t o th e re m a in in g 1 4 ,0 0 0 a c r e s a t 

th e r a t e o f a b o u t 20 0 a c r e s e v e ry y e a r .

T hese s t a t i s t i c s — w hic h a r e j u s t some o f th e o n e s we w ere a b le to f in d on 

s h o r t n o tic e — p a in t a t r u l y b le a k p i c t u r e . Th e N a tio n 's w e tl a n d s a r e i n 

tr o u b l e . The l a s t th in g we n eed i s to r e l a x f u r t h e r w hat c o n tr o ls now 

e x i s t to p r o t e c t th e s e v i t a l n a t i o n a l tr e a s u r e s .

Summary an d C o n clu sio n s

In c o n c lu s io n , th e w e tl a n d s ar.d w ate rw ay s e x c lu d e d fr om f e d e r a l p r o t e c t i o n by 

th e W rl g h t/ B re a u x am en dm en ts , and by th e p ro p o s a ls o f S e n a to rs D ole an d To wer 

r e p r e s e n t v a lu a b le an d i r r e p l a c e a b l e n a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s . Th ey p e rf o rm v i t a l 

f u n c tio n s in p ro d u c in g and s u p p o r tin g f i s h , w i l d l i f e , and w a te rfo w l. Th ey

-3 3 -
427

p ro v id e f r e e p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l , f lo o d p r o t e c t i o n , and w a te r s u p p ly b e n e f i t s . 

Th ey a r e w o rth p r o t e c t i n g , in s h o r t , f o r sound ec onom ic a s w e ll a s e n v ir o n ­

m e n ta l r e a s o n s .

M o re over, th e same p r o p e r t i e s o f w e tl a n d s o i l s t h a t make them e f f i c i e n t 

re m o v ers o f p o l l u t i o n , a l s o mak e s e d im e n ts d re d g e d fr om th e b o tt o m s o f p o ll u t e d r i v e r s and h a r b o r s a p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t to huma n h e a l th a s w e ll a s to 

o t h e r o rg a n is m s . P o l l u t a n t s , su ch a s to x ic h eav y m e ta ls and c h l o r in a te d 

h y d ro c a rb o n s ( e . g . , k e p o n e ), a d h e re t o th e d re d g e d m a te r ia l an d may n o t 

o n ly b e h a rm fu l to th e o rg a n is m s w here th e d re d g e s p o i l i s du m pe d, b u t may 

a l s o c o n ta m in a te th e fo od c h a in . T h is i s why , f o r ex am p le , EPA and th e 

C orp s h a v e a g re e d t o a ban on m a in te n a n c e d re d g in g o f th e Ja m es R iv e r w her e 

kepone d is c h a r g e s had o c c u r re d . T h is i s why i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t th e 

F e d e r a l Gov er nm en t r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r th e d i s p o s i t i o n o f p o llu te d

d re d g e d m a t e r i a l .

F i l l m a t e r i a l d e p o s ite d in a w e tl a n d o r w ate rw ay may be d a n g e ro u s a s w e ll.

A p a rt fr om i t s p h y s ic a l d e s t r u c t i o n o f h a b i t a t , th e f i l l may be p o l l u t e d o r 

may i t s e l f b e a to x ic p o l l u t a n t . Two exam p le s— b o th th e s u b je c ts o f w id es p re a d m ed ia a t t e n t i o n — w i l l i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p ro b le m .

One exam ple in v o lv e d a c h e m ic a l comp an y i n A le x a n d r ia , V ir g in i a . When a n a ly s e s 

w er e done o f th e s o i l s u rro u n d in g th e p l a n t , th e s o i l wa s fo und to c o n ta in a s 

much a s 2 8 ,0 0 0 p a r t s p e r m illi o n o r a r s e n i c , a lo n g w it h h ig h c o n c e n tr a tio n s 

o f h e r b i c i d e s , i n s e c t i c i d e s , PC Bs, and m e rc u ry . He avy s o i l c o n ta m in a tio n e x ­

te n d e d t o a d e p th o f sev e n f e e t . B ec ause t h i s p r o p e r ty i s a d ja c e n t to th e 

Po to m ac R iv e r and o v e r l i e s a n u n d e rg ro u n d a q u i f e r , so m eth in g w i l l h a v e to b e

- 3 4 -

76-161 0 - 76 - 28
do ne to kee p c h e m ic a ls fr om le a c h in g in to th e w a te r . Und er th e W ri g h t/ B re a u x 

am en dm en t, th e comp any c o u ld ta k e th e e s ti m a te d 800 d u m p tr u c k -lo a d s o f 

a rs e n ic -c o n ta m in a te d s o i l an d d e p o s it them a s a f i l l in an y c o n v e n ie n t 

n o n -n a v ig a b le w at er w ay o r a d ja c e n t w e tl a n d . The c h e m ic a ls w ou ld th e n be 

f r e e to oeach in to th e w a te r a t w i l l , p o llu tin g th e w a te r an d c o n ta m in a tin g

th e fo od c h a in .

Th e o th e r ex am ple c o n c e rn s k ep o n e. A cco rd in g to D r. J a c k B la n c h a rd , C h ie f 

o f EP A's Kep on e T ask F o r c e , one o f th e s o u rc e s o f kepone i n th e Ja m es R iv e r 

w as a lo w , m ars hy a r e a a d ja c e n t to B a i le y 's C re ek— a n o n -n a v ig a b le t r i b u t a r y 

o f th e Ja m es ( l . e . , one w h ic h w ould n o t b e c o v e re d u n d e r th e W ri ght am en dm e n t) . Dr y kepone w hic h f a i l e d to m ee t i n d u s t r i a l s ta n d a r d s wa s dump ed i n 

t h i s a r e a and c o n tr ib u te d to c o n ta m in a ti o n o f th e Ja m es R iv e r. U nd er th e 

W ri g h t/ B re a u x p r o p o s a ls , t h i s m a te r ia l c o u ld be d e p o s ite d a s a f i l l o u ts id e o f n a v ig a b le w a te rs o r a d ja c e n t w e tl a n d s and be ex em pte d from ^och 

d re d g e and f i l l d is c h a rg e ( S e c tio n 404) an d p o l l u t a n t d is c h a rg e (S e c tio n 40 2) 

re q u ir e m e n ts .

D e s p it e p a s s io n a te u rg in g s to th e c o n tr a r y , th e f a c t i s t h a t th e C o n g re ss 

f u l l y in te n d e d t h a t d is c h a r g e s o f d re d g e d an d f i l l m a t e r i a l in to a l l w a te r s 

o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s — and n o t s im p ly " n a v ig a b le w a te r s " i n th e c l a s s i c a l 

s e n s e — sh o u ld be r e g u la te d . And i t i s e q u a lly tr u e t h a t th e C o u r t's d e c i s io n 

in NRDC v . C all aw ay f a i t h f u l l y i n t e r p r e t e d C o n g re s s 's e x p re s s e d i n t e n t , 

d e s p i t e no l e s s p a s s io n a te u rg in g s t h a t th e j u d i c i a l b ra n c h was m a n u fa c tu rin g 

la w an d u s u rp in g l e g i s l a t i v e p r e r o g a tiv e s .
429

C o n g re s s 's o r i g i n a l i n s t i n c t s w ere c o r r e c t and th e wisdo m o f i t s a c t i o n in 

p a s s in g th e 19 72 W at er A ct am en dm en ts re m a in s u n r e f u te d . I f som e f i n e - t u n i n g 

o f S e c ti o n 40 4 i s r e q u i r e d , i t s h o u ld be done w it h a s c a l p e l r a t h e r th a n 

a m e a t- c le a v e r . And i t s h o u ld be done o n ly a f t e r s p e c i f i c p ro b le m s l e g i t ­

im a te ly i d e n t i f i e d hav e b e en s u b je c te d t o c a r e f u l p u b lic an d c o n g r e s s io n a l

s c r u t i n y .

Much o f th e h y s t e r i a s u rro u n d in g th e S e c tio n 40 4 pro gra m can be tr a c e d 

d i r e c t e d b a c k to a May 6 , 1 9 75, News R e le a s e is s u e d by th e O ffic e o f th e

C h ie f o f E n g in e e rs and d is s e m in a te d by a l l o f th e l o c a l C orp s o f E n g in e e r

d i s t r i c t s . T h a t r e l e a s e announced th e is s u a n c e o f p ro p o se d S e c ti o n 40 4

r e g u l a t i o n s . In d o in g s o , i t s t a t e d t h a t , u n d e r th e p ro p o se d a l t e r n a t i v e s , 

" F e d e ra l p e r m its may b e r e q u ir e d by th e ra n c h e r who w an ts t o e n la r g e h i s 

s to c k p o n d , o r th e fa rm e r who w a n ts to d e ep e n an i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h o r plo w a

f i e l d , o r th e m o u n ta in e e r who w a n ts to p r o t e c t h i s la n d a g a i n s t s tr e a m 

e r o s io n ." To make s u r e t h i s h i t s ho me, th e r e l e a s e w en t on to n o te t h a t 

" u n d e r th e b ro a d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e 19 72 FWPCA am en dm en ts , m illi o n s o f 

p e o p le may b e p r e s e n t l y v i o l a t i n g th e la w ." R ea d e rs w er e re m in ded t h a t "c o n ­

v i c t e d o f f e n d e r s may b e s u b je c t to f i n e s o f up to $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 a day an d one 

y e a r im p ris o n m e n t. " The r e a c t i o n was im m ed ia te and p r e d i c t a b l e . Th e C orp s 

was d e lu g e d w ith o v e r 5 ,0 0 0 a n g ry l e t t e r s .

The R e le a s e e n ra g e d and a la rm e d n o t o n ly f a n n e r s and r a n c h e r s .

On May 1 2 , Thom as L. K im b a ll , th e N a tio n a l W ild lif e F e d e r a tio n 's E x e c u ti v e 

V ic e P r e s id e n t w ro te t h e S e c r e ta r y o f th e Army to denounce th e s ta te m e n ts 

i n th e May 6 R e le a s e a s " u n tr u e " and a s a " t a c t i c to s c a r e fa rm e rs an d

-3 6 -
430

r a n c h e r s in t o s u p p o rt fo r th e n a r r o w is t d e f i n i t i o n o f th e C o rp s ' r e s p o n s ib i l i t y p o s s ib le " (w hic h i s o f c o u rs e th e p o s itio n th e C orp s f a v o r s ) . On 

May 1 6 , th e EPA A d m in is tra to r w ro te th e C h ie f o f E n g in e e rs , a t t r i b u t i n g 

m ost o f th e c o n fu s io n an d m is u n d e rs ta n d in g s u rro u n d in g th e im p le m e n ta ti o n 

o f S e c ti o n 40 4 to th e C o rp s ' s e r i o u s l y in a c c u r a te an d m is le a d in g p r e s s 

r e l e a s e ." He e x p re s s e d EPA 's c o n c e rn o v e r th e r e l e a s e 's f a l s e im p lic a tio n 

t h a t " fa n n e rs m ust o b ta in p e rm it s w henev er th e y pl ow a f i e l d , " and t h a t 

" m ill io n s o f p e o p le may be p r e s e n tl y v i o l a t i n g th e la w ." On June 5 ,

S e n a to r M us kie o f t h i s C om m itte e den ounce d th e r e le a s e a s "w hat a p p e a rs 

to b e a d e l i b e r a t e a tt e m p t to d i s t o r t F e d e ra l w a te r p o l l u t i o n p o l i c i e s f o r 

p u rp o s e s w hic h I do n o t u n d e r s ta n d ." He c h a r a c te r iz e d th e anno un ce m en t 

t h a t th e KRDC v , C al la w ay c o u r t d e c is io n w ou ld hav e th e e f f e c t o f p la c in g 

th o u s a n d s o f fa n n e rs in v i o l a t i o n o f F e d e ra l la w , a s f a l s e an d m a li c io u s : 

"N o th in g c o u ld be f u r t h e r fr om th e t r u t h and th e C orp s know s i t . " S e n a to r 

M us ki e p u b lic ly c a l l e d up on th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e Army to r e t r a c t " th e p r e s s 

r e l e a s e w hic h h a s a lr e a d y c a u se d so muc h c o n c e rn and c o n f u s io n ." Many o th e r 

in d iv id u a ls and o r g a n iz a tio n s , in c lu d in g Membe rs o f b o th H ou se s o f C o n g re ss , 

a d d ed t h e i r v o ic e s to th e s e c a l l s f o r r e t r a c t i o n o f th e C o rp s ' m is c h ie v o u s 

a n d u n w a rr a n te d p r e s s r e l e a s e .

On May 2 3 , 1975, th e C h ie f o f E n g in e e rs re sp o n d ed to th e EPA l e t t e r . He 

s t a t e d th e fo ll o w in g : Many have i n t e r p r e t e d th e p r e s s r e l e a s e to mean

t h a t a l l fa n n e rs m ust o b ta in p e rm it s w henev er th e y pl ow a f i e l d . T h a t, 

o f c o u r s e , w ould n o t be r e q u ir e d ." S h o r tly t h e r e a f t e r th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e 

Army e x p re s s e d h i s s in c e r e " r e g r e t t h a t th e C o rp s ' news r e l e a s e wa s m is le a d in g ."

-3 7 -
431

Uh en th e C orp s is s u e d i t s i n t e r i n f i n a l r e g u la tio n s on J u ly 2 5 , 19 7 5 , in th e 

S e c r e ta r y ’ s w o rd s , th e y e x p r e s s ly ex em pte d fr om p e rm it re q u ir e m e n ts a l l 

"n o rm a l fa rm in g , r a n c h in g , an d f o r e s t r y o p e r a tio n s , su ch a s p lo w in g , s e e d in g , 

c u l t i v a t i n g , an d h a r v e s ti n g " ; " c o n s e r v a tio n o r e r o s io n c o n tr o l" p r a c t i c e s , 

a n d "m a in te n a n c e an d em erg ency r e p a i r s o f d i k e s , dam s, l e v e e s , r i p - r a p , 

b re a k w a te rs a n d c a u s e w a y s ."

T hro ughout th e y e a r t h a t h a s fo ll o w e d , th e C orp s an d th e D epart m ent o f th e 

Army have r e p e a t e d ly em p h a siz e d t h e i r d e te r m in a tio n " t o u s e m o d e ra ti o n 

an d a r e a s o n a b le a p p ro a c h " i n th e a d m in is tr a tio n an d e n fo rc e m e n t o f th e 

S e c tio n 40 4 p ro g ra m . The y have a ls o r e p e a t e d ly p le d g e d to is s u e s o - c a l l e d 

g e n e r a l p e r m its , w hic h p ro v id e b la n k e t a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r co m p ara b le a c t i v i t i e s 

w it h no s i g n i f i c a n t a d v e r s e e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p a c t in d e s ig n a te d a r e a s , " a s 

much a s p o s s i b l e , " i n o r d e r " to make th e p ro gra m m or e m anagea ble an d p r a c t i c a l 

by re d u c in g th e nu m be r o f p e rm it s r e q u ir e d ."

As o f Ju ne 1 , 19 7 6 , th e C orp s h ad a p p ro x im a te ly s i x t y g e n e r a l p e rm it s " i n

v a r io u s s ta g e s o f a c t i v e d e v e lo p m e n t. " T hese e x p e d ite d b la n k e t p e rm it s c o v e r

a b ro a d s p e c tr u m o f a c t i v i t i e s , in c lu d in g :

— A ll in d iv id u a l c u l v e r t a c t i v i t i e s i n th e S t a t e o f 

New Y ork (D r a f t)

— C o n s tr u c tio n o f open s t r u c t u r e d o c k s in New J e r s e y and 

D ela w are ( D r a f t)

— R ip ra p s h o re p r o t e c t i o n on L ak es O n ta rio an d E r ie e a s t o f th e 

New Y o rk -P e n n s y lv a n ia s t a t e l i n e ( D r a f t)

— B oat d o ck s an d b a n k s t a b i l i z a t i o n , seg m en ts o f th e Des 

M oi ne s R iv e rs ( I s s u e d )

— D is c h a rg e o f d re d g e d o r f i l l m a t e r i a l f o r th e p u rp o se o f 

ro a d c o n s tr u c t io n in th e S ta te o f O re go n ( D r a f t)

-3 8 -
432

— F i l l s in c o n ju n c tio n w it h c u l v e r t s an d b r id g e s in th e S ta te 

o f Id ah o (I s s u e d )

— C o n s tr u c tio n o f b r id g e a b u tm e n ts , c u l v e r t s , an d a s s o c ia t e d 

hig hw ay s in S h a s ta C o u n ty , C a l if o r n ia (P u b li c N o ti c e )

— P la cem en t o f f i l l s in c o n ju n c ti o n w it h s p e c i f i e d c o n s e rv a tio n 

p r a c t i c e s , c u l v e r t s , and s m a ll b r id g e s in th e S t a t e o f New 

Mex ico ( D r a f t ) .

D e s p it e a l l o f th e r e t r a c t i o n s , a p o lo g ie s , e x p la n a tio n s , a s s u r a n c e s , an d 

r e a s s u r a n c e s fr om th e C orp s and th e D epar tm ent o f th e Army , th e fa ls e h o o d s 

i n th e C o rp s ' May 19 75 p r e s s r e l e a s e hav e done t h e i r da m ag e. D e s p it e th e 

d e m o n str a te d r e lu c ta n c e o f th e C orp s to a d m in is te r an expanded S e c ti o n 40 4 

p ro gra m i n th e f i r s t p la c e , d e s p i t e th e C o rp s ' e x p re s s e d i n t e n t to emp lo y m o d e ra ti o n , d e s p it e th e C o rp s' d e m o n str a te d co m m itm en t to em phasi ze 

th e u s e o f b ro a d , e a s y - to - o b ta in g e n e r a l p e r m its , and d e s p i t e e x p re s s exemp 

t i o n s i n th e C o rp s ' p u b li s h e d r e g u la tio n s f o r man y a c t i v i t i e s o f c o n c e rn to 

fa r m e r s , r a n c h e r s , an d f o r e s t e r s — d e s p it e a l l o f th e s e t h i n g s , th e r e a r e 

m an y, in c lu d in g som e Members o f C o n g re ss who b e lie v e th e C orp s w an ts to 

i n j e c t i t s a u t h o r i t y i n t o th e a c t i v i t i e s o f p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s to a lu d ic r o u s 

d e g re e .

T hese c o n c e rn s a r e unfo unded and have b een r e p e a t e d ly sh ow n to be unfo unded

We, and th e num er ous c i t i z e n s a c r o s s th e C o u n tr y f o r whom we s p e a k , r e s p e c t 

f u l l y u rg e t h i s C om m itte e n o t to b e sw ay ed by ru m ors an d m is in fo r m a ti o n . 

S e c tio n 40 4 i s a v i t a l s e c t i o n o f a v i t a l p ie c e o f p o l l u t i o n c o n tr o l l e g i s ­

l a t i o n . The a g e n c ie s c h a rg e d w it h a d m in is te r in g i t have d e m o n str a te d t h a t 

th e y w i l l n o t a b u se t h e i r a u t h o r i t y . Th ey sh o u ld be g iv e n a chance to

c a r r y o n .

-3 9 -
433

S e c ti o n 404 wa s des ig ned to c o n tro l w ate r p o llu tio n an d to p ro te c t w ate r 

re so u rc e s . I t ’s purp ose was n o t, is n o t, an d mu st n o t be li m it e d to , 

m ai nte nan ce o f co m m er ci al n a v ig a ti o n .

The fu tu re o f an ir re p la c e a b le n a tio n a l tr e a s u r e r e s t s ir . ycu r han ds.

-4C-
434

EX HIBITS TO TESTIMONY OF LOUIS S . CLAPPER 

AND KENNETH S . KAMLET ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL WILDL IFE FEDERATION BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PU BL IC WORKS, OVERSIGHT 

HEARINGS ON SEC TIO N 404 OF P .L . 9 2 - 5 0 0 ,

JULY 2 8 , 1 9 7 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENDORSEMENTS BY OTHER ORG ANIZ ATIO NS OF THE TESTIMONY 

PRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL WILDL IFE FEDE RATION

COMMENTS OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDU AL S

RESEARCH REPORTS ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WETLANDS

RESEARCH REPORTS ON THE PU BL IC SERV ICE VALUE OF 

WETLANDS AND STREAMS

COURT INT ERPRETA TIO NS OF SECTION 404

CORPS SCARE CAMPAIGN AND IT S CONSEQUENCES

PU BL IC SUPPORT FOR AN EXPANDED 40 4 PROGRAM

GENERAL PER MIT S AND THE CORPS EFF ORT S TO PROCEED 

REASONABLY
435

National Wildlife Federation

r '~ \ The fo ll o w in g o r g a n i z a ti o n s hav e en d o rse d th e N a ti o n a l W ild lif e F e d e r a t io n 's te s tim o n y

on S e c tio n 40 4 b e f o r e th e S e n a te P u b li c Wo rks C o m n it te e :

A m er ic an F is h e r ie s S o c ie ty »

A m er ic an F is h in g T a ck le M a n u fa c tu re rs A s s o c ia ti o n 

A m er ic an Lea gu e o f A n g le rs , In c .

A m er ic an L i t t o r a l S o c ie ty 

C a l if o r n ia C o m n it te e o f Two M il lio n 

Ca l i f o r n i a T ro u t

C itiz e n s C o m n it te e on N a tu ra l R eso u rc es 

C o n s e rv a ti o n F o u n d a ti o n 

F e d e r a tio n o f F ly F is h erm en 

F e d e r a tio n o f W est ern O utd oor C lu bs

Game C o n s e rv a ti o n I n te r n a tio n a l

I n te r n a tio n a l A s s o c ia ti o n o f Game, F is h an d C o n s e rv a tio n C om m is si oner s

I n te r n a tio n a l Game F is h Com m ission

M ar in e E n v ir o n m en ta l C o u n cil o f Lon g I s la n d

N a ti o n a l C o a litio n f o r M ar in e C o n s e rv a ti o n

N a ti o n a l F is h in g I n s t i t u t e

N a ti o n a l W ate rf o w l C o u n cil

N a ti o n a l W at er W e ll s A s s o c ia ti o n

N ort h D ak ota N a tu r a l S c ie n c e S o c ie ty

S p o rt F is h in g I n s t i t u t e

H ie o d o re Gordo n F ly f is h e r s

The W i ld li f e S o c ie ty (e n d o rs em en t in p r i n c i p l e )

T ro u t U n li m it e d

W ild lif e M anagem ent I n s t i t u t e

In i - i j i t i c n , th e f o ll o w in g a f f i l i a t e s o f th e N a ti o n a l W i ld li f e F e d e r a tio n who se s t a t e s

a re r e p r e s e n te d on th e S e n a te P u b li c Wo rks C om m itt ee h av e e n d o rs e d th e NWF p o s i t i o n :

A la sk a W ild lif e F e d e r a tio n an d S p o rts m e n 's C o u n c il (1 2 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s ) 

C o lo ra d o W i ld li f e F e d e r a tio n (1 3 s ta te w id e an d lo c a l c lu b s )

Id ah o W ild lif e F e d e r a tio n (28 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s )

(m ore)
436

Iowa W ild li f e F e d e r a tio n (1 3 s ta te w id e an d lo c a l c lu b s )

N a tu ra l R eso u rc es C o u n c il o f M aine (124 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s)

New Mexico W ild lif e F e d e r a tio n (4 3 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s )

New Yo rk S ta t e C o n s e rv a ti o n C o u n cil (2 ,6 6 0 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s ) 

N o rt h C a ro lin a W ild lif e F e d e r a tio n (1 63 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s) 

N ort h D ak ot a W ild lif e F e d e r a tio n (6 0 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s) 

S jx ort sm en's C lu b s o f T exas (125 s ta te w id e an d lo c a l c lu b s )

T enness ee C o n s e rv a ti o n Lea gu e (4 9 s ta te w id e an d lo c a l c lu b s )

Ve rm ont N a tu ra l R eso u rc es C o u n cil (65 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s )

West V ir g in ia W ild lif e F e d e r a tio n (11 1 s ta te w id e an d l o c a l c lu b s )
437

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 

KINGSTON • R. I. 02881

Fores t & W ild lif e Mgt. A gri cu ltura l Ex|M*rmient S ta ti on • WunrluM ril Hal l • 40 1 792 2475

J u ly 19, 1976

Mr. R ober t Danko

c /o N a ti o n a l W il d li fe F e d e ra ti o n 

1U12 16th S t . , N.W .

W as hi ng to n, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Danko:

I und ers ta n d t h a t th e N a ti o n a l W il d li fe F e d e ra ti o n w ill b e p ro v id in g 

te st im o n y d u ri ng th e h e a rin g s l a t e r t h i s mo nth on th e Army Cor ps o f E n g in ee rs ’ 

r e s p o n s ib ility fo r w etland p ro te c tio n under S e c ti o n UoU o f th e W ater P o ll u ­

tio n C o n tr o l A ct. I wo uld lik e to o f f e r th e fo ll o w in g ccmments fo r your use 

i f yo u se e f i t .

I ha ve be en in volv ed in w etl and re s e a rc h and p la n n in g s in c e 1967 when 

I beg an work on a M a s te r's degre e in w ild lif e manag ement a t C o rn e ll U n iv e rs it y . 

From 1969 th ro ugh 1972 I worke d a t th e U n iv e rs it y o f M assa ch u se tt s as a member 

o f an in te r d is c ip lin a r y re s e a rc h te am , as se m bl ed to d e v is e c r i t e r i a fo r th e 

e v a lu a ti o n o f fre sh w a te r w e tl a n d s. Our aim was to p ro v id e c r i t e r i a to d e c is io n 

mak er s a t a l l le v e ls so th a t th e y could e v a lu a te w etlands fo r gr oun dw at er r e ­

char ge p o te n tia l, w ild lif e h a b ita t an d v is u a l - c u ltu r a l a m e n it ie s ( r e c r e a tio n , 

e d u c a ti o n , a e s th e tic s ) . Our team c o n s is te d o f w ild lif e b io lo g is ts , g e o lo g is ts , 

la n d sc a p e a r c h ite c ts , re g io n a l p la n n e rs an d eco nom is ts . E ncl ose d i s a l i s t 

o f p u b li c a ti o n s t h a t ha ve em erg ed fro m th a t re s e a rc h p r o je c t.

Sin ce 1972 I ha ve bee n te a c h in g co u rs es in w etland ec olo gy and la n d u se , 

doin g re s e a rc h in w etlands and c o n ducti ng wo rksh op s fo r lo c a l o f f i c i a l s on 

w etland c h a r a c te r is tic s , v alu es an d te c h n iq u es fo r d ecis io n -m ak in g . P re s e n tl y 

I am w rit in g , w ith th r e e o th e r e c o lo g is ts , a C la s s if ic a tio n o f W etland s and 

A quati c H a b it a ts o f th e U nited S ta te s fo r use in th e N a ti o n a l W et land s In vento r y b e in g c a r rie d o u t by th e U .S . F is h an d W il d li fe S e rv ic e . A copy o f ou r in 

te rim re p o rt is e n c lo se d . For th e p a s t th re e mon ths I ha ve been se rv in g on 

G ov er no r P h il ip N oel’ s Ta sk Forc e on W et la nds, s e t up to recom mend ways to 

im prov e Rhode I s la n d 's w etlands a c t an d i t s a d m in is tr a ti o n .

I giv e you t h i s bac kg ro un d in fo rm a ti o n only t o dem onst ra te th a t my ccmm en ts a re n o t rand om ly made o r e m o ti o n a ll y base d.

We ha ve th o u g h tl e s s ly d e str o y e d th e w etlands o f our co u n tr y fo r some 300 

y e a rs now. R ec en t so u rc es t e l l us we ha ve a lr e a d y l o s t ov er 50 p e rc e n t o f 

th e o r ig in a l w etlan d acre age in th e U .S . Y et, th e v alu e o f w etl ands in t h e i r 

n a tu r a l s t a t e was o n ly fo rm a ll y re c o g n iz ed i n th e form o f p ro te c tiv e le g is -
438

a ti o n as re c e n tl y as 19 63 , when M assa chuse tt s pass ed th e n a ti o n ’ s f i r s t wetla n d s a c t .

The valu e o f s a l t m ar sh es as n u rs e rie s and m aj or food so u rc es fo r m ar in e 

f is h an d s h e ll f is h , a s b u ff e r s a g a in s t th e d e s tr u c tiv e fo rc e s o f st orm s and 

as f i l t e r s o f envir onm enta l p o llu ta n ts a re a l l w ell e s ta b li s h e d in th e s c ie n ­

t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e . The r o le o f in la n d w etlands in fl o o d c o n tr o l, gr oun dw at er 

re c h a rg e , w ild lif e p ro d u c ti o n an d d iv e r s ity , p o ll u ti o n f i l t r a t i o n , an d m ai nte n an ce o f base flow o f st re am s ha ve s im ila rly be en c le a r ly d e m onst ra te d. In 

a d d itio n , w et la nd s p ro vid e unusu al o p p o rtu n iti e s fo r re c re a tio n an d sce n ic 

en jo ym en t and, a t th e same ti m e , p ro v id e a n a tu ra l for m o f op en sp ac e wh ich 

ca n be u t i l i z e d to b u ff e r e x te n siv e a re a s o f u rb a n iz a ti o n .

In s h o rt, th e valu es o f w etl ands ha ve became so w e ll known an d so w ell 

a p p re c ia te d by th e s c i e n t i f i c ccm mu nity and th e g e n era l p u b li c d u ri n g th e 

l a s t 15 y e a rs , th a t a num ber o f s ta t e s ha ve pass ed le g is la ti o n to p ro te c t 

th e se a re a s in th e i n t e r e s t o f p u b li c h e a lth , s a fe ty an d w e lf a re . As a r e ­

s u l t o f t h is new kn ow le dg e, tr a d i t i o n a l p r a c tic e s o f th e U .S . S o il C ons er va ­

tio n S e rv ic e , th e Army Co rps o f fi ig in e e rs an d o th e r a g en cie s ha ve came un de r 

f i r e frcm envir onm enta l p ro te c ti o n o rg a n iz a ti o n s , p ro fe s s io n a l s c i e n t i f i c 

o rg a n iz a ti o n s and th e g e n e ra l p u b li c a lik e - an d fo r good re a so n . W id es pr ea d 

st re am c h a n n e li z a ti o n , re s e r v o ir c o n s tr u c tio n and o th e r such a c t i v i t i e s ha ve 

been shown to ha ve d r a s tic e f f e c ts on th e n a tu r a l v alu es o f w e tl a n d s.

We ha ve att em pte d to ga ug e th e m ag ni tu de o f ou r w etland v alu es and ou r 

w etland lo s s e s in many wa ys, in c lu d in g d o lla r s an d c e n ts , beca use ou r sy stem 

o f la n d use a llo c a tio n has bee n t r a d i t i o n a l l y p r o f it- o r i e n te d . G e n e ra ll y , 

we ha ve f e l t uncom fo rt ab le w ith su ch d o lla r e sti m a te s beca use many o f th e 

v a lu e s th a t w et la nds p ro v id e a re irr e p la c e a b le an d tr u l y in e s tim a b le . S im il ar 

l y , th e r e s to r a tio n o f a lr e a d y d est ro y ed w etlands i s a po or s u b s tit u te fo r 

th e r e a l ne ed - re g u la ti o n and r e s t r i c t i o n o f a l t e r a t i o n .

Even in th e you nges t p a r ts o f th e U .S ., wh ere th e la ndsc ape was re ju v e n ­

a te d d u ri n g th e l a s t Ic e Ag e, w etlands ha ve be en devel opin g fo r seme 1 0 ,GOO1 8 ,0 00 y e a r s . Over t h i s p e rio d , s tr e am s, la k e s , e s tu a r ie s an d upla n d s ha ve 

be en evolv in g in harmony w ith w e tl a n d s, c re a tin g an in te r r e la te d sy stem o f 

su rf a c e w at er and gr ou nd w a te r, s o i l and b io tic co m m un itie s. Once a w etlan d 

has be en d e str o y ed , an a r te r y has been c u t from th e c ir c u la to r y sy stem and 

m an's b e s t e f f o r ts ca n only c re a te a m ed io cr e s u b s tit u te .

fty work has co nvin ce d me t h a t we d e sp e ra te ly ne ed n a ti o n a l le g is la ti o n 

p ro te c tin g w et la nd v alu es a c ro ss th e c o u n tr y . In d iv id u a l s ta t e s a re to be 

commended fo r th e ir e f f o r ts and em ula te d by o th e r s t a t e s , b u t many p re s e n tl y 

ha ve no w etland l e g is la ti o n . We nee d a fe d e ra l ag en cy to r e g u la te w et la nd 

a l t e r a t i o n in a l l a re a s o f th e co u n tr y r ig h t now. W ith ou t t h i s , we w ill 

c o n ti n u e to lo s e w etlands a t an e v e r f a s t e r r a te and s u ffe r th e co ns eq ue nc es 

fo r e v e r.

The Army Co rps o f E ngin ee rs h as p e rs o n n el w ith e x p e r ti s e to ju dge th e 

im pact o f v a ri o u s p r o je c ts on w etl ands an d th ey ha ve tr a d i t i o n a l l y be en 

b le s s e d by Con gr es s w it h ample fu nds to ac co m pl is h t h e i r g o a ls . I would 

urg e th e Con gr es s to m a in ta in th e C orp s' ju r i s d ic tio n over a l l w etlands
439

of the U.S., as recently interpreted, not just those in tidal areas.

It is high time that the federal government took strong leadership in 

the area of wetland protection. Waterfowl and marsh bird populations have 

suffered enough habitat destruction; enough hemes have been washed from 

stream floodplains; enough groundwater supplies have been irreparably polluted by leachate frem garbage dumps and road salts. To strip the Army 

Corps of Engineers of their recently granted jurisdiction over all wetlands 

of the United States would suggest that my work, and the work of the people 

like myself, is all for naught. I sincerely hope this is not the case.

Sincerely yours,

Frank C. Golet 

Assistant Professor

FOG/mm
The American League ol Anglers, Inc.

J u l y 2 2 , 1 9 7 6

<S £ K 

s s x s s

T h e H on o r a b l e J e n n i n g s R a n d o l p h 

51 2 1 D i r k s e n S e n a t e Of f i c e B u i l d i n g 

W a s h i n g t m , D. C. 20510 

D e a r S e n a t o r Rand olph;

Fl»h Do n't Vote — Fishermen Do.

Th e Am e r i c a n L e a g u e of A ng l e r s , a n a t i o n a l o r g a n i ­

za t i o n represe n t i n g the int e r e s t s o f sport fis h e r m e n ’ 

a n d the conserv a t i o n o f s port f i s hing.resources, Is op ­

p o s e d to w e a k e n i n g the S e c t i o n 40 4 o f th e Federal W a t e r 

P o l l u t i o n C o ntrol Act.

W e ur g e th e S e n a t e P u b l i c W o r k s Coc nnittee to r eject 

the W r i g h t A m e n d m e n t to HR 95 60. T o re s t r i c t the a u t h ­

o r i t y o f th e A r m y C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s to n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s 

c a r r y i n g i nterstate t r a nsport w o u l d l eave 7 5 % o f the n a ­

tions's r e m aining w e t l a n d s w i t h o u t fed e r a l p rotection. 

Ou r f r e s h a n d s a l twater m a r s h e s ar e v i t a l to th e life 

c ycle o f b o t h sp ort a n d c o c m e r i c i a l fi sh, a s well as 

ser v i n g as n a tural fil t e r s o f w a t e r b o r n e poll utants.

W h i l e we t hink it u n w i s e for the Co n g r e s s to m a k e 

sub s t a n t i v e ch a n g e s in the F.W.P. C . A . b e f o r e t horoughly 

r e v i e w i n g the r e p o r t o f the N a t i o n a l Con m i s s i o n o n W a t e r 

Quality, w e r e c o g n i z e there is a p p r e h e n s i o n con c e r n i n g 

the 4 0 4 p ro gr am. T o a l l e v i a t e the con c e r n s o f those w h o 

fear b u r e a u c r a t i c d e l a y a n d over r e g u l a t i o n , w e s u ggest 

the S e n a t e ad o p t the m o d e r a t e ch a n g e s p r o p o s e d in the 

C l e v e l a n d - H a r s h a A m e n d m e n t i n t r o d u c e d i n the Ho us e.

This ame n d m e n t w o u l d ex e m p t n o r m a l fa r m i n g o perations 

fr o m p er m i t r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d p r o v i d e a m e c h a n i s m f or 

gen e r a l p e r m i t s f o r a c t i v i t i e s h a v i n g a m ini ma l impa ct 

o n the environm ent.

s S g s s s -

Geot^Ko.yo

"••" Xs ys 'M

WMim*ntie> Cet.lorma

SMKJon Coieman

T h e A m e r i c a n L e a g u e o f A n g l e r s u r g e s t h e S e n a t e P u b l i c 

W o r k s C o m m i t t e e to u p h o l d the i ntent o f the F e deral W a t e r P o l l u t i o n 

A c t a n d r e t a i n a s t r o n g 4 0 4 program.

Chairman of the Board

CG z m j l

cc: Senate Public Works Committee 

National Wildlife Federation

B S ' c K s r —

----

Boston MMMCftwMH*

S B s — 

S — x x r
441

SOIL CONSERVATION

U .S . D ep t. o f A g r ic u l tu r e /S o i l C o n s e rv a ti o n S e rv ic e /M a rc h 

1 9 74

From the Administrator

Wetlands and wildlife and weather

The importance o f wetlands— marshes, 

bogs, swamps—is particularly evident 

at this time of year. For it is when the 

rains of early spring trickle, then fall, 

then pour down in nearly flood force 

that people are most aware o f the need 

for natural or manmade ways to control or absorb excess water. It is then 

that wetlands do the ir "serious" job of 

sponging up extra rainwater and feeding it slowly back into the nation's 

streams and rivers.

Wetlands are not wastelands. They 

have the specific function mentioned. 

They are havens for birds and nurseries 

for aquatic life. They provide a major 

setting for hunters, birdwatchers, and 

fishermen to pursue their sport. And 

they are a vast outdoor classroom for 

amateur and professional scientists because they are the frontier between the 

two great ecosystems of land and water.

The Soil Conservation Service works 

with many'people to preserve, improve, 

and wisely use our wetland resources. 

Perhaps our major— certainly our old ­

est—type of assistance is to thousands 

of individual farmers and ranchers. In 

1973 alone, SCS assisted landowners to 

improve more than 9 million acres of 

uplands and more than 539,000 acres 

of wetlands for the use of wildlife.

SCS also works closely with organized groups such as the Nature Conservancy. The first "o fficial" SCS assistance to the Nature Conservancy, in fact,

was in Finzel Swamp, Maryland.

We continue to work with federal

and state agencies interested in we tlands and wildlife. SCS joined with 

Wisconsin's Department of Natural 

Resources to help restore part of the 

26,000-acre Brazeau Swamp to a more 

natural state. A road, acting as a dam, 

had raised the water level and saturated 

an area beyond its normal capacity, 

resulting in tree and shrub deterioration and a scarcity o f food for wildlife. 

SCS helped design a channel to lower 

the water table to its natural level.

SCS people are pleased to be among 

the men and women actively preserving 

and improving wetland areas. It is part 

of our longtime objective of "using each 

acre within its capabilities and treating 

each acre in accordance with its needs 

for protection and improvem ent."

Wetlands as wetlands have many 

values. Vet it is a fact that the drainage 

of some wetlands for agriculture or 

buildings and other urban uses is as 

old as civilization. There will continue 

to be times and places when society 

feels that the value of a specific we tland, in its natural state, should be 

superseded by its value for some other 

purpose. As land use pressures mount, 

the American people should be fully 

inform ed of the special values of all 

lands, including wetlands, so these can 

be carefully considered in present and 

future land use decisions.

2 SOIL CONSn VA TION
442

3

?- O ?

•?s S*

R ( I I ( I I ( 

7 u i w n

1 - I n n I i s i t i i i • 

d i ] j i a o <c 3 » ir vr

Ju ly 15. 197b

:lunoruble Pe ter Oom enlcl 

New Se na te O ff ic e B ui ld in g 

Ws ahlngt on, 1). C. 20515

Gear Se na tor Domenlcl:

ThcJe o f ue In th e w ild l if e p ro fe ssi o n In th e So uthw est ar e ve ry con cer ned 

about th e th re ats to our* n a tio n 's w et la nds, str eams and la kes asso cia te d w ith 

th e Wr ight-Brea ux amendment to HR 9560 a ff ix e d Co S271O. This amendment to 

S ecti on 404 o f th e 1972 Water P o ll u ti o n Co ntrol Art la a serio u s th re at to our 

wetla nd s which ar e e s s e n ta ll to th e w el fa re of w ild lif e In the Un ited S ta te s. 

Cur re nt ly S ecti on 404 sa fe gu ar ds w et la nds. It would be most un fo rtun at e If 

th is prote cti on was removed. Over 50 pe rc en t o f our nati ons wetland s have 

been de stro ye d by dr ed ging , dra in age, and p o ll u ti o n . In a d d it io n to w ild life 

v s' u u s, th es e wate rways ar e of major imp ortanc e fo r recrea ti o n and su p p li es of 

public dr in kin g water . We ur ge you Lo stan d fir m again st any weake nin g of 

th e Se ct io n 404 program.

S in ce rely yo ur s.

S. 0. Schetunltx, P re si den t 

New M exico -A rizo na S ecti on

The W il d li fe S ocie ty 

Box 1402, Rt. 1 

Las Cr uces. N. M. 880C1

sane le tte r so nt to : P. J. Fa nn in, Josep h ton toy a, Manuel Lu jan , Join. Io n ia n , 

Sam S t e lz s r , Morris L'uall, Barry Go ldwa ter , Har old Lunn eJn, and 

John Rhodes
443

L o u is ia n a Sta te Un iv e r s it y

ANO A G R IC U LT U R A L ANO M IC H A N IC A L COLLCOC

BATON RO UCE . L O U IS IA N A • 70 (0 1 

Cente r for Wetland Resources

• TUDIKg INST ITUT E • OFFICK OF SKA •R ANT DB Vg kO FM INT • DgF ART NgNT OF MARIN I gCIgWCgg

July 19, 1976

National Wildlife Federation

1412 16th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

Attention: Mr. Bob Danko

Dear Mr. Danko:

I would like to acquaint you with what I feel are some of the cogent arguments

to maintain the coastal wetlands of the United States under sound management

practices controlled above the level of the local political unit, and In some

cases above the state level. I think It Is clear that coastal wetlands are

regional and national resources. The piece-meal development of small areas,

one at a time, without regard to the whole wetland system has a cumulative

effect which will have repercussions far outside of the Immediate zone of activity.

Much has been said In recent years about the value of the coastal wetlands. First,

let me document some of these and then try to put them In perspective by Illustrating

the consequences of failure to protect them. Coastal wetlands are the nursery grounds

for nearly all commercially important offshore fisheries. McHugh (Amer. Fish. Soc.

Spec. Public. No. 3, 1966) stated that 2/3 of the cash value of species harvested

on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are estuarine dependent. Others put the degree higher

It Is more difficult to draw a direct relationship between the magnitude of the fish

harvest and the coastal wetlands. However in a recent study Dr. Eugene Turner of

this department has shown that on a world-wide basis there Is a direct relationship

between the offshore harvest of shrimp and the total area of the salt marsh upon

which that fishery is dependent. The relationship is with the marsh area and not

with the Inland water area, indicating the Importance of the marshes as a source of

organic food for the shrimp and as a nursery habitat.

In addition to commercial fisheries recreational use of the coastal zone has generally

been underestimated. Two-thlrds of the population of the United States lives In about

one-third of the land that lies along Its coasts. This has resulted In tremendous

population pressures on the coastal wetlands, sport fishing and recreational use Is

a natural outcome. Louisiana, for instance, has 2,000,000 licensed fishermen. A

recent study in Georgia concluded that on the average each coastal sports fisherman

spends $80 a year In sport fishing. I think that Is probably low but even at that

level for 2,000,000 fishermen that Is $160,000,000 per year spent for sport fishing

In Louisiana. In many areas coastal sports fishing Is much more important economically than commercial fishing.

In addition to the fisheries and recreational value of marshes wetlands perform

another general function which has sometimes been called the free work of nature.

What this has come to mean to me is that certain work Is accomplished by natural

systems when maintained in a productive natural state. By low expenditures for

76-161 0 - 76 - 29
National Wildlife Federation

July 19, 1976

page 2

maintenance and protection of this condition society as a whole protects Itself

against really high investments duplicating the services of nature. An example

of thia Is the treatment of sewage along the Atlantic coast. In a recent EPA

report (Sweet, D. 1971. The Economic and Social Importance of Estuaries) It was

shown that five major estuaries on the Atlantic coast treat amount of organic

sewage equivalent to an average of 19 pounds of biological oxidation demand (BOD)

per day per acre. These estuaries treat this In the sense that sewage is dumped

Into them and It disappears. That Is, the organic matter Is oxidized, and the

Inorganic nutrients are removed from the estuarine waters In one way or another.

In a sewage treatment plant we call the oxidation of organic matter secondary

treatment, and It is relatively Inexpensive— 2 1/2C a pound of BOD. But the

removal of Inorganic nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, which occurs

In the tertiary treatment step of treatment plants. Is very expensive— something

like $2.00 for the equivalent nutrients found In a pound of BOD. So along the

east coast the estuaries and associated marshes are removing nutrients which would

cost about $2.00 a pound of BOD to remove. The load of organic matter dumped Into

these estuaries Is destroying the water quality as Is shown by periodically lowoxygen concentrations and fish kills. The cost of providing secondary treatment

plants for all this sewage while high, Is a cost which our cities can absorb and

should absorb In order to maintain the wetland-estuarine systems In a healthy state

so that they can effectively perform the more expensive task of tertiary treatment.

So the very real free work east coast estuaries perform Is worth about $4,000,000

per day - at least that Is what It would cost to treat the domestic sewage currently

dumped Into them.

Domestic sewage Is a special case of a general problem which estuaries, over many

mlllenla, have evolved to handle. Estuaries are the downstream receivers of river

discharges. Rivers In general have high nutrient concentrations and have had them

since before man started applying fertilizers on his farmland. The downstream reservoirs have evolved in this high nutrient environment, and have developed as efficient

nutrient traps. The conditions for this are shallow well-mixed waters, marshes

which trap silt and associated nutrients, and very high microbial activity. When

the organic load Is too high as in cases of extreme pollution or when the river bypasses the estuaries, as Is happening with the Mississippi River, the offshore waters

become polluted, that Is, anoxic and unable to support marine life. This leads to

the kinds of problems currently experienced on the beaches from the New York bight

north, with the accompanying high cost of clean-up.

In addition to this general role of estuarine systems as nutrient traps, the extensive expanses of wetlands act as storm reservoirs and protect inland areas from

the severe effects of hurricanes and other storms. Marsh filling and human encroachment Into coastal areas has resulted in enormous damage from storms, damage which

Is usually paid for finally by the tax payer through the federal government.

Another free service of nature Is that of harbor and beach protection. Harbors In

particular are a good example. In 1888, a geologist, named Dunbar described how

all the harbors of New England filled with silt when the great marshes were
445

National Wildlife Federation

July 19, 1976

page 3

drained and leveed. This occurred because the marshes were no longer able

to trap sllt,and because water currents In tidal passes were reduced as the

Intertidal volume decreased.

It Is difficult to put a atonetary value on these free services. One can quote

the enormous expense of dredging, the enormous costs of storm damage In low-lying

coastal areas, and the expenses which would be Incurred in building tertiary

treatment plants along coastal waters. For Instance a rough estimate shows

that the value of the tertiary treatment which the east coast marshes perform

la presently about $2,500 per acre per year based on the cost of operation of

tertiary treatment plants. It should be emphasized that this Is the social

value, that is It does not accrue to the owner of the wetlands. These free

services accrue to society as a whole and should the wetlands be destroyed,

government would be placed In the position of providing many of the same services

at tremendous cost in taxes to the general populace. The conflict between private

ownership and the welfare of society Is particularly clear here, and Is one reason

strong regionally-based management plans and practices are needed.

The problem is a regional one rather than a local one. For Instance the Mississippi

drains nearly half the continental United States. Problems of the Louisiana estuarine

areas result In part because of the conditions of drainage, farm fertilization and

sewage disposal throughout the Mississippi watershed. The same can be said of nearly

every estuary in the country. Thus wetlands need to be protected from piecemeal

developments which Individually have no great effect on the estuarine system, but,

taken as a whole have a very significant cumulative effect. This can only be done

by development of strong management plans, and review and permitting authority

which transcends that of local governments.

James G. Gossellnk

Professor and Chairman

Department of Marine Sciences
446

este rn uniuri Telegram

4 ^ 8 1 4 0 3 2 IM P EOT APR 87 74

.C 8 IPMRMCE CS P

f 81 34 37 45 31 TORN BE VE RL Y M IL LS CA »• R 4 -8 7 U S S A 1S T

PMS C IT IZ E N S COM MITTEE ON NATURA L RES OU RCES CARE OF HR CH AR LE S

( RO BE RT S , DLR

141 8 J ATM ST MV ‘

f MASMIHSTOH DC

OHS MOUTH AOO I MAS PL EA SE D TO SE RV E AS HONORARY CHAIRMAN OF A

( CAHFAIS M TO SAVE OUR WET LANDS. MOM L E T HE A M MY VO IC E TO TH OS E OF

TH E CON SERVATION SROUP OPPO SINM ARY CU TBACE 1M TH E FE DE RA L

< PR OT ECTIO N OF WET LAN DS. ARY ASTIOM RY COMORESS TO N U LLIF Y PR ES EN T

COUR T IN TE RP RE TA TU RI OF TH E FE DER AL MATER PO LL UT IO N COMTRAL AC T OF

f IB 7 8 MOULD IN MY OP IN IO N BE A BLOM TO OUR RA TION S W IL D LIF E AMD TO

OUR ENVIRONMENT. OUR WETLANDS AR E IR REP LA CE A BLE FOR FUTURE

f MEN ERATION S OF AM ER ICA . L E T S PR ES ER VE MMATS L E F T AS AI NST H EE D LE SS

ARD REC KL ES S DES TR UC TI ON.

W A S I3 S (I 1 3 S )( 2 -S S S 4 2 9 E 1 IB )P D 1 4 /8 7 / 14 113 S

SIMM CRO SBY
447

Citizens Committee on Natural Resources

HMM) Vermont Avenue. N.W . Washington. D C . 20005 • (2O2> 638-3396

J u ly 1 9 , 1976

The P r e s id e n t

The W hite Ho use '

W ash in gt on, D.C . 2 0 5 0 £

Dear Mr. P r e s id e n t:

On 3 June 1 9 76, th e Ho use o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s p a ss ed by v o ic e v o te and 

s e n t to th e S en ate th e W righ t Amendment to S e c tio n 40 4 o f th e F ed era l Water 

P o llu t io n C o n tr o l A ct (P .L . 9 2 -5 0 0 ). T h is a c t io n , i f co nfirm ed by th e 

S en ate and th e P r e s id e n t , wou ld s t r i p fe d e r a l p r o t e c t io n from m illio n s o f 

a cr es o f n o o tld a l w etl a n d s o f v i t a l Im po rt an ce to ou r econom y as w e ll a s to 

th e c u lt u r a l, r e c r e a t io n a l, and a e s t h e t ic en jo ym en t o f th e America n p e o p le .

We c o n s id e r th e Ho use a c t io n , ta k en In resp o n se to ill- f o u n d e d f e a r s , 

to be h a sty and i l l - a d v i s e d . No c o n s id e r a tio n was g iv e n to en v ir o n m en ta l 

o r ec on om ic Im pacts , no r was any p u b lic h ea rin g s co n d ucte d on t h is o r th e 

e a r l i e r and s im ila r Bre au x Amendme nt. S c i e n t i f i c and co n s e r v a tio n i n t e r e s t s 

and th e g e n e r a l p u b li c wer e g iv e n no sch ed u le d o p p o r tu n it y to com ment.

The W righ t Amendment i s sw eep in g and co m ple x In I t s I m p lic a t io n s . I t 

c o n ta in s many r a m ific a tio n s b ea rin g on th e fu tu r e o f th e N a tio n 's c r i t i c a l 

a q u a ti c a rea s and th e r e la t e d n a tu r a l re so u r c e s and p u b li c v a lu e s dep en den t 

upon them . By nar ro w ly r e d e fin in g n a v ig a b le w a te r s , i t wo uld exem pt v ir t u ­

a ll y a l l b u t s a l t an d b ra ck is h w ate r m ar sh es from th e d r e d g e -a n d -f111 per m it 

syst em now a d m in is te re d by th e Corps o f E n gin eers and th e E nvi ro nm en ta l 

P r o te c tio n A ge ncy . We are d eep ly co n ce rn ed th a t th e W righ t Amendm ent, i f 

e n a c te d , w i l l un de rm in e Im por ta nt I n t e r r e la t e d la w s and r e g u la t io n s , e s p e ­

c i a l l y th e lo n g -s ta n d in g R ef use Act o f 18 99. The Im po rt an t and p r i c e l e s s ’ 

a q u a ti c a re a s o f ou r cou n tr y re q u ir e c o n tin u in g p r o t e c t io n .

W et la nd s in t h e ir n a tu r a l s t a t e hav e many I r r e p la c e a b le p u b li c v a lu e s 

th a t sh o u ld be m a in ta in ed . Bec au se o f t h e ir w a te r -h o ld in g c a p a c i t ie s , th ey 

ha ve be en pro ve n to a c t as s to r a g e b a sin s th a t h e lp re duce flo o d s th a t m ight 

o th erw is e th rea ten human l i f e and p ro p erty dow nst re am . By d o in g s o , th ey 

c u r t a il th e ne ed fo r flo o d c o n tr o l dams and le v e e s and th er eb y h elp re duce 

p u b li c c o s t s and burd en s on ta x p a y e r s, I n c lu d in g pay m en ts made fo r em er ge nc y 

r e l i e f . S c i e n t i s t s hav e e s tim a te d th a t a 6 -ln c h r i s e In w ate r l e v e l o v er a 

1 0 -a cre w etl a n d a cc o u n ts fo r th e s to r a g e and g ra d u a l r e le a s e o f more th an 

1 .5 m illio n g a ll o n s o f w a te r .

W et la nd s p la y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o le In g rou n d-w ate r re ch a rg e, a s s u r in g re 

l i a b l e and co n ti n u o u s s u p p li e s o f w ate r fo r many m u n ic ip a l. I n d u s t r ia l, and 

a g r ic u lt u r a l co m ple xes who se gr ow th , and ev en e x i s t e n c e , de pe nd s upo n them .
448

Of eq ua l Imp ortance la th e valu e o f wet la nd s In se rvin g as w at er - 

f il t r a t io n sy ste ms th at remove la rge q u a n ti tie s of s l i t and wat er -b or ne 

p o ll u ta n ts fr oa s tr e sa s v it a l to a u n lc lp a lltle a , In dust ry , and a g r ic u lt u re .

By re du cing th e n u tr ie n t loa d In fl ow in g w at er , they hel p minim ise a lg a l 

bloosm and rank aquat ic pla nt growth th at low er th e e ffe c tiv e n e s s and sh or te n 

th e liv e s of down str eaa r e s e r v o ir s . Moot o f th es e r eserv o ir s were b u il t and 

•r e aaln ta ln ed with ta xp ay ers* fu nds. In te n siv e stud y o f a str eam In Georgia 

by th e Fe de ra l Ha ter P o ll u ti o n Con trol A d aln ls tr atl on showed th a t s h eavil y 

co nta aln at ed at re aa p u rif ie d I t s e l f to h ig h ly pot able stan da rd s a fte r 

pass in g throug h le s s then ten a li e n o f upland swamp. The c o st o f a r t i f i c i a l l y 

rem ovin g th es e co ntam inan ts wou ld have In vo lved s u b sta n tia l c a p it a l In vest ­

ments by Indu stry and go ve rn ae nt.

Of eq ua l la po rt an ce to th e n a ti o n a l economy Is th e c o n tr ib u ti o n o f 

wetla nd s to the w ell -b ein g of th e n a ti o n 's ha rd -p re as ed fis h in g In dust ry .

The la por ta nce o f a a s ll headwa ter a tr e a a s, which would be c la s s if i e d as nonnavl gable under the Wright Amendment, to the ma int enance o f anadroa ous fis h e s , 

such as sal mo n, st eelh ea d tr o u t, sh ad , and ale w lv es, which depend upon such 

stre am s fo r spaw nin g, Is obvio us. What Is le s s w id el y re cognis ed Is th e 

val ue o f In te r io r wet la nd s In nouri sh in g and rep le n is h in g c o a sta l and 

la c u str in e e stu a r ie s In to which th ey fe ed . A hi gh pe rc en ta ge o f a l l s h e lland fln fla h o f com mercial and sp ort va lu e spen d a l l or pa rt o f th e ir li v e s 

In such ar ea s and need them to su r v iv e. As with m unic ip al , I n d u s tr ia l, and 

a g r ic u lt u r a l wa ter s u p p li e s , upland wetland s eli m in ate the In fl u x o f contamin an ts th at fr eq uen tl y ca us e the clo su re of fis h e r ie s o f gr ea t la port ance to 

lo c a l in d u st ry. The cu rr en t Kepone d is a s te r In volv in g the James River In 

V ir gin ia and Chesapeake Bay has se r io u s Im plica ti ons fo r lo c a l waterm en, 

and mig ht no t have oc cu rr ed i f th e con tr ib u ti n g fa cto ry had been lo cate d 

fa rth er up stre aa and th e r iv e r 's w at er s su bje cte d to the c le a n si n g a cti on of 

rip aria n w et la nds.

S im il a r ly , by regu la ti n g flow s o f fe ed er st re am s, upstream wetla nd s 

hel p maint ain the p recis e de gr ee s o f s a lin it y re qu ir ed by o y s te r s , shrim p, 

cl am s, and ot he r co mmer cia lly Impor tan t est u arin e s p e c ie s .

These Impor tan t fu ncti ons assume grea te r Impor tance in th e li g h t of 

the recen tl y ado pte d 20 0- m lle fi sh e r y ju r is d ic tio n . That a u th o r it y , as you 

know, c a lls fo r Improving management o f th e Un ite d S t a t e s ', as w e ll as the 

rest o f th e w o rld 's , fi sh e r y reso u rces. The Wright Amendment th re ate n s to 

pe rm it d estr u cti on o f th e aqu ati c h a b it a ts re qu ired to as su re per pe tu at io n 

of ch os e res ources . Pe rm it th at to hap pen and th e economy w ill be sh or t 

changed fo rever .

These are on ly a few of th e s ig n if ic a n t v a lu e s, Impor tan t both ec on ­

om ic ally and e c o lo g ic a ll y , th at ar e th re at en ed by ad op tio n of th e Wright 

Amendment.

In view of th es e f a c ts , we urge you and th e E xe cu tive Branch to auth o riz e the Corps of En gine er s and th e Envir onme nta l P rote cti on Agency to 

pr oc eed with Implementing the g u id eli n e s fo r ha ndl in g dredged and f i l l 

m ate ria ls under Phase II o f th e Corps pe rm it program under S ecti on 404 of 

th e Water P o ll u ti o n Con trol Act o f 1972 as pu bl ishe d In th e Fe de ra l R egis te r 

o f 25 Ju ly 1975.
449

We be liev e th at the Environ mental Pro te ct io n Agency and the Co rps , end

po ssib ly Cong ress aa w e ll , ahould hold pu bl ic heari ngs fo r the purpose o f review ing the exp eri enc e accumulated sinc e 25 Ju ly 1975 In han dlin g permits

under the 404 program. These beari ngs should Id en ti fy I f and how the program

and procedures should he refi n ed . The re su lt s o f the he ar ing or he ari ng s

would be used to mold a w ell-d es igne d program th at la ac cept ab le and In the

lon g-te rm pub lic In te re st fo r ma int ain ing the ch em ical , p h ysi cal, and bi olo g ic a l In te g rit y o f the n a ti on 's wa te rs. Th is Is the fol low -up procedu re

es ta bl ishe d pr ev ious ly and announced In the Feder al Reg is te r on 25 Ju ly 1975.

I t la not our p osi ti on to supp ort a program to c u r ta il a l l development

o f aq ua tic and as so ci at ed ar ea s. Ba the r, we seek p ra cti ca l gu id el in es th at

Ins ure orde rly pla nning and ass ure maintenance of ln po rte nt aq ua tic are as as

par t o f a to ta l development pl an .

We re sp ect fu ll y app eal to your stro ng b e li e f In fa ir nes s In governme nt,

e n li s t your support In he lp in g assu re pub lic p art ic ip a ti o n In the dec is io nmaking pr oc es s, and urge th at the powers o f your high o ff ic e be used to

for ge an e ff e c ti v e Jo in t fe d era l- sta te program to main ta in , not degrade and

de st ro y, the ln po rten t water and oth er aq ua tic res ource s o f our na tio n.

Res pe ct fu lly yo ur s.

American Fi sh er ie s Soci et y

Ca rl R. S u ll iv a n , Ex ec ut ive Direc to r

American L it to r a l Soci et y

John C la rk , Washington D irec to r

J .N . "D ing " Da rlin g Foun datio n

Sher ry R. F is h er, Chairman

In te rn at io na l Ass oc ia ti on of Fis h

and W il d li fe Agen clea

John R. Ph elps , Pr es id en t

Na tio na l Audubon So ci et y

Jose ph F . Lln dua ke, Vi ce Pr esid en t

North American W il d li fe Foun datio n

Laurence R. Ja hn , Se cr et ar y

The Rachel Carson Tru st

Sh ir le y A. B ri gg s, Ex ec ut ive D ire ct or

Sport Fi sh in g In s ti tu te

Richa rd H. Stro ud , Ex ec ut ive Vi ce Pr esi dent

The W il d li fe So ci et y

Fred G. Evenden, Ex ec ut ive Direc to r

World W il d li fe Fuad

Godfrey A. R ock efe ller, Ex ec ut ive Di re ctor

American In s ti tu te o f B io lo gic a l Sc ienc es

Rich ard Tru mbull, Exec utive Di re ct or

C it le a n s Committee on Na tur al Resources

John Bu rd ick , Ex ec ut ive Di re ct or

Fri end s o f the Barth

David R. Brower, Pr esi dent

Isa ak Walton League of America

Ja ck Loren a, Ex ec ut ive Di re ct or

Na tio na l C o ali ti o n fo r Marine Con servati on

Frank E . Ca rl to n

Na tu ra l Resou rces Defense C oun ci l,

Envir onm ental Lobby

Ronald B. Outan

Si er ra Club

Rhea Cohen, Washington Represe ntati ve

The Wilder nes s So ci et y

George D. D av is , Exe cu tiv e Di re ctor

W il d li fe Management In s ti tu te

Da ni el A. Po ol e, Pre sid ent
450

608 TH IR TE EN TH STREET, N W (SU ITE 80 1) WAS HIN GTO N. D. C 20005 (2 02) 757-0668

OrriCEKS July 19, 1976

A. ClTTLUON

Hk IuviUb, N Y 

H P. Larson

K.«a Pr«M4»«

Mdwaukw. Wu 

P A MULBBAOY 

PbmWbm

Mamkaiu, Mioo

A W AGNBYP

Vm

Frtaluma. Cab/ 

A B MoariNHN

H.ghJsnd Park. U1

Sanator Jennings Randolph 

Chairman, Pub lic Worka Com lttaa 

Dtrksen Senate Offi ce Buildin g 

Boon 5121

U. S. Sanata 

Washington, DC 20510

D1BECTOBS

E L Butibr 

Wiloi»<wo, Mass

J. L Cmamdlbb 

Cortland. N Y

P. T CLOCK 

WmmiaMM. Calil 

K P Labpbbty 

Tulsa. Okie 

B A McClbllan 

Trevette City. M«h 

D S Mobbison 

Lina. Pa

J 1 Spriggs 

Bazmaveld. N Y 

S w Tbbypmblla 

Columbia. S C

t C WOLPP

Inglewood Cliffs. N J

B W WORTH

Stevens Pmw. Wu

HONOAABY MEM BEK

A * Bbnson 

Las. Barba. Com 

A. J Bobhm

U Grange. U1

H G Shakbspbarb 

Tarpon Springs. Fla

EXLOTIVL STAFF

K H Stboud

Ejte.mleee PrsitdeM

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thia Organisation la please d that on July 27 and 28 , 1976, the 

Senata Public Worka Committee w il l hold the fir st Congressional 

hearings on the Wright-Breaux Amendment (s ec tion 16) to S. 2170 

that would d ra st ic ally change the thruat of Se cti on 406 of P. L. 

92-500. We ar e, however, dismayed with the pa ucity of orga nisatio ns 

being perm itted to te s tif y tha t oppose the Wright-Breaux Amendment.

The Sport Fishin g In st it u te recogn ise s and appra clates the valu e 

of th is Na tion's wetlanda. The unique habitat represe nted by wetlands 

Is an Integ ral part of many fis hes spawning requirements and the 

repr oductiv e habit at requirement of var iou s aqu atic organisms that 

are part of the die t of many fish es that even tuall y enter spo rt 

and commercial fi sh erie s. In ad di tio n, wetlands through th ei r 

purifyin g q u ali ti es sig n if ic a n tl y contr ibu te to Improved water 

qua lity . There are no su bst itute s for wetland s; they cannot be m itigated. Because of the great value of wetlands th is or ganizatio n fe el s 

that they must be afford ed the pr otectio n of a National tre as ur e.

The Wright-Breaux Amendment does not provid e that pr ot ec tio n. It 

deleg ates pr ot ec tio n to the var iou s st at es with only a few etat ee 

having su ff ic ie n t laws to pr otect wetlan ds. What w il l pr otect that 

Irr eplac eab le reso urce u nti l the st at es gear up to furnish that 

prote ction? We submit th at noth ing w il l pr otect them.

The sound, coop rehe nslve three-p hase Se cti on 404 permit program 

promulgated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers on July 25, 1975, In the 

Federal Regist er la working. When phase three of tha t thr ee-phase 

program goes Into eff ect on July 1, 1977, a ll waters of the U. S. 

w il l be prote cte d by the permit eyetem. Mo dification of the permit 

system that would exclude ce rt ai n ag ricu ltu ra l and forestry pra ct ic es 

that have minimal adverse environmental Impact la ac ceptab le. To 

that end, the Sport Pishing In st it u te supports Senate b ill 3663 tha t 

would amend se ct io n 404 o f P. L. 92-500.

I C Martin 

A’ I' m

N S PBOUBB 

Aeraersb Jpersalsj/

G C. Kaxjonbki 

brsisMW 5«<rMery

Mr. Chairman, It Is gr at ifyi ng to know that the Senate w il l not 

ac t pr ec ip ito us ly on to Important a matter as the fe te of th is na tio n' s 

wetlands as did the House of Re presentativ es. Your Committee w il l 

give the ha stily -con ce ived Wright-Breaux Amendment it s fir st pu blic 

hearing. We ere confident tha t the hearing w il l Impress upon your

<zJ \fationaf d V o n -^ P ro fi t C o n fu ta ti o n O rg aniz ation
451

Senator Jenn ings Randolph 

Page 2

July 19, 1976

Committee th at ve tla od a are worthy of fede ra l pro te ct io n. Furth er, we are con 

dent that Government wltnea aea w il l demonstrate to the Committee th at the 

ex is ti n g permit system , with mod ifi ca tio n as ca lled for In S. 3663, does and 

w il l allow both pro te ct io n of wetlands and an orde rly development of wetla nd 

are as that Is cooq»atlble with the resour ce.

It la re sp ec tf u ll y requ ested th at th ia le tte r be made part of the re co .d 

of the Pu blic Works Committee's hearing s on Se ct io n 404 of P. L. 92- 500 .

Si nce re ly you rs.

G ilber t C. Rsdonskl 

Ex ecuti ve Se creta ry

GCR:lcb
452

jAM ES E. RICE 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Indian a Conservation Council, Inc.

P.O. BOX 672

MUNCIE. INDIANA 47305 PHONE (317) 288-0368

Ju ly 14 , 1976 >

The H on or ab le Jen n in g s Rand olph 

Cha irm an , S enate P u b li c Works Com mittee 

R u sse ll O ff ic e B u il d in g

W as hi ng to n, D.C . 20510 

Dear S e n a to r Ran do lp h,

E nclo se d you w ill fin d a s e r ie s o f p e t iti o n s c o n ta in in g s e v e ra l 

hu nd re d s ig n a tu re s o f peo ple dee ply co nc er ne d w it h th e d e s tr u c ti o n of 

w et la nds a t Lake Wawasee h ere in In d ia n a .

At th e p re s e n t tin e In d ia n a law i s n o t s u f f ic i e n t to p ro te c t wetla nds fro m d ra in an d f i l l o p e ra ti o n s . The p ro v is io n s d e fin in g th e 

" le g a l la k e le v e l" in th e In d ia n a law do n o t reco g n iz e th e im po rtan ce 

of w etl ands to th e en vi ro nm en t nor do th ey c o n ta in an y b io lo g ic a l c r i ­

t e r i a by wh ich a w et la nd ca n be d e fin e d . T his le a v e s our s t a t e 1

 s we t­ la n d s open to de ve lo pm en t re g a rd le s s o f th e co nse quences.

S e c ti o n 404 o f th e 1972 Wate r Ac t p e r ta in s to t h i s s itu a tio n .

Ph as e 2 o f th e Army Co rp s o f E ngin ee rs prog ram of im p le m en ta ti o n b rin g s 

Lake Wawasee under th e u m b re ll a of p ro te c ti o n a ffo rd e d by th e p resen t 

la w. At th e tim e t h i s l e t t e r i s b ein g w r it te n th e law i s b ein g te s te d 

in U .S . D is tr ic t C ourt in So ut h Be nd, In d ia n a. The ca se r e l a te s to wetla nd d e s tr u c tio n a t Lake Wawasee an d was b ro ught by th e Army Co rps of 

E n g in eers an d th e U .S . Dep ar tm en t o f J u s tic e a g a in s t p r iv a te d ev e lo p ers .

V’e a re ver y h o p efu l th a t th i s ca se w ill be re so lv e d in fa v o r of w et la nds 

p r o te c tio n . I t i s our u n d e rs ta n d in g th a t h t i s i s th e f i r s t case o f i t s 

kin d on an in la n d n a tu r a l la k e an d we b e li e v e i t d em o n str ate s th e v alu e 

of th e 1972 W ate r A ct.

In our o p in io n , Con gr es s f u ll y in te n d ed th a t th e w ate rs o f th e Unte d S ta te s , a l l w ate rs o f th e U nited S ta te s , were to be cle an ed up and 

m ain ta in ed in a s t a t e o f hig h q u a lity . A cc ep ta nc e o f th e Br eaux o r W righ t 

amend ments would n eg a te t h i s in te n tio n . We f u ll y r e a l iz e th a t th e re a re 

some sm all fa rm in g p r a c tic e s e t c . , th a t co uld be e f f e c te d by th e Act as 

p re s e n tly in fo r c e , ho w ev er , th e C le vela nd—Harsh a amendmen t wou ld ha ve 

rem oved th e se pr ob le m s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w it h o u t da mag ing th e in te n t o f th e 

1972 A ct. Out in t e n t i s to im pre ss upo n yo u an d yo u r co ll e a g u e s th a t 

many o f us in In d ia n a a re op po sed to an y amendment o f th e 1972 Ac t th a t 

would all o w f o r d e s tr u c tio n o f ou r a lr e a d y s e r io u s ly th re a te n e d w et la nd 

re s o u rc e s .

AFF IL IA TE O F NA TIO NA L WILDL IFE FE DE RA TION
453

If you have any questions or connents, or if we can be of any service to you in this natter please contact us at your earliest convenience

Executive Secretary

cc Sen. Birch Bayh 

Sen. Vance Hartke
454

The Conservation Foundation

1717 Massachusetts Avenue. N W.. Washington. D C 20036 

Telephone (202)797-4300 Cable CONSERVIT

J u l y 2 7 , 1 9 7 6

S e n a to r J e n n in g s R an do lp h

C ha irm an

S e n a te P u b li c Wo rks C om m itt ee

5 1 2 1 D ir k se n S e n a te O f f ic e 

B u il d in g

W a s h in g to n , D. C. 2 0 5 1 0

D ea r S e n a to r R an do lp h:

In re s p o n s e t o th e C o m m it te e 's r e q u e s t , Th e C o n s e rv a t i o n F o u n d a ti o n i s s u b m itt in g t h i s s t a te m e n t t o th e 

S e n a te P u b li c Wo rks C om m itt ee i n s u p p o r t o f th e d re d g e an d 

f i l l p e r m it p ro g ra m , a s d e v e lo p e d an d im p le m e n te d by th e 

C o rp s o f E n g in e e rs an d th e E n v ir o n m e n ta l P r o t e c t i o n Ag en cy 

p u r s u a n t to S e c ti o n 4 0 4 o f th e F e d e r a l W at er P o l l u t i o n 

C o n tr o l A ct Am end men ts o f 1 9 7 2 (FWPCAA) (P .L . 9 2 - 5 0 0 ) .

Among th e r e a s o n s f o r o u r s u p p o r t o f th e p ro g ra m a r e th e 

t h r e e d is c u s s e d b e lo w .

F i r s t , th e p r e s e n t 4 0 4 p ro g ra m h a s n o t b e e n a b u s e d , 

b u t r a t h e r h a s b e en e f f e c t i v e i n p r o t e c t i n g o u r w a te r

r e s o u r c e s . B y d e n y in g p e r m it a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r 40 4

a c t i v i t i e s w hi ch w ou ld h av e ha d a s i g n i f i c a n t a d v e r s e 

im p a c t on th e a q u a t i c e n v ir o n m e n t, th e C o rp s o f E n g in e e r s 

h a s sa v e d many a c r e s o f v a lu a b l e w e tl a n d s vz hi ch , e x c e p t 

f o r th e p ro g ra m , w ou ld p r o b a b ly hav e b e en i r r e p a r a b l y 

d e s t r o y e d . A re a s w i t h in th e S e c ti o n 4 0 4 p ro g ra m j u r i s ­

d i c t i o n , su ch a s t r i b u t a r y w a te rw a y s an d t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d 

w e tla n d s , ha ve a w a te r c le a n s in g c a p a b i l i t y . T h es e a r e a s 

may a l s o s e r v e a s sp aw nin g an d n u r s e r y a r e a s f o r c o m m e rc ia l 

an d s p o r t s f i s h ; a s r e c h a r g e a r e a s o f g ro u n d w a te r f o r 

w a te r s u p p l i e s ; a s n a t u r a l p r o t e c t i o n fr om f lo o d s an d 

s to rm s ; an d a s e s s e n t i a l n e s t i n g an d w i n t e r i n g a r e a s f o r 

w a te r f o w l.

Th e COE h a s d e m o n s tr a te d t h a t i t i s c a p a b le o f 

a d m i n i s t e r i n g th e p ro gra m i n a r e s p o n s i b l e an d e v en h a n d e d 

m an n e r. Th e e x c e s s iv e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b u rd e n (a n d th u s 

t h e f i n a n c i a l b u rd e n to ta x p a y e r s ) t h a t man y f e a r e d w ou ld 

b e b r o u g h t a b o u t by i n c r e a s e d nu m be rs o f S e c ti o n 4 0 4
455

e n a to r J e n n in g s R an do lp h 

J u ly 2 7 , 1 9 7 6 

pag e two

p e r m it a p p l i c a t i o n s a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n o v e r e s t i m a t e d . 

A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y f o r C i v i l Wo rks V i c t o r V. V e y se y , 

i n a l e t t e r t o R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Ja m es L. O b e r s t a r d a te d 

Ju n e 3 , 1 9 7 6 , s t a t e d t h a t on e re a s o n f o r t h i s i s th e C o rp s' 

e x p a n d in g u s e o f th e g e n e r a l p e r m it t o a u t h o r i z e s i m i l a r 

ty p e s o f wo rk in an a r e a h a v in g m in im a l a d v e r s e e n v ir o n ­

m e n ta l im p a c t. Th e u s e o f th e g e n e r a l p e r m it w i l l l e s s e n 

th e b u rd e n o f th e i n c r e a s e i n th e w o rk lo a d r e s u l t i n g fro m 

im p le m e n ta ti o n o f P h a s e s I I an d I I I o f t h e 4 0 4 p ro g ra m .

S e c o n d , n e i t h e r th e C o n g re ss n o r th e p u b l i c h a s ta k e n

th e o p p o r t u n it y to c o n s i d e r c a r e f u l l y a l l p o s s i b l e

r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f am en dm en ts t o th e 4 0 4 p ro g ra m n o r h a s

th e e x i s t i n g p ro gra m b e en g iv e n a c h a n c e t o sho w t h a t i t

ca n be w o rk a b le an d r e a s o n a b l e . Th e W ri g h t am en dm en t p a s s e d

th e Ho us e w ith o u t a h e a r i n g , an d s h o u ld t h i s am en dm en t 

b e e n a c te d i n t o la w , th e p r e s e n t p ro g ra m w ould b e ch an g e d 

d r a s t i c a l l y . One b a s i c c h a n g e , f o r e x a m p le , w o u ld be 

th e c r e a t i o n o f a d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n o f " n a v ig a b le 

w a t e r s ," on e w hic h i s f a r mor e r e s t r i c t i v e i n sc o p e th a n 

th e p r e - 1 9 7 2 d e f i n i t i o n an d th e d e f i n i t i o n i n th e 1 9 7 2 

A c t (" w a te r s o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e t e r r i t o r i a l 

s e a s " (S e c tio n 5 0 2 ( 7 ) ) ) . Many su c h c h a n g e s h a v e n o t 

r e c e iv e d p u b l ic a t t e n t i o n o r d e b a te .

In t h e V ey se y l e t t e r m e n ti o n e d a b o v e , t h e A s s i s t a n t 

S e c r e t a r y e x p r e s s e d h i s b e l i e f t h a t P h a se I I o f th e p r e s e n t 

p ro gra m s h o u ld b e g iv e n a c h a n c e t o w or k by s e e in g how 

th e a c t u a l p e r m it w o rk lo a d d e v e lo p s . He re co m m en de d, 

a s d o es The C o n s e r v a ti o n F o u n d a ti o n , r e s i s t a n c e t o l e g i s ­

l a t i v e a c t i o n b a s e d on hu g e p r o j e c t i o n s o f p e r m it a p p l i ­

c a t i o n s .

The p u b l ic h a s n o t h ad th e o p p o r t u n it y t o f i n d o u t 

w h at e f f e c t s th e im p le m e n ta ti o n o f P h a se I I o f th e 

p r e s e n t p ro g ra m m ig h t hav e on t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s w hic h 

w ou ld be co me s u b j e c t to r e g u l a t i o n u n d e r P h a se I I j u r i s ­

d i c t i o n . T h e re may a l s o be q u e s t io n s a b o u t p r e c i s e l y 

w hic h g e o g ra p h ic a r e a s do come w i t h i n th e P h a s e I I 

j u r i s d i c t i o n . The C o n g re ss s h o u ld c o n s i d e r g i v in g th e 

C or ps en ou gh ti m e t o h o ld a s e r i e s o f p u b l i c m e e ti n g s to 

a ll o w p u b l ic d e b a te o f 4 0 4 p ro g ra m i s s u e s an d t o c l a r i f y 

an y m is u n d e r s ta n d in g w h ic h me mb ers o f th e p u b l i c may 

h a v e c o n c e r n in g a c t i v i t i e s r e g u l a t e d an d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l 

c o v e ra g e .
456

e n a to r J e n n in g s R an do lp h 

J u l y 2 7 , 19 76 

p ag e th r e e

We c a n n o t o v e re m p h a s iz e th e im p o rt a n c e o f t h e d u ty 

o f C o n g re ss to i t s e l f an d t o th e c i t i z e n s to make c e r t a i n 

t h a t e v e ry i s s u e h a s b e en r a i s e d an d d is c u s s e d . C o n g re ss 

w i l l hav e f u l f i l l e d t h i s d u ty o n ly whe n i t h a s ex am in ed 

th e s p e c i f i c p ro b le m s a s s o c i a t e d w it h r e g u l a t i o n o f th e 

d e p o s i ti o n o f d re d g ed an d f i l l m a t e r i a l w i th in th e c o n te x t 

o f th e r e g u la ti o n o f a l l a c t i v i t i e s c a u s in g w a te r p o l l u t i o n . 

W it h o u t su ch a th o ro u g h e x a m in a ti o n , an y am en dm en t C o n g re ss 

p a s s e s w ou ld be p re m a tu re .

A t h i r d re a s o n we s u p p o r t th e p r e s e n t 40 4 p ro g ra m 

i s t h a t i t c a n n o t be r e p la c e d by an y o t h e r p ro g ra m . I t 

i s h ig h ly u n l ik e l y t h a t an y 40 4 pro gra m w hic h r e f l e c t s a 

co m pr om is e in j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o v e ra g e can r e g u l a t e 

d re d g e an d f i l l a c t i v i t i e s as e f f e c t i v e l y as th e p r e s e n t 

p ro g ra m . The C or ps h as n o t o v e r r e g u la te d ; r a t h e r i t h a s 

ch an ged i t s ap p ro ac h to e n v ir o n m e n ta l p ro b le m s an d h a s 

sho wn co mm en dable a b i l i t y to c o n s id e r b o th e n v ir o n m e n ta l 

an d ec on om ic f a c t o r s i n d e c id in g w h e th e r is s u a n c e o f a 

p a r t i c u l a r p e r m it w ou ld b e i n th e p u b lic i n t e r e s t .

We w ou ld f in d a c c e p ta b le am en dm en ts p ro p o se d to 

S e c ti o n 40 4 w hic h w ou ld e x p l i c i t l y a u th o r i z e th e u s e o f 

g e n e r a l p e rm it s f o r r e g u l a t i o n o f d re d g e an d f i l l a c t i v i t i e s 

A ls o a c c e p ta b le w ou ld be e x p l i c i t e x em p ti o n fr om r e g u l a t i o n 

o f no rm al fa rm in g , s i l v i c u l t u r e an d r a n c h in g a c t i v i t i e s , 

su ch a s p lo w in g , c u l t i v a t i n g , an d h a r v e s tin g ; as w e ll as 

e x em p ti o n fro m r e g u la ti o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n an d m ai n ­

te n a n c e o f fa rm p o n d s, s to c k p o n d s, an d i r r i g a t i o n d i tc h e s 

an d th e m ain te n a n ce o f d r a in a g e d i t c h e s .

The C o n s e rv a ti o n F o u n d a ti o n s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e s t h a t 

t h e p r e s e n t 40 4 p ro gra m i s th e co m m on -s en se a p p ro a c h f o r 

r e g u l a t i o n o f d re d g e an d f i l l a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e w a te r s o f 

th e U n it e d S t a t e s . The p ro g ra m p r o v id e s an e x tr e m e ly 

im p o r ta n t me ans f o r e n a b lin g us t o r e s t o r e an d m a in ta in 

th e i n t e g r i t y o f o u r N a t io n 's w a t e r s , w h il e i n s u r i n g t h a t 

t h i s an d f u tu r e g e n e r a tio n s ca n e n jo y th e b e n e f i t s 

r e s u l t i n g from h a v in g p r o t e c te d o u r w e tla n d s .

Th an k yo u f o r a ll o w in g us to h av e t h e o p p o r tu n ity 

t o su b m it o u r co mm en ts to yo u an d th e C om m it te e on t h i s 

p ro g ra m . / " I

W il li a m K. R e il l y 

P r e s i d e n t
457

h GUIDE TO IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS AMD VALUES 

Or FRESHWATER WETLANDS IN THE NORTHEAST

E d it o r - Joseph S. Larso n

We tlan ds Research Team:

John J. Fos te r and T ir a th k. Guota 

Ward S. Motts and R ic h ;- ’ ’ • ” t

W alte r L. Cudnohursky,

J u liu s G. Febos and Rich ard C. Sn.ardon

Joseph S. Larso n and Frank C. Golet

July 1973

The wo rk upon wh ich th is re p ort is based was su pp or ted by vunds 

pr ov ided by the Unite d Sta te s Dep artm ent o f the In te r io r , C fi ic e 

o f Water Resources Researc h, as au th orized under the Water 

Resources. Research Act o f 19^4
458

TABLE OF CON’S LUTS

In tro d u c tio n j

W et land s and Groun dw ater • 5

V Is u a l- C u lt u ra l Va lues o f W et land s 9

W ild lif e and W et land s j2

W etla nds and Floods • ,9

Econom ics o f P re se rv in g In la n d Wetland s fo r W ater Sup ply 17

L it e ra tu r e C it e d 21

App en dice s

A. F re shw ate r W etla nds Map o f M ass ach use tts 22

(na p in p ocket)

B. S u r fic ia l G eolo gic Map o f M as sa ch use tts 25

(map in pocket)

C. Refe re nce s to S u r f ic ia l Ge ology and Groun d Water 29

in M ass ach use tts

0. Sc he du le o f P u b li c a tio n s fo r P ro je c ts WR B-012 33

and B-92 3 Mass.

II
459

WETL ANDS AND GROUND WATER

Ward S. M otts 

and

R ic hard W. Hecley

What Is Ground Water?

Wate r w hic h p e n e tr a te s th e e a rth 's su rf a ce from p r e c ip ita tio n 

and from i n f i l t r a t i o n by str eam s, ponds , and la kes may be b ro a d ly 

d e fi n e d as gro undw ate r. E n try , sto ra g e and movement o f gr ou nd 

w a te r are in fl u e n c e d by s e ve ra l fa c to rs in c lu d in g th e c h a ra c te ris ­

tic s o f s o il s and ro ck s as w e ll as to pogra phy, landsc ape and 

s u rf a c e d ra in a g e .

How are W etland s Rel ate d to Ground Water?

W et land s in M as sach use tts can be c la s s if ie d in to fiv e b a s ic 

c a te g o rie s based on u n d e rly in g d e p o s it s . These in tu rn dete rm in e 

th e n a tu re o f g ro u n d -w a te r o ccu rr e n ce . The appro xim ate perc enta ge 

o f each w etla n d c a te g o ry to th e to ta l are a o f w e tlands in the 

s ta te is as fo ll o w s : t i l l and bedro ck, 29%; s t r a t if ie d d r i f t , 39%; 

a ll u v iu m , 13%; la ke bott om , 16%; and o th e r d e p o s it s , 3%. S t r a t if i e d - d r i f t w etlands in c lu d e v/e tlands on outw ash , ic e -c o n ta c t dep os ­

i t s , g la c ia l la ke d e lt a s , and o th e r per m ea ble d e p o s it s o f g la c io - 

f lu v ia l o r ig in . W etla nds or. o th e r d e p o s it s in c lu d e thos e on p o s tg la c ia l sand s p its , san d du nes , and m arine and e s tu a rin e d e p o s it s . 

Each k in d o f w etla n d re c e iv e s , s to re s and tr a n s m it s w a te r in very 

d i ffe r e n t w ays.

T i l l is th e g e o lo g ic te rm fo r m a te ria l th a t was deposite d 

d ir e c t ly by g la c ia l ic e d u ri n g th e ic e age; bedro ck o r "le d g e " is 

th e te rm fo r h a rd , co m pete nt c r y s t a llin e and s t r a t if ie d ro ck s 

w hic h fo rm th e fo u n d a ti o n o f the la ndscape. Groun d w ate r in be dr o c k - t i l l w etlands occurs in a "p e rc h e d " c o n d it io n above th e 

p o o rly-p e rm e a b le bedro ck and t i l l . The se v/e tlands are u n d e rla in 

by r e la t iv e ly sm all amounts o f w ate r and fo r th e mo st p a rt owe th e ir 

wet c o n d it io n to p e rio d ic flo o d in g and ba ck o v e rflo w . Fo r th e above 

re as on s b e d ro c k - ti11 w e tla n d s are th e le a s t pe rm an en t o f a l l : i . c . , 

th ey can e a s il y lo se t h e ir "w e t" c h a ra c te r in th e a rid p o rtio n o f 

c li m a tic c y c le s . The se v/e tlands do not c o n ta in enough w a te r to 

sup p ly tow ns o r in d u s trie s but th ey may c o n ta in enoug h w ate r fo r 

ad eq ua te dom estic s u p p li e s .

S t r a t if ie d d r i f t (in c lu d in g ou twas h and a s s o c ia te d d e p o s it s ) 

and a ll u v iu m , v/e re la id down by su rf a c e stre am s and r iv e r s . A llu ­

vium was d e p o site d by re c e n t stre am s and s t r a t i f i e d d r i f t was de ­

p o s it e d by st re am s fl o w in g on, o r fr om , g la c ia l ic e . S t r a t if ie d 

d r i f t was w e ll s o rt e d by ru n n in g w ate r and the fin e -g ra in e d s i l t 

and c la y was c a rrie d do wns tre am o r "flu s h e d away" . C onsequently, 

s t r a t if ie d d r i f t has h ig h p o ro s it y and a g re a t c a p a c it y to hold 

and tra n s m it gro un d w a te r.

76-161 0 - 76 - 30
460

In s t r a t i f i c d - d r i f t w e tla n d s end a llu v ia l w e tl a n d s , grou nd 

w a te r occurs in d e p o s it s o f s i l l , sa nd, and g ra v e l un de r w a te rta b le c o n d it io n s ; i . c . , w ate r w i l l n e it h e r r is e nor lo w er in a 

te s t w e ll d r ille d th ro ugh th e s a tu ra te d zo ne . Sonic w e tl a n d - 

a s s o c ia te d d e p o s it s , wh ere ve ry th ic k , have th e c a p a c it y to y ie ld 

la rg e q u a n tit ie s o f w ate r to w e ll s . Because most s t r a t if ie d - 

d r i f t w etlands and some a llu v ia l w etlands are u n d e rla in by la rg e 

q u a n tit ie s o f w ate r in sto ra g e and t r a n s it , th ey are more "p er man e n t" th an b e d r o c k - till w e tl a n d s , i . e . , th ey tend to keep th e ir 

w e tla n d c h a ra c te r th ro ugh changes o f c lim a te o r th ro ugh changes 

o f str eam re gim e.

As w a te r from the m e lt in g g la c ie rs d e p osite d it s bu rden o f 

san d and g ra v e l, fin e g ra in s o f s i l t and c la y commonly st ayed 

suspende d in the m elt w a te r u n t il th e w ate r e n te re d a n c ie n t 

g la c ia l la ke s. At one tim e th ese la ke s we re numerous and In ­

clu ded la rg e ar ea s such as th e M as sa ch use tts p o rtio n o f the 

C o n n e cticu t R iv er V a ll e y and Hockomoc Swamp in S outh easte rn 

M ass ach use tts wh ere s i l t and c la y s lo w ly s e ttle d out to fo rm f in e ­

g ra in e d la ke -b o tt o m d e p o s it s . Most o f th ese la ke s d ra in e d and 

" d rie d up" when th e ir o u tle t st re am s er od ed th ro ugh dams o f g la c ia l 

d e b ris o r where th e r e tr e a t o f th e g la c ie r re s u lt e d in w a te r fl o w ­

in g away from th e la ke .

Two h y d ro g e o lo g ic a ll y d if f e r e n t ty pes o f w etlands occur on 

la ke beds o f fi n e -g ra in e d s i l t . As in b e d r o c k - till w e tl a n d s , some 

la ke -b e d w etlands are c h a ra c te riz e d by a s h a llo w "p e rc h e d " w ate r 

zone fe d by flo o d in g s u rf a c e str eam s; co n se qu e n tly, th ese w etlands 

can be r e a d il y m o d if ie d by ch an ces o f c li m a te o r str eam fl o w and 

are le ss "p erm anent" . The se cond ty pe is the most "p erm anent" o f 

a l l w e tla n d s because i t is c h a ra c te riz e d by a deep zone o f a rte s ia n 

w a te r below the s e m i- c o n fi n in g la ke be ds . The so urc e o f the a rte ­

sia n w a te r zone is commonly from a la rg e su rr o u n d in g are a and 

th e re fo re a ffe c te d to a m in or de gr ee by changes in c li m a te o r lo c a l 

st re am flo w . The de ep er zone o f a rte s ia n w a te r is u s u a ll y un de r 

pre ssu re and consequently th e w a te r s lo w iy p e rc o la te s upward 

th ro ugh th e cla ys to fo rm a s h a llo w pe rche d w a te r zone on to p o f 

th e c la y s . T his ste ady re charg e from th e de ep er zone keeps the 

w e tl a n d in a co n sta n t "w e t" c o n d it io n . T his sh a llo w perc hed w ate r 

c o n d it io n may a ls o occur in w in d-b lo w n san ds o r o th e r s h a llo w unc o n s o li d a te d sedim ents .

What S p e c if ic C r ite r ia Dete rm in e Groun d- W ater Va lues ?

Tile fo ll o w in g c r it e r ia a re u s e fu l fo r e v a lu a ti n g th e edeauacy 

o f w e tlands fo r g ro und-w ate r sup p ly i f the geolo gy o f the wetl a n d 

ar ea i s known and ? f te s t w e ll s ha ve been d r i li e d i n. to th e we 11 and 

and te st- pum ped.

TRANSMISSI VI TY: the a b i l i t y o f a w a te r- b e a ri n g fo rm a ti o n or 

a q u if e r to tr a n s m it w a te r to w e ll s .

STORAGE: the amount o f w a te r in sto ra ge and a v a il a b le fo r 

pu mping .
461

QL'ALI.TY.:

 q u a lity o f gr ou nd w ate r u n d e rly in g w etlands (chemic a l and b io lo g ic a l q u a lity mu st meet P u b li c H e a lth s ta n ­

dard s) .

In lie u o f te s t d r i l l i n g and o th e r d e ta il e d in fo rm a ti o n to 

a c c u ra te ly dete rm in e th ese c r it e r ia , an in d ir e c t and ve ry roug h 

e s ti m a te o f gro u n d -w a te r s u p p lie s in w e tlands can be made u sin g 

two c r i t e r i a :

1. Me asurem ents o f base fl o w o f st re am s fl o w in g o u t 

o f w e tl a n d s . I f the stream (o r stream s) le a v in g 

th e w e tla n d has a much g re a te r fl o w chan when 

e n te rin g , th e re p ro b a b ly is c o n s id e ra b le gro undw ate r movement and sto ra g e benea th th e w e tl a n d .

2. E xam in ation o f s u r f ic ia l geolo gy from p u b lish e d 

maps o r unpublished g e o lo g ic in fo rm a ti o n in 

s ta te and fe d e ra l f ile s is a ro ug h in dex o f th e 

p r o d u c tiv it y o f a q u if e rs u n d e rly in g w e tla n d s.

The h ig h e s t- y ie ld in g a q u if e rs o ccu r in pe rm ea ble 

d e p o s it s o f sand and g ra v e l such as g la c ia l o u twash p la in s , ic e -c o n ta c t d e p o s it s , and co ars e 

a ll u v iu m . Some o f th e a q u if e r s , howeve r,’ may be 

b u ri e d benea th impe rm ea ble la y e rs su ch as s i l t 

and c la y o f g la c ia l la ke beds and th e a id o f a 

tra in e d g e o lo g is t should be sought to h e lp in 

u sin g th e maps. In M as sach use tts about on eth ir d o f th e s ta te is co vere d by d e ta il e d ge olo g ic maps (p u b lis h e d o r on f i l e in th e Bo ston 

o f f ic e o f th e U. S. G e o lo g ic a l Surv ey) and our 

stu d y has pr od uc ed a g e n e ra li z e d s u r f ic i a l 

geolo gy map fo r th e e n tir e s ta te (e n c lo s e d ).

B e n e fi ts to Man and Some P re ca u tio n s

H yd ro g e o lo g ic s tu d ie s in d ic a te th a t w e tla n d s are a v a lu a b le 

p o te n tia l sourc e o f grou nd w a te r. The num ber o f w etlands u nderla in by p ro d u c ti v e gro und-w ate r s u p p li e s is la rg e . The a c tu a l 

perc enta ge can be dete rm in ed o n ly a f t e r f ie ld s tu d ie s , bu t our 

s tu d ie s in d ic a te th a t th is may be in th e o rd e r o f 40 -5 0 p e rc e n t. 

A t le a s t 60 M assa chuse tts c it ie s and tow ns have m u n ic ip le w a te r 

p ro d u c ti o n w e ll s in o r very ne ar w e tl a n d s . At a tim e when in ­

cre a s in g s tr e s s e s from p o p u la ti o n , w it h a tt e n d a n t ur ba n and in ­

d u s tr ia l develo pm ent, are causin g more w a te r demands, th e gro undw ate r occurr e n ce in w etlands is r e la t iv e ly u n re cogniz ed. Imp ro per deve lo pm ent th re a te n s to s e rio u s ly im p a ir th is re so u rc e . 

For exa m ple , th e im pro per p la c in g o f la n d f ills can cause q u a li ty 

d e te r io r a tio n o f w e tl a n d a q u if e rs . U n re s tric te d urba n d e ve lo p ­

ment can "c o n c re te o v e r" c r i t i c a l a q u if e r a re a s, p re v e n ti n g in ­

f i l t r a t i o n o f ra in and sn ow-m elt to re charg e g ro und-w ate r sto ra g e
462

etland s are an in te g ra l p a rt o f th ? h y d ro lo g ic system and 

th ey fu n c tio n fo r th e b e n e fit o f man in o th e r im p o rt a n t wa ys.

The low, f l a t su rf a ce s o f w etlands g a th e r ru n o ff from adja ce nt 

h i l l s and a ll o w the w a te r le v e l to b u il d up as th ey s lo w ly re ­

le ase w ate r to str eam s, re d u cin g peak flo o d fl o w s . A fte r w e tlands are fl o o d e d , th ey may re ch arg e w a te r- b e a ri n g fo rm a tio n s 

o r a q u if e rs fo r severa l wee ks . For an eve n lo n g e r p e rio d , w e tla nd w ate r sto ra g e augm ents th e lo w -f lo w s o f str eam s.

W etland s a ls o d is ch a rg e c o n s id e ra b le amounts o f w ate r 

th ro ugh e va p o ra ti o n from pools o f sta n din g w a te r, from s o il 

m ois tu re and th ro ugh tra n s p o rta tio n o f w a te r by p la n ts . Whereas re charg e o f w a te r is in te r m itte n t, th is d is ch a rg e is c o n tin ­

uo us . G re a te st d is ch a rg e occurs d u ri n g th e summer mo nth s in th e 

gro w in g se as on . The to ta l amount o f w a te r d is ch a rg e d d u rin g the 

year is ro u g h ly equal to th e amount o f re ch arg e (u nder a con sta n t 

p r e c ip ita tio n re g im e ). Ho wev er, the ti m in g and manner o f d is ­

ch ar ge can v a ry , p a r t ic u la r ly i f man e n te rs th e sy ste m . W e lls , 

fo r exa mple, can cause a g re a te r a r t i f i c i a l d is ch a rg e o f w ate r 

and reduce n a tu ra l d is c h a rg e . Many w etlands are g ro und-w ate r 

d is ch a rg e ar eas wh ere man can c a r e fu ll y and s u c c e s s fu ll y com pete 

w it h n a tu re fo r h is sh are o f th e d is c h a rg e . Ho we ve r, man must 

n o t overd evelo p th e g ro u n d -w a te r s u p p lie s by pump ing more than 

th e "s a fe y ie ld " o f the a q u if e r . The "s a fe y ie ld " is th a t amount 

o f w a te r th a t can be pumped w it h o u t d e p le ti n g th e a q u if e r o r 

w it h o u t im p a ir in g th e w a te r q u a li ty o f the a q u if e r. A ls o , man 

should not ove rpu mp so th a t w a te r le v e ls are lo were d to the depth 

th a t w etlands "d ry up" o r lo se c h a ra c te r is tic s th a t make them 

d e s ir a b le fo r w i l d l i f e , v is u a l and c u lt u r a l re asons. These lim it s 

can o n ly be dete rm in ed by c a re fu l f ie ld g e o lo g ic s tu d ie s .
463

ECONOMICS OF PRESERVING INLAND WETLANDS FOR WATER SUPPLY

T Ir a th R. Gupta and John H. F oste r

When eco nom ists co nsid er p re s e rv a ti o n o f a n a tu ra l re sourc e 

such as a w e tl a n d , thev th in k o f th e p o te n tia l o f th e re sourc e to 

c o n trib u te to s o c ia l and econom ic w e lf a re . W et land s may be p ro ­

d u c ti v e in both m a te ria l and no n m a te ri al way s. They may be co ns id e re d v a lu a b le as h a b it a t fo r w i l d l i f e , th ey nay have v is u a lc u lt u r a l v a lu e s , a c t as b u ff e rs a g a in s t flo o d s , may po ssess b io ­

lo g ic a l and e d u ca ti o n a l v a lu e s , be so urc es o f w ate r s u p p ly , and 

p ro v id e re c re a tio n a l o p p o rtu n it ie s .

M ost , b u t n o t a l l , o f th ese b e n e fit s are in ta n g ib le and t h e ir 

valu es ca nnot e a s il y be measured and expre ss ed in term s o f mon ey.

In o th e r w ord s, pre serv ed w etlands c o n s tit u te im p o rt a n t common 

p ro p e rty re so u rc e s, but th e b e n e fit s from them w i l l not be id e n t ifie d and p ric e d by the e s ta b li s h e d m ark et me chanism .

The ro le o f th e eco nom ist in such a s it u a tio n is to develo p 

metho ds o f making co mpa ris on s between b e n e fit s to s o c ie ty o f w e tla nd p re s e rv a ti o n and th e b e n e fit s re ce iv e d by s o c ie ty when w e tla nd are as are cha nged to some o th e r use by f i l l i n g , d ra in in g , o r 

flo o d in g . These la t t e r b e n e fit s a re c a ll e d th e o p p o rtu n it y costs 

o f p re s e rv in g w etlands because th ey are b e n e fit s w hic h s o c ie ty 

g iv e s up o r does w it h o u t ir. o rd e r to p re serv e w e tla n d s. To a r r iv e 

a t the o p p o rtu n it y costs o f p re s e rv in g d if f e r e n t ty pes o f w etlands 

in d if f e r e n t lo c a ti o n s th ro ughout th e s ta te ., th e m ar ke t p ric e o f 

such land s is bein g used as a ba se . T his p ro v id e s a good me asure 

o f th e b u y e r's e x p e c ta ti o n s o f re tu rn s from a lte r a tio n o f th e w e tla nd in q u e s ti o n . The lo g ic here is th a t someone w i l l buy a w e tla nd fo r develo pm enta l pu rpos es o n ly i f th e expecte d an nu al re tu rn 

from such usage is g re a te r than o r equal to th e in te re s t th e money 

p aid fo r i t wou ld earn a n n u a lly when in ve ste d els ew here .

To be a ble to measure the s o c ia l b e n e fit s from pre serv ed w e tla n d s, th e eco nom ist must wo rk w it h o th e r d is c ip lin e s . Once th e 

data on b e n e fit s and o p p o rtu n it y c o sts are o b ta in e d , co m pariso ns 

can be made to a r r iv e a t e co n o m ic a lly v ia b le d e c is io n s w heth er to 

pre serv e o r to a lt e r w e tla n d s. In th is s tu d y , me asure s o f w ild ­

l i f e , v is u a 1- c u 1t u r a I , flo o d c o n tro l and w a te r supply b e n e fit s 

from pre serv ed w etlands are bein g develo ped. A t th is s ta g e , we 

can p ro v id e one exam ple to illu s t r a t e th e appro ach.

T his exam ple is based on an exa m in a tio n o f w a te r su p p ly eco ­

nomics o f w etlands w hic h l ie over goo d a c q u if e rs . From th is we 

are moved to suggest th a t a m u n ic ip a li ty can a ffo rd to pay $6 0,000 

o r more per acre fo r w etlands w hic h have a h ig h p o te n tia l fo r 

m u n ic ip a l w ate r s u p p ly . Moreo ver th is may h o ld tr u e fo r as much 

as 50 p e rc e n t o f th e w etlands in M assachusetts. The ap proa ch is 

to use th e co st o f w a te r supply from a lte r n a tiv e so urc es to serv e 

as a b a sis fo r a r r iv in g a t th e m on eta ry valu e o f w a te r supply

17
464

from wells in preserved wetland s. To do th is we assume that water 

is availa ble , fo r a p a rt ic u la r community, from anoth er source at 

an equal dista nce from the we tland.

The U. S. Geological Survey has ca lculate d the cost of su pp lying water from well fi e ld s in the North A tl a n ti c Region (Cederstrom, 

1970). Th eir study examined w ells ranging from 300 to 1,400 

ga llo ns per minute (gpm) in yie ld and from 75 fe et to 200 feet in 

depth . The cost of water per 1,000 ga llo ns per day (gpd) at the 

well head was ca lc ulate d by m ultip ly in g the capital costs by an 

am ortizatio n fa cto r of 4.625 perce nt to find the annual am ortizatio n charge; and adding the annual maintenance charge to ob tain the 

annual co st . This figure was divided by 365 days and then by the 

number o f thousands of gallo ns of water pumped per day. Added to 

th is was the cost of pumping the water at the ra te o f (£) $0.0009 

per 1,000 ga llo ns (Cederstrom , 1970). The cost figure s thus c a lcu lated ranged from $0.0204 to $0.0221. On the average, th is means 

a cost of 2.12c per 1,000 ga llo ns of wa ter.

Since these calc ula tions were based on 1968 conditio ns, we 

have in fla te d the figure o f 2.12c by 15 percent to re fl e c t the rise 

in capital equipment price s and pumping costs .U Th is produces an 

estim ated cost figure of 2.44c per 1,000 gpd. at the w ell head fo r 

1972.

This figure accounts fo r am ortiz ing the capital costs of comp le tin g the w e ll, maintaining and replac ing the equipment, as needed, and the pumping co sts. Since i t does not cover the cost of 

management, we added 0.33C per 1,000 gp d., based on experience in 

the town of Amherst.2/ This raises the to ta l cost to 2.7 7( per 

1,000 gpd. at the well head.

^The choice of the corr ection fa cto r was based on an appro xim ation 

of the rise in the general index of wholesale pr ices in the 

United Sta tes between the years 1968-1972.

^The su bjec t of cost of management of a well was discussed with 

some personnel of the Water Supply and D is tr ib u tio n Divis ion of 

the Department of Pub lic Works in Amherst. They hold th a t, on 

an average, i t takes ap prox im ately one man hour per day to manage 

( l.e . ro ut ine checkin g, e tc .) a well and the person i,s paid approxim ately $4.00 an hour. Given th is in fo rm ation, the figure was 

arr iv ed at as fo llow s:

$

(a) Management expenses per w ell per day. 4.00

(b) Management expenses per 1,000 ga llo ns of wa ter 

with a dis charg e ca pacity of (300 + 1 ,400) or

2

850 gpm. or 1,224,000 ga llo ns per day, i. e . $4 0.0033

18
465

At th is J u n c tu re , we can assume th a t a c e n tra l d is t r ib u t io n 

p o in t fo r a town is lo c a te d a t a d is ta n c e o f 4-5 mi ic s from the 

w e ll head and em ploys a 12 " p ip e . Give n th ese assum ptions, p lu s 

th e fa c ts th a t the fix e d c o s t o f la y in g a 12" p ip e is a p p ro xim a te ­

ly $ 14 per ru nnin g fo o t and th a t a p ip e o f th is s iz e can c a rry 3- 4 

m illio n g a ll o n s o f w a te r per day per 4-5 m ile s o f d is ta n c e , th e 

tra n s p o rta tio n co st work s o u t to be in th e neig hborh ood o f l. 5 < 

per 1,00 0 gpd.2 / When added to th e p re v io u s fig u re o f 2.7 7< , th is 

means th a t th e co st o f w ate r supply to a to wn, a t it s c e n tra l d is ­

t r ib u tio n p o in t, would be 4.27 $ per 1,00 0 gp d.

We re cogniz e th a t th is g e n e ra li z e d fig u re ca nnot be a p p li e d 

to a ll s it u a tio n s due to g e o lo g ic a l d if fe re n c e s and v a ria tio n s in 

p ric e s o f equip m ent. I t is , howev er , u s e fu l fo r br oad p la n n in g 

pu rp os es and se rv es as our ba sis fo r a r r iv in g a t w ate r supply be ne f it s from w e tl a n d s.

An a lte r n a tiv e sourc e o f w ate r fo r some tow ns whose w e tlands 

have been d e str o ye d , is th e M e tr o p o li ta n D is t r ic t Comm ission (MDC). 

The Comm ission charg es th e tow ns 12$ per 1,00 0 g a ll o n s , ir re s p e c ­

tiv e o f th e d is ta n c e o f t h e ir c e n tra l d is t r ib u t io n p o in t from the 

ma in r e s e r v o ir .I f T h is ra te has been e ffe c tiv e sin ce 1962 (MDC, 

1971, P. 7 ).

We can now comp are th is 12 cents w it h th e 4.2 7 cents per 1,00 0 

g a ll o n s w hic h w e ll w a te r from t h e ir own wet la nds would co st the 

to wns. The d if fe re n c e is 7*73 cents o r , in annual te rm s, about 

$2 8.0 0 per 1,00 0 gp d. T his fig u re o f $28.0 0 re p re s e n ts th e d i f f e r ­

ence between th e y e a rly c o s t o f gro undw ate r fr om w etlands and from 

a co n ve nie n t (and p ro b a b ly th e cheapest) a lte r n a tiv e sourc e. In 

o th e r w ord s, i f a m u n ic ip a li ty p o ll u te s o r d e s tr o y s it s w a te r-b e a rin g w e tl a n d s , th us mak ing th is so urc e o f w ate r u n a v a il a b le i t is 

fo rc in g i t s e l f to pay $2 8.0 0 every ye a r fo r each 1,00 0 g a ll o n s o f 

w ate r consumed per day.

^The fig u re was a rriv e d a t as fo ll o w s :

(a ) Fix ed c o s t o f la y in g 12 " p ip e o f 5 m ile s in

le n g th @ $14 per ru n n in g fo o t $365,6 00.0 0 (b ) A m o rti z a ti o n c o s t per day £ 4 5 /8 p e rc e n t per

y e a r, i. e . (F ix e d Co st X 4.6 3)

(100 X 365) 46.8 8 (c ) Co st o f tra n s p o rtin g 1, 00 0 g a ll o n s o f w a te r per

day fo r v a ry in g e s ti m a te s o f c a rry in g c a p a c it y 

o f th e p ip e , i . e . (A m o rti z a ti o n Co st X 1,0 00 )

C a rr y in g C a p a city o f th e Pipe

( i) W ith c a rry in g c a p a c it y o f 3 m illio n g a ll o n s 0. 01 56

( i l ) W ith c a rry in g c a p a c it y o f 4 m illio n g a ll o n s 0.0 11 7

A re asonable e s ti m a te based on th e la s t two fig u re s 

ap pe ar s to be 0.0 15

l*This is th e ra te ch arg ed to th ir t y - t w o tow ns and c it ie s in th e MDC's 

w ate r d i s t r i c t . S p e c ia l ag re em en ts w it h te n o th e r c it ie s and towns 

r e s u lt in lo w er charg es fo r v a ri o u s re asons. The ma in reas on is th a t 

th ese to w n s /c it ie s f a l l in MDC's w ate rs hed a re a .

19
466

t sh ould be notc J th a t th e HOC is lo s in g $3"4 m illio n a year 

on it s w ate r supply a cco u nt. T his gap is expect ed to in cre ase i f 

th e c u rre n t ra te o f 12 ce n ts co n tin ue s (B oston Eve ning Globe , 1971, 

p. 22) and a tt e m p ts have been made to ra is e th e ra te to 16< per 

1,00 0 g a ll o n s (HOC, 19 71, p. 1)- A town th a t w is hes to be ne wly 

a d m itte d to th e MDC's w a te r d i s t r i c t is a ls o fa ce d w it h an e n tr ance 

fe e o f a t le a s t $2 50 ,000 p lu s a p o rtio n o f th e c o n s tru c tio n costs 

o f a new p ip e li n e and pump ing s ta tio n .

R etu rn in g to w e tl a n d s , we see th a t th e fig u re o f $28 is a 

c o n s e rv a ti v e e s ti m a te o f th e di ff e re n c e between c o s ts o f w etland 

w ate r and w a te r from an a lte r n a tiv e sourc e. In th e fu tu re , th is 

d if fe re n c e may ris e to be twee n $43 and $298 per 1,0 00 gp d. per 

y e a r. The $43 e s ti m a te is based on th e prop os ed in cre ased co st 

o f MDC w ate r supply (1 6c per 1,00 0 g a ll o n s ) w h il e th e $298 fig u re 

is based on th e minimum e sti m a te d co st o f 86c fo r pro ducin g the 

same q u a n tit y o f w ate r by d e s a li n a ti o n from p la n ts o f a t le a s t 

one m il lio n g a ll o n s c a p a c it y per day (MAPC, 1971, p. 2 4 ). Fo r the 

p re s e n t, ho wev er , $28 per ye ar fo r each 1,00 0 g a ll o n s o f w ate r per 

day ap pe ars to be a s u it a b le fig u re fo r our purp oses.

A t th is sta ge i t would be d e s ir a b le to have e x te n s iv e data on 

th e w ate r supply p o te n tia l o f d if f e r e n t c a te g o rie s o f w e tl a n d s. 

M as sa ch use tts la cks th is in fo rm a tio n , b u t i t is n o t unre asonable 

to say th a t some w etlands can p ro v id e 1,0 00,0 00 g a ll o n s o f w a te r 

per d a y .5 / In such an in s ta n c e the w ate r Is w o rt h $2 8,000 per 

y e a r. Assuming a ty p ic a l w etla n d o f te n acr es in s iz e , th ese be ne f i t s wou ld be $2, 80 0 per acre o f w e tl a n d s . I f 4.6 25 perc ent is 

consid ere d as th e c a p ita liz a tio n ra te o f in te r e s t, a town e x p e c tin g in cre ased w ate r nee ds in th e fu tu re can b e n e fit by purc hasin g 

and savin g th is w etland as long as it s p ric e per acre is be lqw 

$60,5 40. I f an MDC charg e o f 16c per 1,00 0 g a ll o n s is c o n sid e re d , 

th e e q u iv a le n t fig u re w ould be $93,0 00- This im p li e s th a t th e re ­

ch ar ge ar ea s a re le g a ll y p ro te c te d so th a t th e w a te r in the w e tla nds w i l l remain u n p o ll u te d .

For d e ta il e d ec on om ic analy ses u n d e rly in g th is and re la te d 

aspects o f our re se a rc h , c o n s u lt pa pe rs by th e a u th o rs in 

Appendix D.

^M otts and H e cle y, g e o lo g is ts co o p e ra ti n g in th is p ro je c t have e stim ate d th a t h ig h g ro u n d w a te r-y ie ld in g s t r a t if ie d d r i f t and la ke 

bottom d e p o s it s u n d e rla in by sand and g ra ve l occu r un de r as much 

as 50 p e rc ent o f M ass ach use tts w e tl a n d s . The w a te r p ro d u c ti o n 

c a p a c it y (s a fe y ie ld ) o f such w etlands v a rie s fr om 0.2 5 to 3 mgd. 

W hile fu tu re and more d e ta il e d s tu d ie s to dete rm in e th e w ate r 

p ro d u c ti o n c a p a c it y o f d if f e r e n t c a te g o rie s o f w etlands arc ne ed ­

ed, i t is e v id e n t th a t th e fig u re o f one mgd here is not un reas on 

a b le .

20
467

Re sear ch Rep or ter - F a ll 1975

U n iv ersi ty o f Ge orgia

Pricing The 

Natural Environment

by Dr. Eugene P Odum

H O W M U CH IS IT WO RT H IN HARD CA SH 

TO LEAVE OUR SALT MARSHES ALO NE ?

Cost accou nting for industrial , com' 

mercial and residential developmen t of 

prope rty is well established in the 

United States. Deve lopers can bring 

strong pressures to bear because of 

the nearly universal accep tance of 

evaluation techniques which show the 

cash value of a particular managemen t 

alternat ive.

Against these evalu ation techniques 

conserv ationists and natural resources 

economists have been at a disad vantage because of the difficulty of tran slating the value of natural or undeveloped areas into mon etary terms. 

Frequently, the alternative management decision of leaving land in its 

natural state is not adequ ately or 

seriously considered.

As a step toward realistic economic 

evaluation of the natura l or “undeveloped” environm ent. Dr. James 

Gosselink and R. M. Pope of Lousiana State University and I have calculated monetary values for mars hlands and estuaries of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. We considered 

four different aspects that might be 

used as a basis for computi ng dollar 

values for given areas of coasta l estuaries: ( 1 ) by-prod uct production 

(fisheries , et c. ), ( 2 ) potential for 

aquac ultura l developm ent, ( 3 ) waste 

assimilation values, ( 4 ) total lifesupport value in term s of “work of 

nature ” as a function of prim ary production. (Se e Tabl e )

The annual return per acre of fisheries that involves the harvest of naturally produced anima ls is based on 

summing average dockside 'value of 

fish and shellfish, “valu e adde d" in 

processing, Fish and Wildlife Services’ 

estimate for the value of sport fishing, 

and dividing by num ber of acres of 

estauries that provide the nursery

groun ds for the harvest. The somewhat 

higher return for aqua culture is 

based on oyste r-raft yields obtained 

at Bears Bluff Laboratory , South 

Caro lina.

Values based on waste treatment 

work were calculated from the costs 

of secondar y and tertia ry trea tme nt in 

waste teat men t plants built and maintaine d by man. Fo r exam ple, very 

large amo unts of phosphates can be 

assimil ated by an estuary where vigorou s tidal action is n ot impeded without apprecia ble effect on water quality 

because such an active system stores 

and recycles nutr ients with great efficiency. The value for natu ral waste 

treating is calculated from cost of such 

trea tme nt in tertiary plants. In other 

words, this is what man would have 

to pay if the estuary were not available to do this work free.

Finally, the estimate of a dolla r 

value for total life sup por t was calculated by dividing the annual gross 

primay prod uction rate expr essed as 

kilocalories by IO 1—a round figure 

factor repre sent ing the number of kilocalories equiva lent to one dolla r. Since 

produ ctivity is a measu re of a natural 

system’s capacity to do all lynds of 

useful wor k— such as waste treat men t, 

carb on dioxide abso rptio n, oxygen 

production, raising shrimp , suppo rting 

waterfowl, protecting cities and beac hes from storms, providing tran spo rtation and so on— then converting work 

energy to money is a quick and convenient way of evaluating the whole 

function of a given natura l system.

The value of estuaries for waste assimilation and general life sup port is 

far grea ter than that accruin g from byprod ucts . as would be expe cted, since 

the latt er repre sents only a fraction of 

work energy potential. In the past.
468

conservationists have attempted to 

jus tify preservation on economic 

value solely on such by-products uses, 

often inflating such values beyond 

reality. It is obvious that such partial 

evaluation not only cannot match real 

estate values (based on conversion of 

natural area to housing or factories), 

but they represent only a frac tion of 

the real value of natural environment.

There are, of course, still other 

values of an esthetic and scenic nature that are not included in these 

economic evaluations. While most of 

us will agree that esthetic values can 

never adequately be translated into 

dollars, there are approximations that 

- can be helpful. I recently asked a 

developer who is trying to “ design 

with nature” to estimate the price he 

will charge for property with a view 

of the marshes and waterways, as 

compared with property without such 

a view. He replied that the former 

would be priced about twice that of 

the latter. Thus, we could use this increment in calculating “ value added” 

for a permanently preserved natural 

area that is adjacent to developed 

residential property.

Demonstrating that marshlands and 

estuaries have a substantial dollar 

value in their natural state certainly 

provides a big boost to preservation 

of such areas that are in public 

ownership. If large values, such as 

those in our table, are generally recognized and accepted, then state or federal agencies or commissions which 

have jurisdiction over the prop erty or 

resource will be less likely to lease, 

file away, or sell valuable marshlands 

for capricious development. Also, 

planners will have a greater incentive 

and public support for zoning such 

areas into permanent protective categories.

On the other hand, if the marshland is in private ownership, the 

owner will stand to gain by selling for

development no matter how high the 

appraisal, since leaving the area in its 

natural state earns the owner little or 

no return. The dichotomy of interests 

between the value to the owner and 

the value to the society becomes an 

increasingly serious problem as population growth and industrial development accelerate. The pricing system 

as it now stands offers no solution to

this problem since development becomes essentially an irreversible action. Thus, even though the value of 

marshland increases as it becomes 

scarcer, to an eventual point that its 

life-support value could outbid other 

land uses, there is no way to convert 

the previous development back to the 

former (and now more valuable) 

state. The irony of dependence on the 

price system is that it can make a 

reasonable-sounding argument for developing marshland (and it can offer 

an argument that a point will be 

reached when the land should be converted back to marsh), but it cannot 

effectively recreate marshland, a very 

expensive process, even if it were 

technically possible.

Evaluation of marshland as a renewable resource (e.g., as an income 

stream stretching into the future and 

increasing continually) represents 

one way to alleviate the destructive 

tendency inherent in the pricing system as it now operates. The time has 

come to seek ways to let the owners 

of natural resources with value to 

society receive a return. Direct purchase by government is one solution, 

of course; scenic or open-space easement and tax relief are other approaches. Setting up wetland “ banks” 

where the owner is paid (o r relieved 

of the tax burd en) not to develop 

(as in soil banks) is perhaps a feasible “ delayed option” procedure in 

cases where outright purchase cannot 

be made at a particular time. In New 

Zealand a new national law requires 

that an owner of coastal property 

must deed a 100-ft. strip back from 

high tide line to the state to be preserved in its natural condition in 

order to obtain a permit to develop 

the rest of his property. In this way 

both value to society and to the 

individual are preserved in a sort of 

compromise.

The best solution is a “ look ahead” 

land-use which delimits the amount 

and location of life-support natural 

areas that will be necessary to support a future desirable level of population density, industrial and recreational development. Such areas can 

then be acquired or zoned into the 

public domain before the spiral of 

land speculation raises the market 

price beyond reason. ☆
arsh-Estua ry Dol lar Values as De termined by Various Methods of Ev aluation.

Basis for Ev alu ation

Annual Return

per acre

Income-C apitalisation

Va lue per Acre

(a t Interest rate S'*)

(1) Co mm ercia l h Sports Fisheries * 100 » 3.000

<3> Aquaculture Potential

(a ) Modera te oys ter culture

level

<b) Intensive oys ter ra ft

culture

630

1473

12.000

31400

(3 ) Waste Tr ea tm en t

(a ) Secondary

(b ) Phosphorous removal!

(c ) Adjusted te rtia ry *

200

930

MOO

3400

19.000

50.000

(4) Max im um Non-C ompetltlve

Summ ation of Values

(a ) 1 + 3c

<b) 3b + 3c

MOO

4.075

52.000

01,000

<3> To tal Life-S upport Va lue * 4.100 02.000

•Mean of values from two studies (see wo rk paper referre d to la footnote at beginning of this

ar tic le).

•Baaed on a BO D loading of 3.3 Ib /d ay /a cr e, a lev el that can be ass imilated by an ave rage

estuary without app rec iab ly deg rad ing wa ter qu ality . Man y estuaries are now assim ilating fa r

m ore than th ia ; disch ar ge In to 5 m id -A tlantic est uar ie s avera ges 19 « lb da y ac re The cost of

co m plete te rti a ry tr e atm en t of this am ou nt fo r one year wou ld be t i t . 000. m aki ng the

ln com e-c apltallre d value of these n atu ra l systems mor e th an S200.000 for each and every acre

•See te xt fo r cal cula tion ba se d on gross p rim ary pr od uc tio n
470

e p r in t e d f r o m PROCEEDINGS 

FIS H AND WILD LIFE VALUES OP 

THE ESTUARINE HABITAT - A 

se m in a r f o r t h e p e tr o le u m 

I n d u s t r y .B u r e a u S p o r t F is h 

an d W i l d l i f e .A t l a n t a , G a . 1 9 7 3 

A DESCRIPTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT OF SOUTH ATLANTIC

AND GULF COAST MARS HES AND ESTUARIES

Dr. Eugene P. Odum 

University of Georgia 

Athens, Georgia

The nature and value of a particular estuary Is determined, to a 

considerable extent, by two considerations (l) geomorphological structure, 

and (2) the nature and magnitude of the energy "forcing functions" that 

directly or indirectly effect the metabolism of the ecosystem.

Georgia and adjacent south Atlantic estuaries are good examples 

of the coastal plain barrier island, or "bar built", class of estuaries.

The bars that partially enclose the estuary vary from narrow sand strips 

to well-formed "sea islands", as is characteristic of the Georgia coast.

Because the topography in this geomorphological class is ver y flat, 

water moves in great sheets over long distances. In Georgia, the tidal 

amplitude is especially large so that there is an enormous impact of 

tidal energy. These bar-built estuaries can be best thought of as energyabsorbing systems, and this is the key to understanding and management.

Georgia estuaries, as well as mo st others, are naturally subsidized 

ecosystems in which productivity is enhanced by the extra energy "subsidy" 

of water movement, much in the same way that energy of stirring and pumping 

increases the metabolism of an oxidation pond. The entire tideland 

complex of barrier islands, marshes, creeks and river mouths are linked 

together into a single operational unit. Each part of the system is 

dependent for its life-sustaining energy, not only on the direct ray of 

the sun, but to varying degrees on the energy of the tides. Organisms 

in these estuaries are adapted not only to cope with the stresses produced 

by tidal flow, but also to utilize this energy to promote their own growth
471

and productivity.

Aa shown In Table 1, the highest productivity In the salt marsh

segment of the estuary occurs where tidal Irrigation la greatest.

Thus, these estuarine ecosystems routinely explolf'tldal power" as men

have dreamed of for centuries. Therefore, It would be prudent

for man to design his structure In such s way as not block or reduce

this natural energy flow. It Is also Important to recognise and

provide special protection for zones In the system that are especlelly

productive and also those that are especially sensitive or vulnerable

to man-made developments.

In terms of a broader ecological classification we often use the

term "fluctuating water-level ecosystem" for the kind of natural order

found In estuaries. The Everglades with Its annual "tides", draw-down

fish ponds and rice paddles are other examples where the rise and fall

of water are vital to the maintenance of certain species and the

enhancement of their productivity. This concept also became lesson No. 1

when It comes to practical matters of management. Terrestrial man,

accustomed to the "terra flrma", tends neither to understand the dynamism

nor appreciate the beauty of these ecosystems; as a result he tends to

want to confront the forces with artificial barriers and try and stabilize

the environment because It's often Inconvenient when the landscape doesn't

stand still, especially to a race of men with a strong property-owning

ethic. Gradually the public, and even the powerful governmental agencies,

such as the Army engineers who are sometimes too much nourished b v pork

barrel politics, are beginning to realize that confronting high energy

forces head-on requires a great deal of monev. Even more Important,

blocking or stabilizing the flow removes the useful energy input along
472

with the atr ee afu l, res ult in g In an Immediate dec line In pr od uct iv ity.

The energy absorbing system then becomes an energy blo cking system tha t 

la vulnera ble to er os io n and washouts when storms come. The Idea Is 

thus dawning tha t It Ju st might be cheaper and maybe even bet te r to 

design wit h tha grain rather than ag ai ns t I t .

The stru ctur e of the tld alan d ecosystem la shown In a very 

sketchy manner In Figure 1. Thia sketc h rela te s to Georg ia, but could 

apply to most south A tlantic and Gulf co as t est u a rie s. The extant and 

Importance of cones may vary widely ove r the sou thern co ast al zon e. On 

the Gulf co ast , and al ao North Carolina ther e are more lagoona and le ss 

marsh behind tha barr ie rs . In areas of Lo uisia na , the fresh and bra ckish

water marshes are more ex te nsi ve than the sa lt marshe s. Pr in ci pa l zones 

are Indic ate d and b r ie fl y describ ed In the leg end. The beach and act iv e 

dunes, and the marshes are tha se n sit iv e zones bec ause they re ce iv e and 

must absorb tid a l and als o storm energy head on. These are the zones 

that must ba preserv ed in a na tural co nd itio n, not on ly to Insure high 

production for tbs whola sys tem , but to pr ot ec t man-made developments 

on lslen da and mainland sh or es . Tha f u t ilit y of tr vlng to confr ont na tural 

forces with sea w all s, e t c ., Is becoming more ev id en t as we observe the 

fa ilu re s of pea t e ffo r ts. For example, It Is now cle ar tha t no r ig id , 

su bs ta nt ial st ru ct ur es should be placed on the acti ve beach and

dune zone, for two reason s: (1) such stru ct ur es w il l be su bjec t to damage 

from stor ms, which resu lt s In hugh "d isas te r r eli ef" b ills tha t a ll of 

us, as tax pa ye rs, are call ed upon to bear, and (2) In the na tural strand
G-eop& a T i& E LfiM b Eqos.yst-e h

Figure 1. Cross sec tion of the Ceorg la tldeland ecos yate a, the pri nc ipa l

zones - a ll of which are linked togeth er by ti d al energy - are asfol low s: 1. beach, 2. ac tiv e (unsta ble) dunes, 3. stab ili ze d dunes,

4. back-dune slough (important run- Off trap for stor e water ), 5.sea Island proper, 6. for est -aa rsh edge, 7. Jun eu s-a all co ml a

high aar sh, 8. short Sparttna high aara h, 9. ald dle aarsh (a aallcre eks , 10. ta ll spar tlna aarsh (large cre ek s), 11. riv er south

with brackish aar she s, and 12. mainland co ast al pl ai n.

473
474

the energy of high tides end a t o n e le dla slpat ad gradua lly over large

areaa of yielding aand. Rigid structure s. Including see walls , constructe d

to protect the Inappropriate housing, results In the e nerg y of the water

being deflected back on the beach, whi ch then become s rapidly erode d and

steep. Thus, any e ffort to protec t struc ture s placed too close to the

ocean front results even tually In degradin g the beach, whi ch la the very

resource people va lue so much.

Houses, apartment, condomlnluas or what not, If they are to be

built at all, should be built only on stabi lize d land, and pre fer abl y

up on pilings so storm water can flow under wit hou t har m to anything.

In thia way, the beach and dunes are pre served for ell to enjoy and the

vie w from the houses la b etter anyway.

Much the earns can be said for marshes; wat er mu st move freely

through channels and o ver the marsh so that energy can be diss ipat ed

and used by organisms, and also so sediments can be dist ribute d evenl y

over many acres. Fortunately, Geo rgi a n ow has a Ma rsh lan d Prot ect ion

Act which requires thet proposed alte rati on of the mars hla nd be submitted

to a coomlsslon which has power of disappro ving alt erat ions or construc tion

that adversely affects the n atural flow and produc tivi ty. Sen time nt In

the state Is building for a similar Act to protect the beac h-a cti ve dune

zone.

In evaluating large expanses of tidal marshes, It Is Important to

recognize major zones which differ In their ability to p rodu ce organic

matter and to treat wastes. In Geo rgi a It Is co nven ient to recognize

3 major zones In the S. altern lfl ora marsh.
475

1. The Ce ll Sp artin e stream sld e sta nds that border Che marsh 

cr ee ks . Mature et alka grow 3-4 meters (6 fe et or more) about 

the banka. In bett er lo ca tlon a they number ebout 40 per 

square meter, with, depending on the se as on , a varying nivb er 

(up to 140/M2

) of sm aller, "underetory" sta lk s.

2. The medlun Spart lna middle marsh sta nd s In the va st In te ri or 

where cre eks break up and dead end In a den dri tic pa tter n.

Simila r stands als o grow on far si des of stream banks (natur al 

le v ees). Here mature st alk e measure 1-2 meters (3 -6 fe e t) and

number 60 or so per squar e meter with nimeroue sma ll underetory

st alk e.

3. Short Spartlna etands on the high marsh, reached on lv by high 

sprin g ti des or In sta gnant lower areas where tid a l Ir ri gation 

Is als o le ss fr eq ues t. Here st a lk s are sm al l, 0. 4 to 1 meter 

(1 -3 fe e t), but numerous, up to 200 or more per squar e meter .

Our most recent es tim at es of the annual ne t pro duction of the thre e 

zones Is shown (In round figure s) In Table 1. Also shown Is an es ti m ate , 

for comparison, of a Sp artln a cynosurold ea stan d growing In the hrack leh 

or freshw ater along coast al riv er s and comparable es tim at es for yie ld of 

thr ee cro ps. Remember that by net pro duction we mean the organic matter 

av ai la ble to the res t of the community (or man) aft er the pl an ts have 

resp ire d what It needs fo r Its mainten ance. In co as ta l Georgia about 6OZ 

of marsh area Is occ upied by t a ll and medium stands and 40X by high marsh

sta nd s.

76-161 0 - 76 - 31
476

Table 1. Annual Nat Pr od uc tiv ity of Spartlna Harah Creas es In Hajor 

Hab itat Zonaa of Georgia Coaatal Marshes.

Spartlna a lt ern lf lo ra

Ta ll gr as s,

stream slde stands

Medium graaa,

middle aarah atanda

Short gfa ss ,

high aarah atanda

Spartlna cynoauroldea

Ta ll graa a,

rlva r bank atanda

Dry Weight

gma/M2 Ton s/acra

4000 17 .8

2300 10 .2

750 3. 3

2000 8. 9

For Comparison:*

Sugar Cana, Hawll - 14 .7

Com, U.S.A. - 5.7

Com, world average' - 3.1

•These crop pr od uc tivi ty es tim at es are based on annual dry matter yle ld e of 

the whole above-Rround pla n t, not Ju st the ed ib le po rt io n; thus , figu re s 

are comparable to those give n for marsh gra ss es .
477

The difference between-the productivity of the streamslde stands

that receive vigorous, dally tidal Irrigation and the other stands that

are less frequently or less vigorously flooded gives an Indication of

the extent to which Spartlna grass Is able to cope with and benefit by

tidal energy. Where naturally subsidised In this manner, productivity

equals or exceeds man's best agricultural crops (Table 1). Of course,

man's crops are also subsidized, but by tractor fuel, fertilizers, etc.,

that enable the plant to make maximum use of the sun. It Is Interesting

to note that the very high yields now being obtained w ith the use of the

new "miracle grains" are the result of breeding varieties, not so much to

Improve their ability to utilize sun energy, but to Improve their capacity

to benefit from Intensive cultivation and very heavy applications of

chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc). Man pays an

Increasingly high price for his crop subsidies, while all of the energy

In the tidal marsh is free!

When we first reported that the Georgia salt marshes were very productive, we were not able to fully explain It. When one considers that high

light Intensity, high summer temperatures, high aallnlty and the unstable

substrate that Is anaerobic (without oxygen) below the top few centimeters

all tend to be "metabolic drains" on spermatophytlc plants. It Is a wonder

that the marsh grass has any energy left to produce anything! The tidal

subsidy Is, of course, part of the answer, but It remained for a team of

Australian plant biochemists to discover In 1966 that some kinds of grasses

and a few non-grass species utilize a photosynthetic pathway that avoids

almost entirely the photorespiration which b u m s up stored food reserves
478

la the o rdinary plants whan taaperatura, light and w ate r become stressful

It eurns out that Spartln a grasses belon g to this class of plant (now

designated aa "C^ type plants" In contrast to the m ore common "C^ types"

ths numbers referring to tha ntasber of carbon atoms In the first product

of COj fixation). Thus, tha lab boys finally verified wha t ua field man

have known for a long time: Spartlna alte rnlfl ora la somethin g else!

Two other features of estuar ies are Important con siderat ions In

dsteralnlng values. (1) The fact that estuaries, espe cia lly those with

large areas of shallow w ate r ma rsh es or sea grass beds, are Important

"nursery grounds" for seafood organisms Is now wel l acce pted and need not

be documented here. (2) Because of mark ed vertical circul ati on patterns,

active sediments, and large po pulati ons of filter and deposit feeders,

estuaries are nutrient trapa which have great capacit y to absorb and

utilise nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen. Because estu arie s

are naturally loaded wit h organic ma tt er , they canno t be very effectiv e

as secondary treatment plants for m a n , but they are ext reme ly effective

tertiary treatment pl an ts . It would be prudent for ma n to treat organic

matter In artificial treatment plants (and avoid oil spills) In order

that he can benefit from the "free recycling wo rk" for w hic h est uaries

are esp ecially well adapted. Since tertiary treatment Is ve ry expe nsiv e

(compared to secondary treatment), whe n carried out In artific ial systems

the capacity of estuaries for tertiary treatment cons titu tes one of the

most Important economic values of high energy estuaries.

Drs. James Cos sellnk and R. M. Pope,of Lous lana State, and I have
479

recently made a detailed analysis of alter nate methods of evaluati ng

natural tidal m arsh es in mone tary terms. We calculat ed economi c values

on four bases (1) valu e of natural by-p rodu cts (fisheries, etc.), (2)

aquacu lture potential, (3) waste treatment potential, and (4) total

life sup port value calculated by converting producti vity into dollars

on the basis of the natio nal GNP/ ener gy ratio of one dollar to 10,000

Kilocalories. The rati onal e here is that this is the logical wav to

cost-account the "free" wo rk capability of the estuarv. While the annual

return from by-produ cts is in the range of only about $100 per acre,

waste treatment and life suppor t values are 20 to 40 times as great -

$2,000-4,000 per acre per year. Income capitaliza tion of these annual

monetary values indicates that an acre of prod ucti ve marshland is

actually wo rth $80,000 pwa^mma in terms of the useful work done for

man.

References

Day, J. W., V . C. Sm ith, P. R. Wagner 4 W. C. St ov e. 1973. Comaunity atr u ctu re and

carbon budget o f a s a lt aardh and sh allow bay estu ari ne system in Lo uisian a.

Cente r Wetlands Res ources, La. Sta te U n iv ., Pu bl. No. LSU-SG-72-04. 79 pp.

Goss ellnk, J. C ., E. P." Odua 4 R. M. Pops. 1973. The .Value of the T id al Marsh.

Work Paper No. 3. Urban 4 Regional Development C en te r, Univ. F la ., G ain esville

(In pr es s: LSU-SG p u b licati o n s. La. Sta te U n iv ., Baton Rouge, L a.)

Odia, E. P. 1973 . The P ri cin g System. The Ge orgia Conservancy Ma g., 4th quart er

1973 (a condensation of the paper "Valu e of the T id a l Marsh" c it e d ab ov e).

Odua, E. P. 4 Marsha B. Fanning . 1973. Comparison o f the p ro d u cti vit y of Sps rtlna

a lt e rn lf lo re and Spart in a cyn osu roldea in Ga. Coa stal Marshes. B u ll . Ge.

Acad. S c l., 31: 1-1 2.

Schelske, C. L. 4 E. P. Odtn. 1961. Mechanisms fo r m ain ta in in g hig h p ro d u cti vit y

in Ge orgia E stu ari es. B u ll . Culf 4 C arl b . Fis h. In s t. 14: 75 -8 0.

Sweet, D. C. 1971. The economic and socia l importance o f e stu arie s . En viro n.

Pro t. Agency, Water Q u ality O ffic e , Washington , D. C.
480

$

RUTGERS

CA MD EN COU.EOS OF ART S ANO SC IIM C SS.C AM O EN.N EW JERSEY 0S1Q2

J u ly 1 5 , 1976

H r. P e t e S u lliv a n

C /0 N a t io n a l W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t io n

1412 1 6 th S t . NW

W a s h in g to n , D .C . 20036

D ea r Mr. S u l l i v a n :

At you r r e q u e s t I * a p r o v id in g you I n fo r m a tio n on th e Im port a n c e o f W etl a n d s In New J e r s e y . P r o b a b ly th e b e s t wa y t o do

t h i s I s t o (1 ) p r o v id e you w ith a l i s t o f my p u b l i c a t i o n s w h ic h

d e m o n s tr a te th e Im p o r ta n c e o f t h e m a rsh es and (2 ) to p r o v id e

e x t r a c t s fr om t h e s e p u b l i c a t i o n s w h ic h su m m ari ze th e I m p o r ta n c e .

C o p ie s o f p u b l i c a t i o n s e n c lo s e d :

1 . 1965 G oo d, R .E . S a l t M ar sh v e g e t a t i o n , Ca pe May,

New J e r s e y . B u l l . New J e r s e y Ac ad em y o f

S c ie n c e 10: 1 - 1 1 .

2 . 1974 S q u le r s , E .R . an d R .E . G oo d. S e a s o n a l c h a n g e s

In p r o d u c t i v i t y , c a l o r i c c o n t e n t , and c h e m ic a l

c o m p o s itio n In a p o p u la t io n o f s a lt - m a r s h c o r d -

g r a s s ( S p a r t ln a a l t e r n l f l o r a ) . C h esa p ea k e

S c ie n c e 1 5 : 6 3 - 7 1 .

3 . 1975 S l a v i n , P . T . , R .E . Good an d E .R . S q u le r s . E f f e c t s

o t. t h r e e m o s q u it o l a r v l c l d l n g o i l s on p r o d u c t io n

o f s a l t m ars h S p a r t ln a g r a s s e s . B u l l . E n v ir o n ­

m e n ta l C o n ta m in a tio n an d T o x ic o lo g y 1 3 : 5 3 4 - 5 3 6 .

4 . 1 9 7 5 G oo d, R .E . P r o d u c t io n o f New J e r s e y t i d a l

m a r s h e s . B u l l . N .J . Aca demy o f S c ie n c e 2 0 : 4 2 .

5 . 1975 G oo d, R .E . an d N .F . G oo d. V e g e t a t io n an d p r o ­

d u c t io n o f th e W oo db ur y C r e e k -H e s s ia n Run f r e s h ­

w a te r t i d a l m a r s h e s . B a r t o n la 4 4 : 3 8 - 4 5 .

6 . 1975 G oo d, R .E ., R.W. H a s t in g s and Roy E. Den m ar k.

An e n v ir o n m e n t a l a s s e s s m e n t o f W e tla n d s: A c a s e

s tu d y o f W oo db ur y C reek and a s s o c i a t e d m a r s h e s.

R u tg e r s M ari ne S c ie n c e s C e n te r , T e c h n ic a l R ep o rt

7 5 - 2 . 49 p .

M ’

P u b l l c a t l o n A d e t a l l s th e f u n c t i o n i n g o f a New J e r s e y s a l t m arsh .

In N o. 2 th e r o l e o f n u t r i e n t e n r ic h m e n t o f th e d e t r i t u s I s d is c u s s e d
481

and lea Importance la summarized on page 70 aa:

"Whether thia nutrient enrichment occura In auspended

detrltua or at the soil surface, the end product la a good

source far richer In protein than the grass tissue from

which It was derived. Thia Is the lltter-detrltus link

which forma the major bridge between the autotrophic and the

heterotrophlc levels of the estuarine system (Teal, 1962).'*

Publication Mo. 4 la an abstract of a summary paper presented

on N.J. marshes and la reproduced below.

Productivity of New Jersey tidal marshes. — Ralph

E. Good, Biological Sciences, Rutgers University,

Camden.

Tid al marshes exist on a more or less continuous lia s

from Hackensack Mea dow s in the northeast portion of

New Jersey southward to Cape M ay Point and northward

up the west coast of New Jersey to the upper tidal lim it

of the Delaw are River at Trenton.

/ Of the approximate ly 300.000 acres of marsh, probab ly

over 200.000 of these acres are of salt marsh types whic h

ere domin ated principa lly by cordgrass (Spar tin a alterniflo ra I in one of its several height forms. Ot he r ma jor

species include salt hay fS . paten t) and spikegrass

ilh sti ch lia sp icata) . Freshwater marshes exist from the

Delaw are Mem orial Bridge no rthwa rd, as we ll as upriver

on all major tid al streams. Princ ipal freshwater species

includ e the annual, wild ric e (Zizan ia aq ua tic a) as we ll

a* spa tterdock t Nu ph ar advena) and arrow-arum (P elt ­

andra virgin ic a). Common reed t Phragm ites com munis)

ic an imp ortant component of disturbed area s both of

fre«h and saltwater marshes.

.Much emphasis has been placed on marsh pro ductivity

because of its contribution to the food webs of adjacent

coastal waters. Fu rth er interest has developed since some

investigators have ide ntified the marshes as natural

tertiary trea tment centers.

Productivity of the tid al marshes varie s with the species

and mar>h conditions such as Hooding and salinity.

Aboveground pro ductivity values for Sp artin a al tc rn i flo ra

may reach 1600 g /m 2

.y fla il form , and 700 g /m a

.y (short

fo rm ,. Values for 5. patens and Distichlis spicata may

approach 600 g /m 2

.y. The freshw ater species Zizania

s aquatica can have values close to 1600 g /m * y with values

of 60 0 g m2

.y for Nup ha r ad tena and Pe lta nd ra tirginico .

These values are gen erally comparable to values obtained

for simila r marshes from I.ong Island to Nor th Ca rolina.

W hi le most tidal marsh studies do not inclu de data on

bel owground production, recent New Jersey investigations

indic ate the existence of considerable bel owground biomass.

Publications 5 and 6 detail the ecology of a freshwater marsh.

Since the report (No. 6) was written to present their overall value

In a section entitled ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS, I'm reproducing those

three pages as part of this letter on value of Wetlands In New Jersey

(See attachment)

If I can provide additional Information please let me know.

Sincerely,

Ralph E. Good

Associate Professor of Botany

and Associate of Center for

Coastal and Environmental Studies

REG/rl

enclosures
482

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

The marshes of Woodbury Cre ek and H essia n Run as presently 

constit uted represent a via ble ecosystem with all components 

apparent ly functioning. The plan t species and c ommunities are 

typical for the area and exhibit the high levels of productivity 

so often found in marsh systems. These marshes are heavily 

dom inated by wild rice whic h is usually considered to be of 

high value as wildlife food. Alth ough muc h reduce d from their 

former exten t by landfill, the Woodbury marshes still provide 

cons iderable habita t for a wid e range of animal life. The 

summer bird fauna includes the larger mar sh birds such as 

herons, egrets and yellowlegs and a breeding pair of red ­

shoul dered hawks. Many upland passerine birds use the edges 

of these marshes. Wit h the r ipen ing of wild rice red-wing ed 

blackbirds use the mar sh i n gre at numbers. Because of the 

June-Nov ember study period, the m igratory waterf owl could not 

be adequately observed. There is ample food, however, for 

wint er waterfowl. Wetland mammals, such as muskrats, and 

aquatic turtles are fairly common.

The Woodb ury ma rshes are functioning as viabl e nursery 

grounds for two comm ercially useful species of clupeid fishes, 

the alewife and bl ueback herring. A total of seventeen species 

of fish were colle cted in Woodbu ry Creek and Hessian Run. The 

large number s of mummich og should be adequa te to co ntro l 

mos qui to breeding in any parts of the ma rsh acces sible to fish.

Proba bly the po orest compone nt of the animal life on these 

marshes is the benthos. Species diversity wa s rather low and 

gen erally dom inated by tubif icid worms and leeches, both of 

whi ch are generally indicative of high organic load. The 

benthic community appears to be limited by the low h abitat 

dive rsity and the lo w levels of dissolved o xygen recorded in 

the summer months. The prevailing substrate is soft, organic 

silt generally devoid of logs, rocks, roots or o ther mat erials 

whi ch can provide mi cro habitats for aquatic invertebrates.

Ther e is little habitAt here for any o rganisms r equiring sand or 

gra vel substrates. Low dis sol ved oxygen is perhaps an important 

limit ing factor for t he b enthic organisms. Some oxygen stress 

is probably also present for the fish. The low levels of 

dissolved oxygen at Woodbury in the summer* are not surprising 

since the water coming in from the Delaware has e ssen tially no 

dissolv ed oxygen during periods of the summer so that in comparison these ma rshes have subs tantially improved wa ter quality. 

Improvement of dissolved oxyg en levels partially takes place 

because tidal flushing is strong and the mar sh and streams 

fluctuate b etween most ly exposed mud at low tide and standing 

wate r at high tide. The pres ence of fairly high levels of 

coliforms can also be traced to Delaware River water since 

Woodbu ry Creek no longer directly receives sewage effluents. 

Mars hes such as W oodb ury perfor m an important, often overlooked, 

service in improving the quality of polluted waters. In 

additi on to improving dissolv ed oxygen, the mar sh plan ts tend
483

to lower nutrient levels* converting them to biomass which may 

be of value to wildl ife. Gran t and Patrick (1970) showed that 

the Tinicum ma rshes reduced nitrogen and phos phorus levels of 

the water floodi ng on the mar sh surface.

Recen tly Gossellnk, et al (1974) have prop osed a method 

to calculates the dol lar value of mar sh incorporating the 

various functions of the marsh. The obvious val ue in terms of 

hunting and fisheries general ly amounts to only $100.00 per acre 

or so. Zf this alone is considered the use of the mars)i in 

more developed w ays is economically sound if aes thetics and 

other n on-tangibles a re disregarded. The value of a marsh as 

a sort of natu ral tertiary waste treatment syst em increases 

the value to a bout $25 00. 00/acre whic h ma kes its preservation 

economically justified. The following quote from their paper 

sums the concept: "Thus the economic valu e of estuaries as 

tertiary treatme nt p lants can be v alued in tens of thousands 

of dollars per acre as comp ared to me re hund reds that accrue 

from by produ ct uses."

The a uthors further val ue the marsh by conve rting the 

energy fixed by the marsh (gross primary productivity) into 

dollar s based on the r ati o of gross national product to 

nation al ener gy consumption. This concept increases the 

value of the natural m ar sh to perhaps $400 0.00/acre. The 

authors further indicate that if the valu e is in come capitalized at 5% inter est the estimated total social value reaches 

$50, 000.00-80,000.00/acre. These va lues are expr essed concisely in Table 20 a dapt ed from their paper.

Zf the Woodbury Cre ek marshes are evaluated on this 

basis the 135 mar shl and acres could be valu ed at $6,750,000.00 

using the $50,000.00 per acre figure or $10,800,000.00 using 

the $80,000.00 per acre value.

Zn this frame of refe rence marshes like W oodbur y are 

more valuable than they a ppear to the casual observer. The 

extent of similar freshwater marshes as repor ted in the RANN 

repor t (Walton and Patrick, 1973) along the tributaries of the 

Delaware from Trenton to the Delaware Memorial Bridge is 

relatively small in c omp arison to the amount of saltwater 

mar sh to the south. Yet it is in this region that is so 

heavily impac ted by industrial and dome stic effluents, that 

the need for water quality impro vement is the greatest.

Much mar shland has been destroyed by dredge spoil and 

landfi ll in the las t.30 or 40 years. To further reduce 

the remaining natural m arshe s along the Delaware and its 

tributaries can onl y further reduce the viability of the 

system.
484

TABLE 20. Mars h-Estuary Values as Determined by Variou s Me thods

of Evaluation (after Gosselink, et al, 1974)

1

•J Income-capitalization

valu e interest

(5* rate)

i Annual

return/acre

(1)

1

Fisheries $ 100 $ 2,000

(2) Waste treatment •. 1

a. secondary ,

280 5,600

b. phosp hate removal 950 19,000

(3)

c. terti ary

Sum of maximum

non-c ompetitive

2,500 50,000

use (1 + 2c) 2,600 52,000

(4) Life support value

(based on conve rsion of

prod uctivity to energy

(calories) with l0*kcal

value d at $1)

4,100 82,000
485

THE SOUTHERN RIVER SWAMP - 

A MULTIPLE-USE ENVIRONMENT

by

Charles H. Wharto n 

Professor o f Biology

Departme nt of Biology 

Georgia State University

published by

Bureau of Business and Econom ic Research 

School of Business Ad min istration 

Georgia State University

May 19 70
486

SECTION VI

THE RIVER SW AM P ECOSYSTEM - CONCLUSIO NS AN D RE CO MMEN DA TION S

ABSTRACT - Th e destruction o f (he river awam p eco system 

h on a niaic oc scale th toujthou l the Soullie ast The EU-rsda 

cross-stale barge canal will wipe o ut o ne o f th e last great wild 

m e n , and 1. 60 0 square mile* o f Lo uisian a sw ampland is 

under death sentence Jl is tim e, as Eug ene Odum prupuara, 

to accept a "o ne ma n, one hectare" conc ept along w it h the 

pop ular ' one man. one vo te" idea. The river swam ps are 

ma ndatory grce nbclla - Geo rgia needs tw o-fifth s o f Us land 

as open space. It is absurd Io co mmit Alcovy area rv udenii 

erith a 100-year debt based on a 19 69 econ om ic prod uc t o f 

an agricultural nature. Massachuretts has passed legislation 

protectin g 300.0 00 acres o f inland we tlands but has n o cha nnelization problems Th e throat o f ch an ne liz ation ui the 

southern stales makes it prudent that each state declare a 

2-year moratorium, make an imme dia te inve nt ory and 

analysis of wetlan ds, give tea re lie f Io swamp ow ners, and 

provide funds fo r easements to pay swamp owners for keeping swamp in its natural state. T he value o f th e Alcovy is high 

enou gh to wa rra nt imme dia te purchase by the state at a 

scenic river o f ine stim able future valu e in educ ation, public 

use, wa ter quality, wa ter quan tity , and especia lly valuable Io 

metr op olita n Atlan ta. It is suggested th at the So il Conservatio n Service purchase the Alcovy and ot he r swamps and 

establish a system o f soil and w ater conservation preserves or 

river parks, fo r these protective landscapes are vital Io the 

cons ervation o f Am erica 's soil and water resource base. It w at 

the intent o f the Water Resources Cou nc il in Senate IXs-u - 

me nt 97 to recognue the multip le uses o f we tland en vironments. Ap parently this do cume nt provides a basis fo r considering the des truction o f features o f the natural environment as costs to be weighed against bene fits Evidence suggests that the So il Conservatio n Service is follo wing certa in 

stipulations o f the Do cu men t end ignorin g others. Sod Ca nservation pro jects deal with indiv idu al wate rshe ds - every 

inch o f Geo rgia is in a watershed , some o f wh ich have values 

that reach fa r outside their hydrolo gic bound aries Fubtic 

Law S6 6 should be changed to allow oth er than ag ricultural 

Interests to have veto po we r over individu al pro jects that are 

contrar y to the best interests o f com m un ity, slate and 

nation

The loss and mismanagement o f out inland wetlan ds is 

a fact. Huge and co stly m istaket have been made by a nu mber o f organizations, inclu din g the U.S. Corps o f Engineers. 

Most o f these errors have been made in no t considering the 

far-reaching impact o f an enginee ring procedure on the 

comp lex ecology o f the Hood plain ecosystem, and by co nce ntratin g on a single goal, such as nav iga tion ot tlovxl con ­

tr o l. Martinez and Durham (1 969 ), speaking o f the 

Mississippi, slate: "T he U.S. Ar my Co rps o f Engineers has 

endeavored to enhance navig ability and Io prote ct the 

natural levees by c ont ro lling floods and stabiliz ing banks. In 

so doin g, however, (hey have eliminated the riv et’s ability 

to construct new natural levees thr ough de position at the 

tim e o f ov erflow. Meanw hile , in abili ty to co mpletely 

stab ilize banks has resulted in (he toss o f previously existing 

natural levees."

In conclud ing their studies o f (he Mississippi de lla atca, 

these authors state, " , . . we wa nt to stress tils' inter actions 

wh ich fo llo w single purpose acts designed Io change co nditio ns in this kin d o f reg ion and lo emphasize tlu -

 need tor 

early stud y and tho ught o f unfavorable feedback.”

The attack on inland wetlands in the Southeast ts 

massive. Wood (1 955 ) has said. ” . . . drainage tit combina tio n with flo od cont ro l has probably eliminated more

good we tland ha bitat Ilia n all the othe r adverse influen ce* 

to which southeastern wetland s have been subjected.” He 

has po inted out (hat local gains from reservoirs ” . . . are 

counterbalanced by losses o f valuable wetland s downstream 

due lo flow regulation, flo od protec tio n, and drainage, 

hence do not represent overall be nefits ."

In Lou isia na the Aichafalaya Basin is an enormous area 

inv olvin g 1,600 square miles, one o f the greatest natural 

wetlands in (he wo rld . To quote Ma rtin ez and Du rham , 

“ Th e slreams, lakes, swamps and wild life w ithin and w ith ­

ou t this system have been dra stically altere d.. . " In S outh 

Carolina, the Santee-Cooper story is a sad and shockin g 

chron icle in the history o f inland wetland s. It involves such 

things as cuttin g and chaining to the bot to m great cypreaa 

logs, the dredgin g o f a new channel wh ich is siltin g up 

Charleston harbor, the demise o f (he ivo ry-bille d wo odpecker - in short the wreck ing o f one o f the Sou th's 

greatest swamps.

In Florida, the cross-state barge canal pro ject * is an 

exam ple o f the destruction o f a ma gnificent wild river 

system by a "plan wh ich might have been reasonable ye an 

ago when wild riven were com mon in the state. No w, w ith 

its once great natural scenic wetlands reduced by channelization, land fills, and development to small vestiges here and 

there, it is tragic that the Corps o f Engineers considers a 

couple o f lakes, an end owment wh ich Florida has in oversupply, equivale nt in recreation value to the Oklawaha 

River and its swam p. Ecologists believe that the enriched 

and impounded riv er w ill become a hyacinth-choked nigh tmare, req uir ing tons o f herbicidal poisons to keep it clear 

fo r boat traffic. To destroy the Oklawaha swamps a giant 

device has been devised with the combined we ight o f six 

bulldo zers to crush the cypress and gum trees i nto the m ud. 

Pu blic-spirited citize ns have taken an in ju nc tio n against the 

Corps to save half o f the priceless 33 miles o f the river. A ll 

over the natio n citize ns groups are organizing legal sections 

to take agencies t o co urt fo r the destruction o f our environmental heritage. As in the case of the Alco vy , the loss o f 

the many values o f the natural Oklawaha ecosystem was 

not considered a cost. Both citiz ens and scientists are 

alarmed pa rlicu larly over the vulnerable wetlands. Recognized au thoritie s on wetlan ds such as Eugene Odum in d 

William Nie rtng are deep ly concerned.

Odum (1 96 9 b) indicated that government agencies, 

spurred by popular and po litical enthusiasm, arc pu tting on 

drawing boards plans fo r damming every stream and river in 

Nor th Americ a. He indicated that wh ile soil conservation 

org anizations are dedicated to ecologic units such as watersheds, and are poten tia lly capable o f speaking fo r the 

“ wh ole” ecosystem, “ they have remained lo o exclusively 

farm -oriente d, and have not risen to the challenge o f the 

urban-rural landscape .,. . .** Odum repeatedly stresses the 

wisdom o f a balance o f “ yo un g" environme nts (f o r produ ction. grow th, quantit y) on one han d, and “ ma ture” 

environme nts (o ffe ring prote ction, stab ility, and quality) 

on (he oth er. Th e Alco vy is an exam ple o f the latter. It 

offers pro lcclive husban dry and sustained use o f both sur-

*Se c "R ap e o f the Oklaw ah a" by James Natha n M iller , Hea der 's

Digest. January , 197(1.
487

face and und erground supplies o f nu trien ts and water, and 

at the same time it provides the prod uc tio n o f qua lity and 

diverse products fo r people as we ll as diverse recreational 

experiences.

Odum stales: "U n ti l wc can determine more precisely 

how far we may safely go in expan ding intensive agriculture 

and urban sprawl at the expense o f the prote ctive landscape, it will be good insurance to h old inv iolate as mu ch o f 

the latte r as possible. T hus the preservation o f natural areas 

is not a peripheral luxu ry fo r society bu t a capital investment fro m wh ich wc expect to draw in te re st ." Odum 

reiterates Ha rdin's (1 96 8) so lution to the cu rre nt tragic 

destruction o f areas and environme nt (such as air) which 

are the comm on pr op erty o f all o f us, “ mutua l coercion, 

mut ua lly agreed upo n by the majo rit y o f the pe op le," and 

suggests tha t restrictions in the use o f land and water m igh t 

be . our on ly practical means o f avoiding overpo pulatio n or too great an exp lo ita tio n o f resources, or 

both ." He makes the sig nifica nt obs erv ation that . 

society is concerned - and rightly so - w ith hum an rights, 

bu t environme nta l rights are equally vital. The ‘one man. 

one vote* idea is im po rta nt, bu t so also is a 'one man, one 

hectare’ pr op ositio n. " Od um , wh o has proposed a “ marsh 

bank” to hold inv iolate the natural food factories o f the 

salt marshes, proposes tha t law schools supply a new breed 

o f lawyer w ho can c la rify environm ental issues and draw up 

“ new, enabling legisla tion fo r conside ration by state and 

national governing bodies.”

Nicr ing (1 96 8) , speaking more dire ct ly o f the citie s, 

observes that “ w ith the po ss ibility o f ou r po pu latio n do ub ling within the next fo rt y years this is the decade o f action. 

Fo r the urban environme nt it w ill mean increased open 

space, ma xim um ha bitat div ersity and assure a higher level 

o f env ironm ental qua lity in pe rp etu ity ,’’ and proposes that 

the n ation adop t a national wetla nds po lic y.

Platt (1 96 9) says tha t channelization o f the Alcovy 

River is a sharply dra wn issue, “ Sha ll the sheer we ight o f 

government bureaucracy be allo wed to despoil ou r inland 

rivers and river swamps?" In summ ary Platt continues, 

“ The issue is ‘who shall make the irrevocable ecological 

decisions affecting irreplaceable bio log ica l resources?' Shall 

it continue to be the engineers and econo mists alone as in 

this case, or shall it be by representation from these and 

from all oth er aspects o f science and society? The outcome 

o f the Alc ovy issue is o f national sig nificance."

Grow ing numbers o f public and priv ate agencies have 

expressed the ir alarm over the avalanche o f watershed p roposals involving the dredgin g o f a rtificial channels. Unfo rtunately most o f their concern fru stra tin gly foun d audience 

only among themselves, somehow never reaching the p ublic 

consciousness. Weaknesses o f P.L. 566 programs were summarized by Poole (1 96 8) o f the W ild lif e Management 

Institu te. Stu art ( 1 9 6 4 ) presented an analysis o f P.L. 566 

re com m endin g elim ination o f channelization. Russell 

(1 963 ) o f the Ke ntuc ky Fish and W ild lif e Resources Depar tment discussed the catastrophic effects o f 5 6 6 projects 

and indicated tha t '*. . . lowland wo odland habitat comes 

the nearest to a m ultiple use concept o f any w ild lif e environme nt. . . . " He also fou nd tha t w ildlife habitat destructio n far outweig hed any possible benefits und er P.L. 

566 piograms. Harick (1 96 4) rep orted that his group 

exam ined nine streams channelized by P.L. 566 projects

and detaile d the impact on swamp hardwo od tree pro ­

du ction: "P ar tic ipan ts observed clear cut evidence o f tupc lo 

gum damage and de stiucim n through excessive water removal . . . the present drainage design is based upo n the 

erroneous assumptio n tha t these areas have no significant 

va lue." Forrest Du rand (1 963 ), wh ile dire ctor o f the 

Tennessee Game and Fish Commission, expressed the gro wing concern o f ma ny state agencies tha t P.L. 566 projects 

are very questionable where the resources being los t are in 

short supply while those gained are already in oversupply. 

He challenged the curre nt idea o f getting water tha t cannot 

be pu l beh ind dams o ff the watershed as soon as possible, 

.reversing the past philosophy o f holding it there, a 

ph ilosophy wh ich had or iginally helped enact P.L. 566. 

Allen's (1 96 8) re po rt on channeliza tion's impact on fish 

and w ild lif e revealed that all thirteen southeastern states 

fe lt tha t channeliza tion posed a serious threat. George 

Bagby, Dire ctor o f Georgia's Game and Fish Commission, 

has gained national recognition for his firm stand against 

channeliza tion o f the Alco vy River. His re port (1 969 ) indicates tha t his d epartment has writte n many lette rs objecting 

to channelization in S.C.S. projects. Bagby c ite d the resolution adopted by the Southern Div ision o f the American

Fisheries Socie ty at their Octob er, 196 8, meetin g, asking 

th at the S.C.S., T .V .A ., and the Corps o f Engineers halt 

furthe r watershed projects until econom ic evaluatio ns could 

be made. He also calle d a tte ntion to the statement fro m the 

President's Co un cil on Recreation and Na tural Bea uty in 

“ From Sea to Shinin g Sea” : “ The Co un cil proposes tha t 

federal flo od cont ro l . . . pro jects seek to retain or restore 

natural channels, vegetation, and fish and w ild lif e habitats 

on rivers, streams and creeks and apply the same po licy to 

fed era lly assisted pu blic and private projects affecting 

rivers, streams, and creeks.” A n equ ally aggressive stand has 

been taken by Charles K el ly, Director o f Alabam a's w ild life 

agency. In his re por t* he stated: “ From the very beginning, 

pu blic monies have ofte n been used to develop agricultura l 

resources wh ich d ire ctly b enefit the individ ua l landown er at 

the sacrifice o f such public resources as fish and wild life, 

the loss o f wh ich is fe lt by many people. From the trout 

streams o f N orth Carolina to the gulf coast, channelization 

has played havoc w ith ou r valuable fish and wild life 

habitat." As Kelly points out , trout streams are far fro m 

exempt It was only after a bitter fig ht by the U.S. Forest 

Service and oth ers that the S.C.S. agreed no t to channel the 

headw aters o f the French Broad River, a comp lex o f cold 

water streams in the Nor th Carolina mountains. Recently 

the Soque River, a producer o f large brow n trout in the 

North Georgia mo untains, has been autho rized fo r channe lization. Kel ly has said that channel co ns tru ction alone 

usually costs several times more than the market price o f 

the land alleged to be benefite d, and tha t “ a closer look 

reveals tha t in alm ost all instances the am ount o f m oney to 

constru ct the chann el, if placed in savings at the current 

interest rare, w ou ld more than pay fo r annual losses o f each 

landow ner, incu ric d as a result o f Hoods ." It is obvious that 

Public I a w 566 must he amended, and rapid ly.

The Alcovy work plans im ply tha t 4.32 7 acres of 

swampland co uld he drained fu r creating additio nal farmla n d . A d m in is tr a tiv e p o li c y set fo r th in para. 

•A s President. Io ihe Sinilheaele rn Association o f Ga me and lis h 

Co mmission ers'C on ferenc e. Nesy Orleans, 1967.
488

IO I. IO I IO I.IO X Chap. I, Karl I. Watershed Prote ction 

Ha ndbook. S.C.S., U.S.D.A., slates: “ No P.L. 566 financial 

technical assistance w ill be provided fo r projects in 

wh ich moneta ry benefits accrue prim ar ily from brin ging

ad ditio na l land in to ag ricultural pr od uc tio n.”

As I have previously, stated (196 9): “ Something is fundamentally wrong when any org anization can. w ithout basis 

in sound ecological stud y, destroy a large tile system 

(ecosystem ) o f great po tential value to its owners and to 

the people o f the entire slate It is fundamentally wrong to 

expend public funds to help priv ate citize ns, while the pleas 

o f public agencies and professionals are ig nored. The im plications o f the Alcovy go far beyond this r iv er ."

I hope that I have set fo rth the ma jor fun ctions o f the 

river swamp and have made a reasonable estimate o f the ir 

value. There are. of course, othe r, less tangible values and 

uses o f southern streams and their swamps. T he y provide a 

green belt o f open space that cannot be occup ied by man, 

alm ost a ma ndato ry bu ffe r zone, and this may tur n out to 

be one o f their ma jor co ntrib utions . A class study at the 

Un ive rsity o f Georgia reported by O dum (pers. co mm.) suggests th at, to ma intain the qua lity life A merica ns are accustom ed to , and based upon an op tim um po pu latio n level, 

tw o-fifth s o f land area in Georgia should be op en space, in a 

pa rtial or comp lete natural state. The Alco vy and similar 

swamps could comprise the backbone o f open space co rridors.

The southern river swamps, exem plified by the Alco vy , 

»>" prime recreational areas. Million s o f people have been 

vn to the Everglades and Okefenokee to explo re these 

ha un tin gly “ diffe re nt" enviro nments. As A ld o Leo pold 

(1 960) has noted , the "con tra st va lue " o f an outdo or experience makes it valuable. Wistendahl (1 958 ), writin g of 

the Rarita n Rive r Floodplain in New Jersey, stated, “ The 

diversity o f hab itats with in small areas makes a flo od plain 

idea lly suited fo r natural area reservations in such highly

populatcd»areas.. . . ”

Eugene O dum (pers. co mm .) has suggested that , as with 

othe r flu ctua tin g water level ecosystems, there is always the 

prospect o f aquaculture — the raising o f algae and fish on 

the food produced in the swamps, now fed or flushed in to 

the stream itself. On ly now are we beginning to realize the 

poten tia l o f farmin g the edge o f the sea, and pilo t operatio ns fo r “ marsh farm ing" arc underway on the Georgia 

coast and on the eel-grass flats at Cedar Keys, Florida.

One major point for the protec tio n o f the swamplands 

is ofte n overlo oked, tha t is, tha t our ag ric ultural base is 

co ns tantly changing. Land in Georgia farm s has stea dily 

dropped fro m 11,000,000 in 1940 to 7,00 0,000 in 1967. 

Co mmod itie s are changing. In this lig ht, it is no t wise to 

plan on cows eating grass on the Alcovy bo ttom land for 

even twen ty-five years. In tw enty-five years it is very lik ely 

that bee f cattle w ill be fed in concrete stalls, o r the ir place 

w ill be taken by more effic ient meat producers. Wo uld it 

no t hang heavy on our conscience Io indebt the citize ns 

along the Alcov y River for 100 years to pay lo r the present 

pr t plans based lip on a 1969 econom ic pro du ct, the 

fu tu re o f which is quite un certain?

In vie w o f the large total value o f the swampland /sit* 

Appendix 7/ and the concerned advice of ecologists and 

oth ers , it is evident tha t a systematic plan Io evaluate our 

inland wetlands is indispensable.

Massachusetts (1 96 8) surveyed the water resource ac tivities o f six oth er stales. New York , New Jersey, Kansas, 

Ke ntuc ky , Flo rid a, and Califo rn ia, and arrived at the fo llow ing sum mary: "In general what arc the alte rnatives and 

approaches? First a state may choose to b uild its ow n fa cilities or it may rely on Federal or local agencies fo r project 

constru ction . . . . Second, a state may decide Io prepare a 

state-wide development plan fo r water resources. . . Third , 

a state may organize all or most o f its water resource 

fun ctions in to one ma jor agency or it may distrib ute them 

over a nu mlier o f agencies. There is no single best approach.

.the needs o f the various slates are strik ingly 

sim ilar. A ll feel the need to coord ina te the mu ltif aceted 

water programs o f Federal, state, local and private groups. 

A ll are concerned with the most advantageous management 

o f their water as a lim ite d resource and as the key to future 

development in co mpe tit ion w ith othe r states. An d all fin d 

it necessary to pay fo r these water resource programs and 

to get the most fo r their mo ney . . . .In sum, the states are 

all faced with the problem o f dec idin g on a u nifie d water

resource jx il ic y ."

The Massachusetts Divisio n of Water Resources under 

the Department o f Conse rvation indicates (pers. co mm .) 

that their ma jor effort (they have engineers, planners, and 

biologists assigned to the task) it to id entify a nd evaluate 

the wetlands o f the state, watershed by watershed.

B u t, in ste ad o f waitin g until final evaluations, 

Massachusetts has rece ntly passed legislation prote cting 

more than 300,0 00 acres o f inland wetlands based upon its 

distrib ut io n on U.S.G.S. quadrangles and aerial ph ot ographs. An effec tive law requires tha t application be made 

fo r any encroachm ent on wetlan ds, after stu dy, specific 

restrictive instructions arc given to applicants. T his state has 

approved a ten m illio n do lla r bond issue t o reimburse landowners for the loss o f certain rights o f use to their we tlands. Th is is as it should be. We must reimburse landowners by scenic easements o r reduction in taxes to reward 

the m fo r keeping the ir swamp in a natural state. In another 

report (1 96 9) , 1 have sought to enumerate the advantages 

to landow ners of holding natural swamplands. Fo rtu na tely 

fo r Massachusetts, channelization is no t a problem, and 

S.C.S. emphasis there is on the construction o f small reservoirs. .

Georgia and oth er southern states arc faced with the 

increasing use of channelization. Since a state must have 

some time to inventory and analyze its most outstanding 

inla nd wetlan ds fo r their use in edu cation, recreation , 

science, and fo r their natural functio ns, and in view o f the 

alarming rate at wh ich watersheds arc being m od ifie d under 

Public Law 566, the fo llo w ing EMERGENCY AC TION S 

are SUGGESTED:

1. Moratorium on channelisa tion - A statewide 

suspension o f this flo od co nt ro l technique should be 

placed in to eff ec t fu r a period o f not less than tw o (2 ) 

years.

2. I men to rv o f inland wetlands - An appropriate agency) ics) should be required and fun ded to 

co nduct, with ecolo gic ally orie nte d personnel, an im ­

mediate inventory ol all watersheds possessing marshes 

and swamps, so tha t better coordin ation with S.C .S.. 

and the Stale Soil and Water Conservation Co mm itte e 

can be achieved as soon as possible.
489

o ll o w in g Ibis, certain W ETLAND SE CU RITY

A C T IO N S s ho uld be taken:

3. Tax re lie f No real progress can be made in 

wetlan d preservation unless Hie landow ner is given co nsideration. Presently most landowners arc taxe d as

- hea vily on swamps, wh ich ca nno t he used fo r constructio n, as they are on high grounds w hich b rin g pre mium 

real estate prices.

The Plannin g Bureau o f the State o f Georgia 

(197 0) indicates that increasing po pu latio n and taxatio n are forcing many landow ners to sell or develop 

streamside zones tha t oug ht to be ke pt as high qu ality 

open space or undeveloped river areas wh ich could 

serve as environme nta l co rrido rs o f immense value to 

the State ’s overall development.

4. Weilands easement fu nd — Besides tax relief, 

swampowners need to be reim bursed fo r the loss o f 

certain privileges on their land. Example: i f an area has 

im po rta nt values, an easement should be purchased to 

prevent the owner from c uttin g his tim be r.

5. i Inland Wetland A c t — This is essentially a 

master plan fo r the wise use o f the inland wetlands. It 

should be appro priate to each individu al state. It 

should recognize and protec t inla nd wetlan ds whose 

values are foun d to be im po rta nt in education, recreation, science and to the main tenance o f wate r q ua lity 

and q ua ntity .

The moratorium is especially needed if a state is tr ying 

to set up a system o f Scenic Rivers un der a Stale Scenic 

River B ill as Georgia is doing, or Is atte mpting to comp ly 

w ith the Federal Scenic and Wild Rivers A ct. Th en, fo llow ­

ing the moratorium and w ith an overall plan in han d, the 

S.C.S. could operate with out constan t co llis ion with 

aroused citiz ens. The unpleasant alternative is a stream -bystream battle w ith agricultural interests. Even on a “ win 

some, lose som e" basis this is an unacceptable way to 

handle our dw indling resources. Wh ile, as W ood (1955 ) has 

po inted ou t, a great many people may have to depend fo r 

rec rea tion, hunting , and fishing on private land, . we tland preservation and dev elopment mu st include land 

acquisitio n to effectua te a pattern of pu blic use areas, to 

preserve basic breeding stocks o f wild life , to insure public 

access to recreational resources created at pu blic expense, 

and to compensate for losses res ulting from Federally or 

State financed projects.”

Th e values o f the swamplands, even if su bstan tially 

lowe r than cited herein (A pp en dix 7), are still high e nough 

to w arr ant the elim ination o f ch annelization. Th eir 

poten tia l value to the education process alone is s uffic ient 

to suggest the imm ediate purchase or lease o f the Alco vy's 

230 0 acres. Even at a purchase price o f $ 30 0 p er acre, this 

amounts to on ly $690,000 fo r a resource worth millions to 

ou r fut ure.

One can ask at this po int why tlsc S.C.S. docs not take 

part o f the money that it wo uld spend Io channel tlie lower 

Alcov y and use it Io purchase the e ntire swamp and include 

it in a system of wetland soil and water conse rva tion preserves. or river parks. Odu in has suggested tha t these soil 

and water conservation preserves may req uire certain mod ific ations and improvements in o rder Io m aintain their value 

to the public and that this wo uld require c on tin ue d technical supervision by the S.C.S. Odum makes the poin t, however, that the maintenance cost o f the swamps wo uld be 

lo w indeed com pared to the ben efits. Such a system of 

preserves or "co nserves" wo uld add immeasurably to the 

natio n's wetland resources and remove a sore spot of 

conflict between federal agencies. Such an a ction, although 

it might require some amending legisla tion, wo uld enable 

this huge org aniza tion to move sig nificantly ahead m the 

fie ld o f true environme nta l conservation, open ing up a new 

era o f pro fit fo r the landow ners and the general public. In 

keeping w ith the steady decline o f farmin g practice in the 

So uth and the urbanization o f ou r culture, such a sh ift in 

emphasis to include preservation o f valuable protective 

landscapes is truly a modern ecological approach to the 

conservation o f A me rica's soil and water resource base.

I adm ire Leopold and Marchand (196 8) fo r their noteworthy effo rts to develop means by wh ich the aesthetic 

value o f a stream valley or “ riverscape" may be judg ed in an 

unbiased fashion. We must continue to search fo r better 

ways to evaluate our natural ecosystems. A t the same tim e 

we must shoulder the responsib ility o f understand ing the 

structure and fu nct io n o f each ecosystem thr ough science 

and o f m aking this knowledge public throug h education. It 

is not that we kn ow so mu ch abou t the Alcov y, i t is th at we 

kn ow so lit tle.

I apologize to the reader f or the manner in wh ich this 

stu dy w ill end. The reason fo r adding the follo wing paragraphs is that ind ividuals and groups have been repeatedly 

told by the Soil Conservation Service that, whde the y are 

symp ath etic, their hands are tied by Senate Do cument 97 

(W at er Resources Co un cil, U.S. Governm ent Printing 

Office ). Many have read this docume nt, in clud ing members 

o f the legal section o f The Georgia Conservancy. It contain s 

bo th general and specific statements, bu t its in te nt seems 

clear, even to a nonlcgal mind. It was written by a very 

responsible and special government council and is not 

obscure in its phraseology. As far as can be determined by 

close ex am ination o f the docume nt, in the case o f the 

Alcov y certain provisions are being followe d bu t othe r pro ­

visio ns apparently are being ignored. Some o f the latte r 

should be cit ed: Sect. II B specifies tha t “ Ope n space, green 

space, and wild areas o f rivers . . . be ma intained fo r recreatio nal purposes: and areas of u nique natural bea uty . . . and 

scientific interest be preserved and managed prim arily for 

the ins piratio n, en joym en t and educatio n o f the people." 

Section II C: "w ell being o f all o f the people shall be the 

overrid ing determinant . . . ." Section II I A I: “ A ll viewpoints - na tio nal, regiunal. State and local shall be fu lly 

considered. . . ." Sectio n V A 4: “ A comprehensive public 

vie wp oint shall he applied. . . . Such a view point includes 

conside ration o f all effects, ben efic ial and adverse, short 

range and long range, tangible and inta ngi bl e. . . . " Section 

V A 7: "When there arc major diffe rences among technica lly possible plans conceived as desirable on the basis o f .. 

. intan gib le benefits and costs, in com parison with o ptim um 

plans based on tangible benefits and costs, alternative . . . 

projs-cts , . . shall be planned.” While selection in these cases 

is supposed to be made by the executive branch and Congress. how much closer can one come to spelling ou t the 

elim inat ion o f a disagreement such as channeliza tion in the 

low er Alco vy 9

 Sectio n C I : “ A ll plans shall be formu lated
ith due regard to all pertinent benefits and costs, bo th 

tan gible and intangible.'' Under this section tangible bene- 

*ls must exceed project costs. S ection D 3 discusses intangible ben efits, as docs Section E 9: “ Benefits also include 

the intangible values o f preserving areas o f uniqu e natural 

beauty and scenic, his torical, and scientific interests.” Section E l l: “ reports should show the net econom ic effects 

of. . .changes in pro du ctivity o f forest. . .or othe r resources.”

It appears tha t the Water Resources Cou nc il, in preparing Senate Docum ent 97 , did conscie ntiously recognize 

the importance o f weighing the multip le uses o f watershed 

environme nts, w ith considerable emphasis on intang ible 

ben efits. Re cently, as fur ther evidence o f their concern, the 

Co un cil held a nationw ide series o f public liearings in reco gn itio n o f rapidly changing values in we tland use, again 

includ ing the importance o f intangib le values.

In the deve lopm ent o f the White Riv er Basin o f 

Missouri and Arkansas, the Wh ite River Basin Coo rdinating 

Com mittee (1 968 ) had this to 's ay about the intang ible 

values o f the liver: "T he real value o f much o f this plan lies 

in the realm o f intang ible ben efits . . . the development o f 

land and water resources in this Na tion is essential to produce material benefits. How ever, ma terial we alth is n ot the 

sum total o f our existence and the ‘fiscal yards tick* cannot 

measure all o f our needs and d esires.. . . Th e qualit y o f o ur 

existence includes the div ersity and preservation o f bea uty 

and does not perm it a to ta l emphasis on the use o f our 

resources to produce ma terial wealth Escape from the 

'ssures and comp lexitie s o f modern living b y returning to 

segments o f a w orld wh ich nu rtu red the sp iritual though ts 

and aspirations o f our ancestors is among our aesthetic and 

cultu ra l determ inants; the y provide unique typ es o f recreatio n no t provided by manmade deve lopm ents. . . The 

stud y then outlines the need fo r higher qua lity recreation 

w it h qu ality defined as “ the degree to whic h the recreation 

experie nce diffe rs fro m the ordina ry - also the degree to 

which it stirs our higher senses, our feelings about the 

beauty o f the natural world.” The study then points t o the 

gro wing significance o f scenic and special areas because o f 

ou r highly urbanized popu latio n (70 percent) and cites 

form er Secretary o f the In te rio r Ud all, wh o said: “ Social 

values must be equated w ith econo mic values. The overrid ing need o f man fo r an env ironm ent tha t w ill renew the 

hum an sp irit and sustain unborn generations require s some 

sacrifices o f shoit-te rm pro fits.”

It wo uld seem tha t the intent o f Senate Do cument 97 

is not being follo wed in the case o f the Alcovy River. In ­

tangible ben efits, such as have been summarized in this 

paper, continue to be ignored by the S.C.S.

The follo wing sections appear to spell out that the 

values lost in the de struction o f a valuable ecosystem such 

as the Alco vy ih ould be add ed to the gross pr oject costs. 

Section E 3 states that the net worth must be evaluated in 

terms o f avoidance o f adverse effects such as “ loss or dow ngrading o f recreational op po rtun itie s, increased mu nic ipal 

and ind ustrial water treatm ent costs. . . damage to fish and 

wild lif e, silta tio n . . . and deg rada tion o f the aesthetics o f 

enjoy me nt o f unpo llu ted surface waters . . . o r . . . in terms 

o f the advantageous effects . . . w ith respect to such items.” 

Section E 10 indicates that net increases can be used: “ The 

value . . . o f net increases in recreational, resource preservation. . . .” Section F I points ou t that project 

econom ic costs must consider ” . . . losses, liabilities , and 

induced adverse effects . . . w hethe r tangible or in ta ngi bl e. . 

. .” Sectio n F 4 notes that net adverse effects must be 

considered such as “ all uncompensated adverse effects 

caused by the cons tru ction and operation o f a program or 

project, wheth er tangible or intan gible."

Sectio n V II I o f Supplem ent No. I (Evalua tion standards fo r primary outdo or recreation ben efits) further instructs an agency to comp ute the costs o f providing intangible benefits as the difference between alte rnative plans 

and to comp ute as a cost the ben efits forego ne by othe r 

phases o f the pro je ct! There is to be found, the n, in bo th 

Senate Docume nt 97 and its Supplem ent, grounds for considering the destruction o f a natural environme nt as a cost.

I f our legislato rs have been co rre ctly interpreted, it 

wo uld seem that a wise move at the present time wo uld be 

to amend Public Law 56 6,* so that oth er than agricultura l 

interests can have veto power over flo od co nt ro l projects 

inv olv ing entire watersheds. Th is is perhaps a way o f saying 

tha t more o f the people can then just ly share in planning 

(he kin d o f place where they, and generations to fo llo w, 

may w ant to live.

‘ Georg ia Con gros man Ben Blackburn has proposed ru th an amend
491

STATEMENT ON VALUE OF WETLANDS FOR WILDLIFE

Lynn Nymyer and San fo rd Sc he mnitz 

Dep ar tm en t of F is h e ry & W il d li fe Sci en ce 

New Mexico S ta te U n iv e rs it y , Las Cru ce s

The Im po rtan ce o f a l l for ms o f w a te r to w ild lif e is as s tr a ig h t fo rw ar d 

as th e Im po rt an ce o f w a te r to human e x is te n c e .

B as ic v a lu e s o f w e tl a n d s:

1. The b io lo g ic a l nee d o f w etl ands to w ild lif e e x is te n c e .

2. Econom ic v a lu e of w ild lif e to th e people o f th e U nited S ta te s .

3. E c o lo g ic a l v alu e of w etl a n d s.

B io lo g ic a l Need fo r W et land s

Glen C. San de rs on c ite d In Ducks Ge ese and Swans of N or th Am eri ca by Fr an k 

C. B e llr o s e ; "th e p r in c ip a l re aso n fo r th e d r a s tic d e c li n e of du ck s in th e 20th 

c en tu ry has bee n m an 's d e s tr u c tio n of w etl and h a b ita ts ne ed ed fo r b re e d in g and 

fe ed in g d u ri ng m ig ra ti o n p e ri o d s and d u ri n g w in te r. " The same p u b li c a ti o n c ite s 

th e d e c li n e fro m th e o r ig io n a l 127 m il li o n a c re s o f n a tu r a l w etlands In th e U .S ., 

to 75 m il li o n a c re s h as be en due to m an 's d ra in ag e and p o llu tio n . Of th e re ­

m ai ni ng 75 m il li o n a c r e s , only 9 m il li o n a c re s is c la s s e d as h ig h -q u a li ty wet ­

la n d s, 13. 5 m il li o n i s o f m od er at e v a lu e , 24 m il li o n as low valu e and 28 m il li o n 

is of n e g lig ib le v a lu e ! Where w ate rf ow l are conce rn ed th e lo s s o f more w etlands 

coul d pr ov e d is a s tr o u s . In 1945 -5 5, 30 0, 00 0 p o th o le s to ta lin g 1 m il li o n a c re s 

o f w etl ands we re d ra in e d in th e P r a ir ie and Lake S ta te s . Thi s re d u c ti o n o f 25X 

o f th e w ate rf ow l b re e d in g h a b ita t in t h is a re a , re s u lte d in a 66X d e cre a se in 

duc k p ro d u c ti o n . D ur in g th e same p e ri o d th e D ep t. o f I n te r i o r purc hase d on ly 

25 0,00 0 a c re s o f w etl ands over th e e n tir e U .S .. T his kin d o f lo s s -g a in r a t i o 

w ill pr ov e d r a s tic a lly harm fu l to w ate rf ow l in th e f i n a l ou tcom e. W etland s

76-161 0 - 76 - 32
492

do no t." This Is an Important sta temen t; If wetland s are no t pr otec ted for

use by w il d li fe , many sp ec ie s may not ad just and we w il l se e d ra st ic de cl in es

of thes e sp ec ie s. When determ inin g the value of we tla nd s, re si den t fur and

game animals deserve at le a st equ al ranking with waterfow l.

Economic Value of W ildlife to the United States

In 1970 36 m ill io n fishermen and hun ters spent $7.1 b il li o n to fi sh and

hunt. The U. S. economy re ce iv es th is money In the follo wing ways:

1. 28.8Z fo r au xilia ry eqmlpment

2. 15.1Z for fi sh in g and hun ting equipment

3. 27.9Z for b a it , gu id es , and othe r re lated expenses

4. 23.3Z for food , lodgin g and tran sportatio n

5. 2.6Z for li ce n se s

6. 2.3Z for p riv il ege fe es

Waterfowl hun ters made up 3,0 00 ,00 0 of the 36 m ill io n hunters and fishermen and

spent $244,45 1,0 00.

The fur trade Is bi g busines s. The li v e ly demand for a ll kin ds of fur puts

In to the pocke ts of the American tra ppers m illion s of dollars a ye ar . This

annual raw fur cro ps

in the U. S. is worth from $10 0,000,000 to $1 25 ,00 0,0 00 .

About 15Z of th is , approxim ately $1 8,75 0,0 00 goes to fur farmers who produce

sil v e r foxes and minks, and a sm all part goe s to pro fe ss io na l trap pe rs. The

gr ea ter po rt io n, 60 to 70Z goe s to farmers and farm boys. Data s u gg e s t s tha t

25 ,000 ,000 to 30,00 0,0 00 fur anim als are proce ssed an nu all y, and th is produces

an even taul fur coa t value convers ion of $425,60 0,0 00 . Wetland dependent

muskrat and mink p elt s make up 20 ,80 0,00 0 or 69 to 83 per cen t of the to ta l fur

ha rv es t.
493

produce d u ck s- m illion s o f du cks. Th is Is Im porta nt be ca us e ducks ar e Impor tan t

to th e two m il li o n duck hu nt er s and even more pe op le who en jo y wat ch in g du ck s.

In th e Symposium on ra re and endangere d w ild lif e of the So uthw estern United

S ta te s , September 22-2 3, 19 72 , Alexander Sprunt IV ., d is cuss ed th e fa cto rs

resp on si b le fo r th e d e c li n e o f th e Bald Eag le . Sprunt sta te d : Bald ea g le s

p refe r and in moat areas, depend on w ate rf ro nt pro per ty . O pe ra tin g e s p e c ia ll y

again st th e e a g le s Is th e p r o li fe r a tio n o f seco nd homes. Hany la k es and r iv e r s ,

marsh es and e stu a r ie s ar e now ri ng ed w ith summer or weekend c o tta g e s , making

un di stur be d n e s ti n g s i t e s fo r e a g le s ha rder to fi n d . Eag les show a gre at

te n a c it y toward th e ir n e st s i t e s and In some case s d is p la ced p a ir s o f ea g le s

may simply ce ase to n est" . Th is em ph asizes th at our n ati on al bir d is depend ent

on w et la nds. F ail u re to p rote ct our remain ing w et la nd s co uld s p e ll th e demi se

o f th e ba ld e a g le .

The Fi sh and W il d li fe S e r v ic e, in I t s re por t "Wetlands o f th e United S ta te s,"

(FWS 1957) l i s t s a to t a l of 10 mammals, which In ha bi t wetla nd s in New Mexico

alo n e, th at are o f major s ig n if ic a n c e to man. Spec ie s such as mus kr at, min k,

o tte r and be av er depend on wetla nd s fo r su r v iv a l. We tlan ds a ls o pr ov id e e s s e n tia l

h a b it a t fo r w ate rfo w l, sh oreb ir d s, as w e ll as a t le a s t 50 fu r and game s p e c ie s

In th e Un ite d S ta te s , e x clu siv e o f w ate rf ow l. For example th e Fish and W il d li fe

Servic e l i s t s 26 8 b ir d s which hav e been ob se rv ed on th e Bosque d el Apache N ational

W il d li fe Refug e, a w et la nd ar ea in New Me xic o.

J. David Ligon in th e p revio u sl y me ntion ed Symposium on ra re and endangere d

w ild lif e o f th e so ut hw es te rn United S ta te s sta te d : "The cru x o f prese rvati on

in nea rl y a l l case s comes down to h a b it a t a v a ila b ilit y . I f s u it a b le h ab it at is

a v a il a b le most sp e c ie s can maint ain th e ir num bers. I f h ab it at i s a lt e r e d , some

s p e c ie s p oss ess th e beh avio ra l and g e n e ti c p la s t ic it y to a d ju st , wh ereas oth er s
494

Ecology Value of Wetlands

Wetlands are valuab le to the peo ple ot the U. S. for groundwater rech arge. 

The U. S. Geo logo cal Survey stud ied wetland-groundwater re la ti on sh ip s in North 

Dakota's Coteau area and found that water seeped through the bottom of the wetland ba sin in to the groundwater seldom exceeding 0. 01 fo ot of water per square 

fo ot of water su rface per day. In some cases th is was 20 to 30 per cen t of the 

water lo ot from the wetland in a ye ar. Sim ilar work in Minnesota al so showed 

seepag e from wetlands in to the groundwater.

Wetlands help reduce floo di ng. In North Dakota the re are about 1.5 m illion 

acres of wetlands. Seepage, ev ap oration, and other water lo ss es reduce water 

le v els in wetlands by at le a st two fe e t. This pro vides 3.0 m illion ac re -f ee t 

of flo od sto ra ge .

Wetlands form a bas ic st ati on in the nu tr ie nt cy cl e of l i f e . E colo gi ca lly, 

the es tu ar y, it s sou nds, cr ee ks , marshes, and mud and sand fla ts are a ll one 

production un it. They produce an ex ce ss of org anic material which is fed 

upon by a myriad of organisms, which form food for in se cts which in turn feed 

fis h , waterfowl and th ei r young. I t is sa id that 1 acre of s a lt marsh is equal 

in primary pr od uc tiv ity to 5 acres of wheat.
495

ITERATURE CITED

B ellro se , Frank C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. W ildlife 

Management In sti tu te . Sta ckpole Books Harris bur g, Pa. 543 pp.

Lig on, David J. 1972. Other Southwestern no n-s ongbird s. In Sympos on rare 

and endangered w il d li fe of the southw este rn United Sta te s. New Mexico 

Dept. of Game and Fi sh . St at e Ca pitol Santa Fe , New Mexico. 74-7 8 pp.

Lynch, R. C. 1957. Drainage ver sus ducks. American Fo rests 63 ( 2 ) :22-23 .

North Dakota St at e U niv er si ty . 1970. Wetlands who need s them. Coo perativ e 

Exten sion Se rv ice Circu lar A-540.

Odum, Eugene P. 1959. Fundamentals of ec ol og y. W. B. Saunders Company, 

Ph ilad elph ia . 547 pp.

Spru nt, Alexan der, IV. 1972. The bald ea gle . In Sympos on rare and endangered 

w il d li fe of the southw estern United S ta te s. New Mexico Dept. of Game and 

F ish, St at e Cap itol , Santa Fe, New Mexico. 97- 103 pp.

U. S. Fis h and W ildlife Ser vi ce . 1948. Fur an important w il d li fe crop.

W ildlife le a fle t 314. United St at es Dept. of the In te ri or. 6 pp.

. 1970. Na tio nal sur vey of fi sh in g and hunting

1970. United Sta te s Dept. of the In te ri or Resource Publ. 95. 108 pp.
Swamp Drainage:

by Randy Parry

STAFF FMOTOS

| [ t is past time tha t all natural resource managers and planners, wheth er they be foresters, landscape architects, wildlife biologists, city planners, 

or soil conservationists, realised the demand for 

an ecological approach to resource management. It 

is no longer feasible or sensible to com pletely sacrifice one natural resource for the sake of bett er 

management of another . All resource managers 

mus t now be ecologically conscious, and realise tha t 

all of our natural resources must be managed in a 

unified manner if we are to conserve them for 

future generations. Unde rstand ing should not be 

canceled by expertness.

Nat ural swamps are one of N orth Carolin a’s more 

valuable natural resources, both economically and 

aesthetically. However, our natu ral swam ps are 

contin ually being threa tened by d rainage, and little 

conside ration is given to the ecological consequences involved for land, timber, wildlife, water, or 

even man.

Thro ugh research, it has been determ ined tha t 

the practic e of overdrainage in the coastal plain 

thr eat ens the destruc tion of an estimated 1V4 million acres of organic soils throu gh oxidation. Accordin g to the Jan uary 1969 issue of Mechanix

IUuitrate d. Dr. Rainer Berger of the Unive rsity of 

Colorado claims tha t the eart h is now in one of the 

drie st periods it has had in the last 40,00 0 years! He 

also points out that the last major dry period was 

some 5000 years ago, but was not as severe as the 

one at present. In 1968 alone, drough t losses in 

Nort h Carolina have been estimated by reliable 

sources at about $146 millipn. One can easily see 

the threat posed by drainage .

M any of our natural swamps in the Southeastern United States have already been irrev ersibly destroy ed by the practic e of channe lization and 

drainage, and the physica l effects of these drainage projects on the watershed are more than a 

mere removal of water from existing croplands. 

Chann elization can cause the water to be drained 

from adjacent farmlan ds too fast. The rig ht of way 

clearing throu gh the hea rt of the swamp removes 

much of the standin g vegetation tha t reta rds the 

quick removal of wate r from th^ land. As a result 

of this clearing and increased channel izatio n, the 

surface water drain s from the land at ri ch an accelerated rate, tha t much topsoil is also take n by 

erosion. The farmer ’s land is literally drained; 

drain ed of important soil nut rie nt elements, fer- 

.ilizers, and other farm chemicals. The farme r receives no benefit from these substances when they 

float down a ditch and eventually cause stream 

pollution.

A Non-Eoological Approach 

to Resource Management

Farm drain age in Nort h Dakota has actually 

been accused of causin g floods—simply by removing surface water too quickly. By elimin ating 

natural land basins, potholes, depressions, and 

flora which catch, store, and cause ground pene tration, runoff waters are shed from the uplands more 

quickly. This increased runoff f l o o d s into the 

stream s above thei r nat ura l capacity to tran spor t 

it—thus creating locally flooded conditions. Some 

means must be left to reta rd wate r if floods are 

going to be controlled. Complete swamp drain age is 

not the cure for flooding that is alleged.

The effects of nat ura l swamp draina ge on fish 

and wildlife populations are far-reaching , and in 

most cases Irreversible. Natural swamps support 

populations of large mouth bass, warmo uth, redbreast sunflsh, yellow perch, fliers, redfin pickerel, 

and chain pickerel. Some of the best fishing of 

Eastern North Carolina is provided by these fish 

species in swamp areas. When a drain age project 

conver ts a natu ral swamp into a drainage canal, 

these impo rtant fish species are replaced by less 

desirab le rough fish th at c an withstand the altere d 

env iron ment

Strea m siltation is a major national problem, 

especially in dra ined swamps. The farmer needs the 

valuable topsoil tha t erodes into drained swamps; 

fish and wildlife do not, and the effects of stream 

siltati on on the ir existence is often lethal.

First , siltation causes a lowering of the productivity level of the swamp. Silt causes decreased 

light penetration in the water, thus many importan t "prod ucer” aqua tic plan ts and phytoplankton 

canno t survive. As th e phytoplankto n is eliminated, 

the zooplankton will also decrease in total amount 

of biomass present. Wit h valuable oxygen and food 

producing plant life elimina ted or sharply reduced, 

fish face serio us shortages of clean water, food, and 

oxygen.

Stream siltati on also causes a reproductive problem for fish. Once fish eggs are spawned, silt deposition often completely covers the eggs and suffocates them.

During the spring and summer months chann elized streams usual ly contain the least amou nt of 

water. This is also t he period of ma ximum breedin g 

for fish. Oftentimes in draine d creeks the wate r is 

too low duri ng this period for egg depos its to be 

made. Many fish eggs that are spawned eventually 

end up desiccated or devoured by predators .

I n an effort to gain some insigh t into the detrim enta l effects of s wamp drainage on the existing 

fishery resources, the Nort h Carolina Wildlife ReW lU M jr t W N o «TH CAaOLINA—J uly . IM S
497

sources Commission conducted a study. Fisher ies 

Biologists Jack Bayless and William B. Smith of 

the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

reporte d on these effects in "The Effects of Channelization Upon the Fish Populations of Lotic 

Wate rs in Eastern Nort h Carolina.” In this study 

23 channeled streams and 36 proximate natu ral 

streams were compared. The following is quoted 

directly from the report abstract:

"These comparisons indica ted tha t reductions in the magnitude of 90 perc ent occurred 

both in weight of game fish per acre, and in 

number of game fish exceeding six inches total 

length per acre, following channel izatio n.

The data furthe r revealed that no significant 

return towards the natural stream populations 

occurred within a 40-year period following 

channelization."

Fish have very little choice in a drainage canal. 

Eithe r they remain and reprodu ce at a lower level, 

providing physiological conditions permit, or migrat e in search of better aquat ic habi tat. The fish 

that can remain face many hardshi ps in their 

searc h for food, clean water, and a spawn ing and 

rear ing grounds. Predat ion, starv ation, and disease 

are usual ly more prev alen t within such a population living under such physiological and ecological 

stresses . Population reduction is the end result.

Fish species tha t canno t physiologically with ­

stan d heavy stream siltation or low water levels 

mu st migrate or perish. The fish th at do leave in 

searc h of bett er hab itat suffer gre at losses from 

starvation, predation, and competition from other 

fish species. Th e complete fishery resources will be 

severe ly altered in an appa rent ly irreve rsible manner.

Wildlife population s are faced with a similar 

problem. Ducks cann ot effectively reprodu ce and 

rea r their young on open -canals of flowing dirty 

water . The open hab itat allows increased predatio n 

from hawks, dogs, foxes, turtle s, and man. Ducks 

mus t move out. But how much is a duck worth? It 

is impossible to accurately answer such a question. 

Wildlife has a value tha t cannot be measured in 

dollars and cents.

The wood du"k is found in gre at numbers in 

many natural swamps of No rth Carolina. This duck 

is North Carolina’s own in a sense. It is one of the 

most hunted duck species in North Carolina. Also, 

in North Carolina, more woodies are killed than 

any other species. Other ducks usin g swamps in 

significant numbers include blacks and mallards.

N ATURAL swamps offer se clusion and isolation 

unlik e any other form of habitat. Deer and bear 

make extensive use of bottom lands and swamps as 

escape routes from dogs and man Mast production 

in natural swamps helps main tain population s of 

squirrels, turkey s, and many bird species other 

tha n waterfowl. Raccoons, rabbits, otte r, and mink 

also flourish in nat ura l swamps and bottomlands.

The carry ing capacity of a swamp in its natur al 

sta te is ex treme ly high, but is sharply curtailed by 

drainage .

What happens to existi ng wildlife when drain-' 

age occurs? Since prime habitat for many species 

is destroyed, they must abandon thei r home territor ies or cease to exist. Man often invades these 

drain ed areas.

When wildlife populations are forced to abandon 

an area in an effort to search for better habitat, 

losses occur. Population s moving into new areas 

face increased competition from species already 

presen t. Increased preda tion may occur since the 

abando ning individuals are not totally familiar 

with their “new" surroundings. Starv ation and disease may also increase. As a result of swampland 

destru ction, the total wildlife resource is seriously 

jeopardized.

Little does man realize tha t he is also an animal 

species. Sure man is more advanced tha n animal 

species such as duc ks and deer, but how much more 

advance d? Man is the only animal tha t has ever 

waged an all-out war on his own species. Man requir es the same 20 amino acids for prote in synthesis as wildlife species. Man is like oth er wildlife 

species in tha t he requires food, water, air, and 

shel ter as the basic necessities of life. Swamp drainage virtually elimi nates most of these four essentials, not only for wildlife, but also for man. Su re, 

wildlife is affected more severely and more quickl} 

than man, but man will eventually be affected— 

probably to a gre ate r degree than wildlife.

With wate r pollution a major problem in the 

United States, clean water becomes an even more 

valuable resource. Swamp drain age l o w e r s the 

wate r table drastically. Many farmers complain 

about having to deep en thei r wells. D uring drou ght 

periods farmlands suffer tremen dous water shor tages, but new drain age projects are contin ually 

being planned and put into operation. In many 

areas creeks are being used as a wate r source for 

municipalities More of these creeks will be needed 

for use as a wate r source in the future—yet drai nage projects contin ue to multiply and flourish.

Many health officials promote swamp drain age 

projects in the name of mosquito control. Swamp 

draina ge projects could only cause a potential increase in existing mosquito populations. By dra ining bottomlands, extremely small potholes a few 

inches deep will almost always remain in some 

locations. These small areas are not large enough 

for significant duck usage, but exactly suit the 

mosquitoes’ needs for egg laying and larval development of the ir y o u n g . Mosquito populations 

thrive in such stagna nt pools in supposedly drai ned areas. Increa sed mosquito populations mean^ 

more localized DDT spraying, thus adding to ti 

treme ndou s problem of air and water pollution.

The Aedes aegypti mosquito, the one tha t carries 

yellow fever, prefers to breed in old water-containing tire s and empty cans near wellings, and does
498

not breed in significant numbers in n a t u r a l 

swamps. In most cases swamp drainage projects 

accele rate mosquito breed ing rather tha n control it.

NATURAL swamps contain extrem ely valuable 

tupelo and cypress timber stands. Hardwood bottomlands, characterized by surface wat er only in 

the winter , contain other important tre e species 

such as ashes, blackgum, sweetgum, and several 

species of oak. Besides the sanctuary provided in 

these areas, wildlife food production is also high. 

Berries, gum mast, and acorns are produced in 

enormou s quantities in natu ral, unalter ed swamps 

and bottomlands.

The timber value of these tree species is tremendous. Two-thirds of all hardwoods produced in 

the United States come from the swamp s and bottomlan ds of the Southeastern states.

The rot-re sistan t qualit ies of cypress wood are 

well known. Cypress timber is used extensively 

where exposure to weather is an imp ortant factor.

Tupelo root wood is often used as floats on fishing nets. Veneer of tupelo gum is often staine d and 

used as paneling or furniture.

Hardwood veneer is a main source of income in 

Eastern North Carolina. High quality hardwood 

prod ucts are in great demana, ana nat ura l swamps 

and bottomla nds play the impo rtant role of providing the necessary conditions for prop er growth 

and development of these valuable trees.

North Carolina is a n ationa l leader in the production of hardwood plywood, much of which is produced from tupelo gum. This state is also a national 

leader in wood furn iture production. Why import 

these important tree species when they can be 

grown right here in the swamps and bottomlands 

of North Carolina?

Tupelo and cypress reqp ire surface water for 

long periods each yea r to maintain maximum 

growth. Both seed dispersal and germ inatio n depend upon a watery atmosphere. Tupelo and cypress improve the quality of water in swamps by 

slowing runoff and causing silt deposition.

In Agricultural Handbook Number 181, November 1960, Management and Invento ry of Southern 

Hardwoods, U.S. Departmen t of Agric ulture, the 

following state ment is made conce rning tupeloswamp blackgum stands: "Artificial drain age will 

decelerate growth or kill older tree s if it perm anently lowers the water table. Prolonged drou ghts 

cause morta lity and induce insect attack."

No longer is it considered economically feasible 

to convert hardwood bottom lands and swamps into 

pine stands. Softwood production is now more 

approximately in line with the demand. Under 

, swamp conditions, blackgum, tupelo. and cypress 

can develop tremendous volumes of timber. These 

species can actually out produce southern pines. 

Good hardwood wetlan ds containing ample wate r 

can produce growth rate s sometimes exceeding 

1000 board feet per acre per year. Wildlife populations can most always be expected to decline whe never pines replace a good hardwood stand.

HAT does the fut ure hold for our natu ral 

swamps in North Carolin a? From, the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inven tory 

of 1962 the futu re looks dim, unless corrective 

actions are enforced upon swamp drainage . Of the 

total 211 w atersheds in Nort h Carolina, 208 of them 

were found in need of "improv ement.” According 

to the “Watershed Box Score” made available by 

the North Carolina Soil and Wate r Conservation 

Committee, in 1968 North Carolina had submit ted 

83 applicatio ns for watershed improvement. Also, 

115 watersheds were in the " prior ity for plann ing,” 

"approved for operatio ns,” or “unde r cons tructi on” 

category. Nine watersheds had already undergone 

works of “impro vement.” In 1968, North Carolina 

ranked fourth in the natio n in the num ber of wa tersheds approved for o perations.

Recommendations to ameliorate the threat 

swamp drain age poses to our natu ral resources 

might include the following: (1 ) Prevention of 

complete swamp drain age when only better field 

drainage is needed. (2 ) Stron ger mitigation measures for destroyed fish and wildlife populations. 

(3 ) More accurate education of farmers and the 

general public as to the detrimen tal and long term 

effects of swamp drai nage projects. (4 ) Greater 

consideration given to the professional opinions of 

foresters and wildlife biologists. (5 ) The establishment of water banks. (6 ) More research be conducted on the effects of swamp draina ge on all 

natu ral resources.

Steps must be take n to ensure tha t our swamps 

will be m anaged in a n ecological manner. No longer 

can the soil conse rvationist consider only soil, the 

wildlife biologist consider only wildlife, and the 

forester consider only trees. All resource managers 

must unify the ir knowledge and consider all resources in a plan that will provide for futu re generations. Short-term, quick dollar projects mus t be 

viewed with caution. $
499

Inland Wetlands of

the United States

Evaluated as Potential

Registered Natural Landmarks

Richard H. Goodwin

William A. Niering

Connecticut College, New London
500

Chapter 2

The Value of Inland Wetlands

The wetlands of the United States represent an extremely limited 

resource, comprising about 3.5% of the entire country, excluding 

Alaska. Although among the most productive ecosystems in the world, 

they have been subjected to widespread destruction and abuse. As a 

result of dredging, draining, filling, and pollution they have been 

reduced to 70 million acres, which is slightly more than half of the 

original estimated 127 million acres. These figures include all wetland 

types, inland and coastal.

Although the ecological role of the coastal wetlands in supporting 

the shellfish and finfish productivity of our estuarine waters is well 

documented, recent studies have also provided data on the significant 

ecological role o f our fresh-water wetlands. Two current studies are of 

special relevance. Wharto n’s analysis of the ecological values of 

southern river swamps keynotes four major values: water quality, water 

quantity, productivity, and potential educational use (Wharton 1970). 

McCormick (1970) and Grant and Patrick (1970) have recently 

completed a study of the polluted Tinicum wetlands in the Philadelphia region which documents their high productivity and role in pollution filtration.

Hydrologic Role

Wetlands are of major importance in the nation’s hydrologic regime. 

Because of their water-holding capacity, they act as storage basins.
501

lowering flood crests, minimizing erosion, and serving to reduce the 

destructiveness of severe floods. In densely populated areas this is 

especially important, since urbanization intensifies the rate of runoff. 

Buildings, concrete, and asphalt waterproof the land surface and tend 

to concentrate large volumes of precipitation. Cities lack adequate 

soak-in areas and the runoff is usually rapid and in excessive amounts. 

Wetlands, and especially flood plains, act as ca tchment basins and tend 

to slow the speed of flood waters, thus minimizing flood damage. In 

1955, when severe floods hit eastern Pennsylvania, many bridges were 

washed out along the stream courses. However, two bridges of the type 

destroyed elsewhere were still intact below the Cranberry Bog, a Natural Area preserved by The Nature Conservancy and recommended for 

landmark status. That swamps provide natural storage for flood waters 

has been demonstrated on the Alcovy River in Georgia (Wharton 

1970), also recommended for landmark status.

It has been estimated that a 6-inch rise in water over a 10-acre wetland places more than 1.5 million gallons of water in storage with no 

harm to the surrounding biota (Niering 1966). By slowing the velocity 

of flow, wetlands minimize erosive processes and simultaneously act as 

siltation basins. Wetland Filling is often a combination of organic, 

plant-derived, and inorganic, stream-carried sediments.

Wetlands have been shown to play a significant role in ground-water 

recharge. In the Ipswich River basin of Massachusetts the USDI 

(1962) found that marshes and swamps functioned not only as water 

storage and discharge areas but also occasionally as ground-water 

recharge areas. In North Carolina along the Yellow River, Kilpatrick 

(1964) found an alluvial aquifer below the flood plain that was 

hydraulically contiguous with the surface waters of the stream. 

Productivity *

Fresh-water marshes and swamps are among the most productive 

biological systems. Eugene Odum (1959) estimates the gross productivity of southern river swamps such as the Alcovy and Altamaha bottomlands at 20,000 kcal/m2

 per year, which compares favorably with a 

field of sugarcane (27 ,01 0).’ the most productive, intensively managed 

agro-ecosystem. Furthermore, wetland productivity is estimated to be 

double the 20,000 figure on the most favorable sites. Hardwood 

production reaches about 12 metric tons/ha (2.4 acres) per year. The 

estimated timber productivity on the 2300-acre Alcovy River system is 

estimated to be $1,578,720 per year ($686 per acre per year) based 

on a 100-year period and at present market value. Fish productivity 

averages 75 pounds per acre but may reach 1300 pounds per acre in 

the backwaters and sloughs, according to the Georgia Game and Fish 

Commission. Wharton (1970) estimates the total productivity value of

the Alcovy at $546,940 per year or $3,648,720 based on a 100-year 

i

'D ay net production plus night respiration.
502

period. These monetary estimates do not include the value of primary 

production in terms of food for wildlife or in terms of the animals, including furbearers, that it supports.

Wetlands have long been associated with the production of waterfowl (Alexander et al. 1953; Linduska 1964). They are recognized as 

the Natio n’s "duck factories." The pothole country, for example, 

which represents only 107< of our wetlands, produces over 50^ of our 

ducks. Every year 300,000 ducklings fly off the western marshes along 

the Pacific Flyway. The 14 southern states add another 700,000, and 

the eastern coastal marshes add 200,000 more during the best years. 

Some wetlands are more important as the actual breeding areas. 

Others are essential as wintering grounds and as feeding and resting 

areas scattered along the major flyways (Errington 1966; Niering 

1966).

Studies o f the primary producers in the Tinicum Marshes by McCor-* 

mick (1970) provide insight into higher plant productivity. Among the 

eight vegetation types represented, common reed grass, wild rice, cat ­

tail, and mixed aquatic types were most important. They produced a 

standing crop of 4.2, 6.9, 3.9, and 4.0 tons/acre, respectively.

In general, wetlands exhibit a distinctive flora and fauna adapted to 

hydric conditions or to periodic flooding. Some of the plant species are 

of special interest for their unique features. These include the insectivorous plants, orchids, and^ericads of the bogs and species typical of 

the vernal pools that change morphologically with gradual desiccation 

of the site.

Oxygen Production and Nutrient Recycling

Grant and Patrick (1970) found that the 512 acres of wetland in the 

Tinicum Marshes produce a net increase of 20 tons of oxygen per day. 

This is the product of photosynthesis. .

Modern man has drastically modified the nitrogen cycle. The annual 

natural turnover of nitrogen compounds in the U.S. has been calculated to be about 7 or 8 million tons (Commoner 1970). Currently our 

agricultural fertilizers add another estimated 7 million tons, and 

nitrogen compounds produced as by-products from our power plants 

and automobiles, another 2 to 3 million tons. More than doubling the 

nitrogen input into the biosphere has resulted in a serious deterioration 

of enviornmental quality in various parts of the country. Denitrifying 

bacteria have the ability to take the deleterious nitrogen oxides that 

are accumulating and convert them back into atmospheric nitrogen of 

which most of the atmosphere is composed. Most wetlands support 

vast numbers of these micro-organisms and thus serve to reduce the 

load of dissolved nitrogen washed into them.

Another role of aquatic ecosystems is the recycling of organic sulfurcontaining compounds by action of sulfate-reducing bacteria. As
503

Deevcy (1970) puts it:

What .follows. If R.NHj.SH is to remain a renewable resource, is that water, mud. 

air, and land are closely linked by oxidation-reduction cycles in which reduction is 

performed entirely by organisms.

Pollution Filtration

One of the most significant roles of wetlands is their ability to 

remove pollutants. Preliminary studies in the Tinicum Marshes indicate 

that this area receives sewage from three treatment plants and that a 

significant reduction in absolute amounts of pollution occurs by the 

time the water has passed through the 512 acres of marsh. Grant and 

Patrick (197 0) succinctly summarize this vital role as follows:

It is significant that reductions in BOD, P-PO4

, N-N H4

. and N-NO,, did occur in the 

excursion of the river water over the marshland in the time interval of 2 to 5 hours. 

This reduction occurred in 57% of the BOD measurements, 57% of the P-PO4

 

analyses, 66% o f the N-NH:I, and 63% of the N-NOS

 analyses. Oxygen increases occurred in 73% of the analyses. It is difficult to determine from the information at 

hand why the decreases in pollution load were not always consistent but are probably 

due to irregular pattern o f flow and the variability o f pollution load If we take the approximate average value fo r each of these characteristics this would mean an approximate reduction of P-PO4

 of 190 mg/ft3

 o f water per day; BOD of 310 mg/ft3

 per day; 

N-N H, of 176 mg/ft 3

 per day; N-NO, of 3.2 m g/ft 1

 per day and an increase of oxygen 

of 412 m g/ft 3

 per day. Since the wet area o f the marsh is about 512 acres, this would 

amount to a reduction per day o f approximately 7.7 tons o f BOD. 4 9 tons P-PO4

, 4.3 

tons N-NH,. 138 lb. N-NO,. and an increase of 20 tons of oxygen. From these 

preliminary results it is evident that the marshlands play an important role in reducing 

the nutrient load in water and in increasing the oxygen content.

In Georgia, water quality was studied along the Flint and Alcovy 

rivers to assess the value of river bottomland swamps in pollution 

reduction. In the Flint River system, the Georgia Water Quality Control Board reports a high degree of recovery by a very organically polluted stream within a distance of 6 miles, where there were extensive 

^swamps. It was also observed that the degree of recovery was directly 

correlated with the presence of the adjacent swamps. Along Mountain 

Creek, a tributary of the Alcovy River, the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Administration found extreme pollution due to human sewage 

and chicken offal (Wharton 1970). However, after passing through 

2.75 miles of swamp forest along the Alcovy, the river water was 

designated as clean; and water quality was excellent after traversing an 

additional 7 miles of swamp. Data also suggest that coliform counts, 

dissolved oxygen, and biological oxygen determ ination (BOD) all 

returned to more favorable levels downstream from the swampy areas. 

In another study of oil wastes on the Gothard's Branch in Douglas 

County, Georgia, Turner and Ahearn (1970:18) found that the largest 

amount of the degradation of the pollutant occurs along the swampy 

portion of the stream.

The role of swamps in sediment removal has also been documented. 

Wharton (1970) estimates that the value of the-Alcovy River Swamp 

as a sediment accretor exceeds $3000 annually. This function would 

be destroyed by channelization, a potential threat to such wetlands. It
504

has been found that water velocity is doubled by channelization, while 

the silt load is tripled.

In conclusion, Wharton (1970) estimates the value of the 2300-acre 

Alcovy River Swamp ecosystem from the standpoint of water quality at 

$1,000,000 annually.

Education and Recreation

Wetlands are outdoor educational exhibits and scientific laboratories. They serve as the resource base for scientific research and also as 

museums for teaching the dynamics and ecological role of these 

ecosystems. At the Connecticut Arboretum in New London, the permanently preserved wetlands have been studied by Connecticut College students. A red maple swamp, actually a bog. with its underlying 

20 ft of peat, presented a challenging problem to an undergraduate 

student as she unravelled the 13.000 years of post-glacial history 

revealed by the pollen preserved in the peat. At the Thames Science 

Center, closely affiliated with the Connecticut Arboretum, thousands 

of school children annually are given first-hand field experience and 

are being taught the value of wetlands. The Arboretum Guided Tour 

(Emery 1967). used by the teachers, makes this point about the wetland along the route: "The swamp below this dam is roughly an acre in 

size. If flooded to a depth of one foot it would hold 330.000 gallons of 

water. Thus whenever a swamp is filled or drained, another large quantity of water is lost from the underground water supply and made to 

run off more quickly to aggravate flooding problems downstream.” In 

these ecological settings one can also emphasize the basic ecological 

principles operative in natural ecosystems—energy flow, recycling, 

diversity, and limited carrying capacity. These concepts can also be 

directly related to man and the environmental problems created by 

failing to recognize their applicability in human ecology.

Wetlands also provide many recreational outlets, such as fishing, 

hunting, bird-watching, and hiking. Twenty million Americans go fishing. two million hunt waterfowl. Thousands hunt the wetlands with 

binoculars and cameras, where an unparalleled diversity of waterfowl 

and spectacular marsh birds gives pleasure and inspiration. On Staten 

Island a unique fenway system has been proposed for incorporating the 

wetlands as part of the open-space pattern. This represents a sound 

ecological use of resources and the recreation potential is very great. 

Such a mosaic of open space should be incorporated as an essential 

part of any community development plan, as it serves an important social function and greatly enhances the quality of the environment 

(Hoffman 1963: Thomson 1970: USDI 1962).

Literatu re cited

Alexander. M. C., N. Hotchkiss, and W. S. Bourn. 1953. Classifies 

tion of wetlands of the United States. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildlife No. 20.
505

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish &. Wildlife Service, Washington, 

DC.

Commoner, B. 1970. Threats to the integrity of the nitrogen cycle: 

nitrogen compounds in soil, water, atmosphere and precipitation. In 

Global effects of environmental pollution. S. Fred Singer, ed. 

Springer-Vcrlag New York Inc., New York.

Dfevey, E. S. 1970. In defense of mud. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 51(1 ):5-8. 

Emery, J. 1967. A guided tour of the Connecticut Arboretum, Conn.

Arboretum Bull. No. 16, 32 p.

Errington, P. L. 1966. Of men and marshes. Macmillan, New York, 

150p.

Grant, R. R., Jr., and R. Patrick. 1970. Tinicum Marsh as a water purifier, p. 105-123. In Two studies of Tinicum Marsh. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

offman, L. ed. 1963. The conservation and management of temperate 

marshes, bogs, and other wetlands. Proc. Project MAR Conf. Nov. 

12-16, 1962. International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

Publications, new series, No. 3.

ilpatrick, P. A. 1964. Source of base flow of streams. Symposium -S urface Waters. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydro. Publ. 63:329-339.

induska, J. P. ed. 1964. Waterfowl tomorrow. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Government Printing Office, Washington, D C., 

770 p.

Cormick, J. 1970. The natural features of Tinicum Marsh, with 

particular emphasis on the vegetation. Pages 1-104 in Tw o studies of 

Tinicum Marsh. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Nifring, W. A. 1966. The life of the marsh—the North American wetlands. McGraw-Hill, New York. 199 p.

dum,«E. P. 1959. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Thomson, B. F. ed. 1970. Preserving our freshwater wetlands. Conn. 

Arboretum Bull. No. 17, 52 p.

Turner, W. E., and D. G. Ahf.arn. 1970. Effects of oi, pollution on 

populations of yeasts in fresh water (Abstract). Bact. Proc. of the 

70th Annual Meeting.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1962. The value of wetlands to modern 

society. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 

Proc. Project MAR Conf. Nov. 12-16, 1962. International Union for 

the Conservation of Nature Publications, new series. No. 3.

Wharton, C. H. 1970. The Southern River Swamp—a multiple use e nvironment. Bureau of Business and Economic Research. School of 

Business Administration, Georgia State Univ., Atlanta. Ga. 48 p.
506

IN DEFENSE OF SMALL STREAMS

We are scientists experienced with the study of snail streams, and

citizens Interested In assuring that streams obtain the legal protection

that we think they deserve.

Why are small streams Important? Our answer Is based on bot h scientific

and social factors. Our research (and that of many other Investigators) has

shown that relatively undisturbed small streams and their watersheds: provide

the first Important step In the retention of potential floodwater from storms,

release water during dry periods, prevent soil erosion, provide Important

spawning and nursery ground for fish that inhabit larger downstream rivers,

provide Important nutrient-retention services, maintain water quality in

downstream regions, lessen eutrophication In lakes and reservoirs, and provide

essential habitat for many important and Interesting species of fish and invertebrates. These organisms provide the basis for important scientific Inquiry,

aesthetic satisfaction and recreation.

One particularly Important aspect of small streams Is their role In fish

production. As a general rule river fish In all parts of the United States

swim upstream, often to headwaters and small tributaries, for spawning. This

appears particularly true for the larger species of fish. After a period of

about a year the young fish swim back downstream. Thus the destruction of

small streams not only destroys the potential for fishing of that small stream

but also part of the potential of the main-stem river.

One way to vl^r the above contributions of small streams and their

watersheds to society Is to consider them as natural "public service functions."

That Is to say these processes contribute significantly to society's welfar e

through such processes as fish production, flood protection, erosion control

and the maintenance of water quality. The managers of public water supply

watersheds and reservoirs recognize these facts and wisely leave watersheds

In their natural state. An additional benefit of the "public service functions"

from small watersheds la that the services are provided with no requirement for

capital expenditures or even, for the most part, operating expenses. This also

may be viewed from the perspective that these natural servicea do not require

fosall fuel energy to provide basic services to society. A considerable body

of research In different parts of the United States has shown that If these

"public services of nature" are destroyed the provision of the same public
507

benefits (l.e. flood protection, water quality control, recreation, etc.) by

man-derived means can be very expensive bot h In terms of dollars and energy.

Our research has also shown that small stream environments are easily

disrupted by dredging, filling, forest clearing and other major disruptions

to the watershed. Such disruption may seriously alter the ability of streams

to serve as fish spawning grounds and to maintain water quality. However, we

also have found that small streams are resilient to small changes and can, for

example, assimilate small quantities of sewage without significant environmental deterioration. Thus It Is Important to study each potential environmental

disruption of small streams to determine whether or not tha proposed disruption will seriously Interfere with the biological health and usefulness to

man of these ecosystems. We think that a process whereb y potential alterations

are first reviewed by a group of experienced and hopefully unbiased scientists,

engineers and/or representatives of the public would greatly assist In maintaining the water quality and fish productivity of our nation's streams and

rivers.

Sincerely,

Charles A. S. Hall, Ph.D.

Visiting As sistant Professor of Ecology

Clifford 0. Berg, Ph.D.

Professor of Entomology

Edward B. Brothers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Biology

Gene E. Likens, Ph.D.

Professor of Ecology

CAS H:COB:EB B:GEL:mbhm

Cornell University

Ithaca, New York

76-161 0 - 76 - 33
508

[From Conservation Volunteer, Minnesota DNR, September-October 1972]

W hy W e W orry A bo ut W etla nd s

(By John Skrypek)

For over two decades, the Department has waged a battle to preserve Minnesota’s 

fast-vanishing wetlands. But is the swamp, the marsh, the shallow lake “ valuable” only 

in terms of wildlifef John Skrypek answers that question with an emphatic “ No!” He 

points out that man’s increasing knowledge of wetlands ecology has revealed the enormously significant values these areas provide for our total environment. Mr. Skrypek 

is environmental control coordinator for the D NR ’s Division of Game and Fish.

Traditionally, programs for preservation of wetlands have emphasized their 

importance as wildlife habitat. Anyone can see that they are the home of the 

mallard, teal, heron, wood duck, muskrat and myriads of other creeping, crawling, 

swimming and flying creatures that prefer the wet, private world of a marsh. When 

connected to lakes and streams with permanent fish populations, wetlands may 

also be important fish spawning areas, especially for northern pike.

Our Department’s Division of Game and Fish has long recognized these values. 

We have had an active wetland acquisition program for wildlife habitat since 

1951. Since that time, over 200,000 acres of wetlands, in 82 Minnesota counties, 

have been purchased. In addition, many marshes adjacent to fish lakes have been 

acquired to be managed as northern pike spawning areas. We have also acquired 

shallow lakes, bogs, woodland pools, potholes— all of which are classed as wetlands.

Obviously, the fish and wildlife uses of wetlands are important. But what about 

other values? Have we received any bonus values from preserving wetlands? The 

answer is “ Yes!”

It is becoming more obvious each year that our money has been even better 

spent than we originally thought. In urban areas, wetlands are providing outdoor 

classrooms where students can study ecology, living animals, and organisms. 

Wetlands provide open space that is a pleasant relief from the monotony of 

confining urban housing and apartments. In both rural and urban areas, wetlands 

retard the runoff of water from melting snow and rain. In this way, these natural 

“sponges” reduce flood damage to downstream areas. Wetlands also have a 

beneficial recharging effect on underground, water-bearing formations.

In addition to these values a new and exciting role of wetlands is emerging— 

tha t of enhancing and protecting water quality. Actually, this role isn’t new. It has always been just under our noses. We had an inkling it was there. But only 

recently has scientific documentation for this role started to emerge.

How do wetlands protect water quality? At first glance this concept seems 

contradictory. A commonly heard complaint from those who are not attuned to 

the fish and wildlife values of marshes is that they are “ polluted” — smelly, all 

full of silt and ugly green plants. To this complaint the chemist and biologist no 

longer stammer for excuses. The y reply, “ Good! Th at’ s just the way we want it!”

To understand how wetlands protect water quality, we must stop looking at 

them as isolated, individual units. We must cast aside the “ tunnel vision” that 

has made it possible to drain and fill thousands of individual marshes in our 

state and nation. We must recognize th at each wetland is part of a larger hydrologic 

system— and all are surface expressions of the hydrology, geology, climate and 

man’s uses of a given area.

Obviously, the primary ingredient for a wetland is water. Water enters a wetland from several sources including direct rainfall, surface runoff from rainfall 

and snowmelt, inflowing streams, rivers and ground water. Water is almost a 

universal solvent. It carries dissolved minerals with it and, when moving, has 

the ability to carry materials in suspension.

When water enters a wetland, therefore, it brings along many things. Among 

these are silt, organic matter from decaying plants and animals and many different 

dissolved chemical compounds from the soil and rocks of the surrounding watershed. Man gets into the act b y inadvertently, or sometimes intentionally, dumping 

unwanted materials and pollutants into the wetland. Even the rain that falls on 

the wetland’s surface brings along suspended and dissolved materials.

A wetland protects the w ater quality of downstream areas b y trapping, retarding, regulating and transforming the materials that enter it. It slows water flow. It retards the rushing of water off the land. It enables “settling” out. Usually 

the quality of water leaving a wetland is not the same as when it entered. Thus, 

the wetland is inherent in nature’s intricate web of life— and water quality.
509

What mechanisms are at work to produce the changes in the quality of w ate r 

leaving a wetland? When water enters a wetland, its rate of flow diminishes due 

to ponding, and the resistance of abu ndant growths of aquatic plants. As th e 

velocity of water is slowed down, its ability to carry silt and other particles in 

suspension is decreased. The particles drop out and settle to the bot tom —where 

they may be anchored and stabilized by the root systems of aqu atic plants. 

Deposition of silt is therefore prevented in downstream rivers and lakes where it 

may interfere with swimming, boating, other activities, and fisheries and wildlife 

values.

What abo ut materia l dissolved in the water th at enters a wetland? There are 

many dissolved materials. But the ones of primary concern at this time are n itrogen and phosphorus compounds which can fertilize lakes excessively and cause 

unwanted growths of algae and rooted plants. Some of the dissolved phosphorus 

entering a wetland becomes physically bound to silt particles and settles to the 

bottom, where it is essentially “locked up” as long as the silt stays in place. 

Portions of the phosphorus and nitrogen compounds are incorporated into sub ­

merged and emergent plant growth where they are tied up for the growing season.

In general, the growing season for marsh plants coincides with the growing 

season for nuisance algae in lakes. In effect then, a wetland regulates nutrien ts to 

ma n’s benefit by keeping them “trapped,” when they could be doing harm in 

downstream areas. During periods of the year when abund ant growths of plants 

are absent, this storage capacity is diminished. But this is at a tim e when nuisance 

algae blooms do not occur in Minnesota.

Still ano ther important mechanism for water qua lity improvem ent is provided 

by certain bacteria living in the marsh bottom. Much of the nitrogen entering a 

wetland comes in as n itrate compounds, a form easily used by plants. The bac teria 

have the ability to reduce nitrates to gaseous nitrogen which is released to the 

atmosphere.

The value of wetlands in protectin g water qua lity has been dem onstrated, 

in detail, in recently completed studies of Lake Minnetonka and its watershed. 

Results of this work are summarized in a report entitled, A Program for Preserving the Quality of Lake Minnetonka, prep ared by the University of Minnesota 

Limnological Research Center, Barr Engineering Company, Harza Engineering 

Company, and Hickok and Associates.

The report found th at phosphorus was the critical element causing excessive 

production of algae in Lake Minnetonka. A detailed phosphorus bud get for the 

lake was determined for the period Jun e 1969 to May 1970. Approximately 

77,000 pounds of phosphorus were released within the Lake Minneto nka watersh ed 

during this period—bu t only an estimated 50,300 pounds reached the lake. Much 

of this phosphorous was retained in wetlands outside the main lake basin.

The beneficial effects of this storage are obvious. The repo rt recommends th at 

wetlands in th e Lake Minneto nka watershed be preserved in their natur al state. It 

furthe r recommends th at construction of storm sewers be minimized, and th at 

runoff water be allowed to follow natural drainage patterns. Thus, wetlands can 

provide the ir valuable cleansing a nd removal action—before the water enters the lake.

The value of wetlands in protectin g recreational lakes is, unfortu nately, also 

being dem onstrated in a negative way on certain Minnesota lakes—especially 

those near the Twin Cities and in heavily farmed areas. A common complaint 

reaching the Division of Game and Fish abo ut lakes in these areas is th at they are 

becoming very turbid or, in some cases, excessively weedy. Sandy beaches are 

becoming covered with silt.

An investigation commonly reveals th at silt deposits build up near the mouths 

of incoming sto rm sewers and ditches. Excessive growths of weeds a nd filamentous 

algae are also found, sta rting in the v icinity of sewer inlets. After a rain, chemical 

analysis of inflowing wa ter often reveals e xceptionally high values for nitrogen and 

phosphorus compounds.

In checking upstream areas, it is often obvious what has happened. Wetlands 

which formerly served as natu ral, living filters have been drained, filled and 

covered over with farm fields, parking lots, apa rtm ents, homes, and businesses. 

Thus, the natural drainage pattern has been changed. Runoff water is now 

carried in storm sewers and drainage ditches—instead of through streams and 

marshes. Again, man has disrupted his environment. We must pay the pen alty 

of increased flood potential and deteriorating quality.

The proper course of actio n is clear. Land should be managed so t ha t silt and 

nut rient losses to watersheds are minimized. Wetlands must be preserved as 

though they have the same value as the larger and more perman ent lakes in the 

lower p art of th e watershed.
510

We can then save some of our vanishing wildlife hab itat, keep more open 

space, and help protect downstream areas from flooding and water quality 

deteriora tion. Wetlands are an important part of our ecological pattern of lands 

and waters—a natural pattern th at must be considered as a whole—if we are to keep Minnesota waters in high quality condition. And is not the quality of our 

wate is basic to the q uality of our lives?

[From Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin, July-A ugu st 1975]

T he N utrie nt T rap

More tha n one hundred and fifty million dollars will be spent in the next year 

to improve sewage trea tment system s in Wisconsin. The aim is to reduce pollutants entering our waters from these nutrient-rich “p oint” sources.

But upgrading these acilities will do nothing about the majority of pollutants 

which en ter the lake basins uncontrolled from all sides. These so-calied “nonpo int” 

pollutants include fertilizer and soil runoff from farmland, urba n streets and lawns.

Farm fertilizers, as well as leaves and other city debris, contain nitrogen and 

phosphorus which stimulate aquatic plant growth just as they spur the growth 

of agricultural crops. The algae blooms now occurring on southern Wisconsin’s 

lakes are chiefly caused by this nutrient flow.

Currently, engineers are attempting to design structures th at will hold back 

some of these fertilizers from the lake bed. Efforts are also being made to upgrade 

soil conservation practices and to make the liquefication of m anure a more feasible 

practice. Liquefication allows manure to be stored over the winter until it can be 

applied to fields during “safe” , d ry periods. These projects are expensive, though, 

and would require changes in long established farming practices.

While the problem awaits solution, nature already provides a simple and 

effective means of preventing some of these nutrien ts from entering the w aterways 

by trapping them in the network of marshes th at surround lakes and rivers.

These lowlands naturally trap nutrients, making them unavailab le to the 

weeds and algae th at thrive on them . The wetland so Is easily reta in phosphorus 

and marsh plants take up and incorporate large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus into their growing tissue.

Wetlands, from the peat bogs of the northern forests to the cattail marshes of 

the dairy belt, provide other benefits as well. They provide cover and nesting sites 

for waterfowl and other wildlife. They hold floodwater and silt. They serve as 

needed open spaces for recreation and stud y.

University of Wisconsin botanist Orie Loucks says th at one acre of wetland 

is w orth fifty to sixty thousand dollars, based on the replacement cost of all the 

functions they perform. But trad itionally, wetlands have not been so highly 

valued, only rarely bringing one hundred dollars per acre.

Because of this low price, marshlands have been prime targets for draining, 

filling or other uses. The past cen tury has witnessed the gradual disappearance of 

abo ut half of Wisconsin’s wetlands, and with them an important natural filter 

system for our lakes: To help reverse this pattern , the Wisconsin legislature is 

considering a Wetlands Protection Bill.

The bill would require cities, villages, and counties to ado pt wetland protection 

ordinances. Permits would be required for certain activities in marsh areas, including draining and filling. According to the bill, permits would be grante d only where 

no “significant impa irment of any of the natural functions perform ed by the 

wetland ” would occur. Although some types of wetlands such as seasonally 

flooded meadows would be exempt from the legislation, the protectio n would 

affect more tha n one million acres of remaining wetland. Exceptions to the perm it 

requ irem ent would be given for existing uses and for certain proposed uses, such 

as c ranberry growing and muck farming.

Preserving the wetlands th at are still left is an inexpensive and natural way to 

prevent further growth of weeds and algae in our lakes. And it is one method th at 

requires neither expensive tre atm ent facilities nor the energy to operate them.
511

[Prom Federal Supplement 392]

N atu ral R eso u r c es D e f e n s e C o u n c il , I n c., and N a tio na l W il d l if e 

F e d e r a t io n , P l a in t if f s ,

v.

H ow ar d H. C all aw ay , S ec r eta r y o f t h e A rm y , et a l., D e f e n d a n t s 

Civ. A. No. 74-1242

United States District Court, District of Columbia 

March 27, 1975

Conservation groups brou ght action against Secretary of the Army, Army Corps 

of Engineers, and Environmen tal Protection Agency. On plaintiffs’ motion 

for partial summary judgment and defend ants’ motion to dismiss, the District 

Court, Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., J., held th at Congress, by defining the term 

navigable waters to mean ‘the waters of the United State s, including the ter ritorial seas,” asserted federal jurisdiction over the n ati on’s waters to the maximum 

extent permissible under the commerce clause for purposes of the Water Act; and 

th at Secretary of the Army and Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers acte d unlawfully and in derogation of their responsibilities und er th e Wate r Act by adopting 

a different definition.

Plaintiffs’ motion granted and defendants ’ motion denied.

1. Navigable Waters 0=^35

Congress, by defining the term “navigable waters” for purpose of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 to mean “the waters of the 

United States, including the territorial seas” asserted federal jurisdiction over the 

nation’s waters to the maxim um extent permissible und er the commerce clause; 

as used in the Water Act, the term is not limited to the trad itional tests of navigability. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, §§ 101 et 

seq., 502(7), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1251 et seq., 1362(7); U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8 

cl. 3.

2. Navigable Waters <5=^35

Secretary of the Army and Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers are without 

authority to amend or change sta tut ory definition of navigable waters as used in 

the Water Act and they acted unlawfully an d in derogation of th eir responsibilities 

under the Water Act by adopting regulation which defined navigable waters as 

those which had been, are, or may be, used for inters tate or foreign commerce. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, §§ 101 et seq., 404, 

502(7), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1251 et seq., 1344, 1362(7).

Marianne K. Smythe, Dennis M. Flannery, William T. Lake, Wilmer, Cutler & 

Pickering, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.

John E. Varnum, Pollution Control Section, Dept. of Justice, Brian O’Neill, 

Gen. Counsel’s Office, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., David 

Gluckman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Florida Dept. of Pollution Control, Robert L. 

Shevin, Atty. Gen. for the Sta te of Florida, for defendants.

d ec la r a tio n an d o rder o f f in a l ju d g m e n t

Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., Dis trict Judge.

Plaintiffs have moved for an order p ursuan t to Rule 56 of th e Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure gran ting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on 

Count I of the Com plain t; and Defendan ts’ having moved to dismiss the complaint 

on all counts; and the Court having heard argument of counsel, the Motion for 

Partial Summary Jud gment on Count I of the Complaint is granted; and it 

is DECLAR ED th at:
512

[1] 1. Congress by defining the term “navigable waters” in Section 502(7) of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 816, 33 

U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (the “Water Act”) to mean “the waters of the United 

States, including the territorial seas,” asserted federal jurisdiction over the 

nation’s waters to the maximum extent permissible under the Commerce Clause 

of the Constitution. Accordingly, as used in the Water Act, the term is not limited 

to the traditional tests of navigability.

[2] 2. Defendants Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the Army, and Lt. Gen. 

W’illiam C. Gribble, Chief, Army Corps of Engineers, are without authority to 

amend or change the statu tory definition of navigable waters and they are hereby 

declared to have acted unlawfully and in derogation of their responsibilities under 

Section 404 of the Water Act by the adoption of the definition of navigability 

described at 33 C.F.R. § 209.210(d)(1), 39 Federal Register 12119 (April 3, 1974) 

and 33 C.F.R. 209.260; and it is ordered that Defendants Callaway and Gribble:

1. Revoke and rescind so much of 39 Federal Register 12115, et seq. (April 3, 

1974) as limits the permit jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers by definition or 

otherwise to other than “the waters of the United States.”

2. Publish within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order proposed regulations 

clearly recognizing the full regulatory mandate of the Water Act.

3. Publish within thir ty (30) days of the date of this Order final regulations 

clearly recognizing the full regulatory mandate of the Water Act; and it is

Further ordered tha t the Clerk of this Court shall enter a final Judgment upon 

this Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Court 

expressly having determined tha t there is no just reason for delay in the entry of 

final Judgment on this Order; and it is

Further ordered th at Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be and hereby is denied.
513

SELECTED OTHER COURT CASES

Th e U .S . D i s t r i c t C o u rt f o r th e D i s t r i c t o f C olu m bia was 

n o t th e o n ly — o r ev en th e f i r s t — f e d e r a l c o u r t t o b ro a d ly 

c o n s tru e th e C o rp s o f E n g in e e r s ' J u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c tio n 404 o f 

th e W ate r A c t.

T h u s, i n U n it e d S t a t e s v . H o lla n d , 373 P .S u p p . 66 5 (M .D .F la .

1 9 7 4 ), th e c o u r t h e ld t h a t th e c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n o f n a v i g a b i l i t y

wa s n o t p a r t o f th e W ate r A ct n o r n eed i t b e :

" th e mean h ig h w a t e r . l i n e i s no l i m i t t o 

f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t y u n d e r th e [W ate r A c t] . W hil e 

th e l i n e re m a in s a v a l i d d e m a rc a tio n f o r o t h e r 

p u r p o s e s , i t h a s no r a t i o n a l c o n n e c tio n t o th e 

a q u a tic e c o s y ste m s w hic h th e [W ate r A c t] i s 

in te n d e d to p r o t e c t . C o n g re ss h a s w is e ly 

d e te rm in e d t h a t f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t y o v e r w a te r 

p o l l u t i o n p r o p e rly r e s t s on th e Comm erce C la u se 

an d n o t on p a s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f an a c t 

d e s ig n e d t o p r o t e c t n a v i g a t i o n . And th e Comm erce 

C la u s e g iv e s C o n g re ss am pl y a u t h o r i t y t o re a c h 

a c t i v i t i e s ab ove th e mean h ig h w a te r l i n e t h a t 

p o l l u t e th e w a te rs o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s . "

I d . a t 6 76.

In U n it e d S t a t e s v . A sh la n d O il and T r a n s p o r ta tio n C o. , 364

P .S u p p . 349 (W .D .K y. 1 9 7 3 ), a f f ' d , 7 ERC 11 14 ( 6 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ), th e

c o u r t r e j e c t e d th e arg u m en t t h a t th e W at er A ct " a p p l i e s o n ly to th e

c l a s s i c a l 'n a v ig a b le w a te rs o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s ' , " f i n d in g t h a t

"o ne n e e d go no f u r t h e r th a n th e d e f i n i t i o n s p ro v id e d in th e A ct " in

o r d e r to d i s c o v e r t h a t th e c l a s s i c a l c o n c e p t o f " n a v ig a b le " wa s

n o t an e le m e n t o f th e d e f i n i t i o n fo u n d in th e W at er A c t.

"C o n g re s s d e f in e d 'n a v ig a b le w a t e r s ' as 

'w a t e r s o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s . ' [3 3 U .S .C .

§ 1 3 6 2 ( 7 ) ] . To d e te rm in e w h e th e r an o i l 

d is c h a r g e h a s e n te r e d w a te r s r e g u l a t e d by 

S e c tio n 311 o f th e A c t, a c i t i z e n sim p ly 

i n s e r t s th e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n in p la c e 

o f th e te rm 'n a v ig a b le w a t e r s . '"

• » •
514

"N a v ig a b ilit y I s n o t an ele m en t o f t h i s 

o ffe n s e as i t Is ex clu ded from th e Ac t by 

d e f in i t io n ." 364 F.S upp. a t 35 0-5 1.

The S ix th C ir c u it a ffi rm e d th e d e c is io n o f th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t.

As to th e q u e s tio n o f C o n g re ss' i n t e n t , th e C ourt o f App el as fo und:

"C o n g re ss' c le a r in te n tio n as re v e a le d 

in th e Ac t i t s e l f was to e f f e c t marke d 

im prov em ent in th e q u a lity o f th e t o t a l w ate r 

re so u rc e s o f th e U nit ed S t a te s , r e g a r d le s s o f 

w heth er t h a t w ate r was a t th e p o in t o f 

p o llu tio n a p a r t o f a n a v ig a b le str e a m .

v • «

"C ongre ss in 1972 ad opte d a new 

d e f in i t io n o f th e te rm 'n a v ig a b le w a te r s ' 

f o r p urp ose s o f th e J ’e d e ra l W ater P o llu tio n 

C o n tr o l A ct. . ,

«

a a •

"L ik e th e D i s t r i c t Ju d g e, we b e li e v e 

C ongre ss knew e x a c tl y wh at i t was doin g 

an d t h a t i t in te n d e d th e F e d e ra l W at er 

P o llu tio n C o n tr o l Ac t to a p p ly , as C ongre ss ­

man D ln g e ll p u t i t , ’to a l l w a te r b o d ie s , 

in c lu d in g main st re am s and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s . " '

7 ERC a t 1118-1 9.

In U nit ed S ta te s v . Am erican Bee f P a c k e rs, I n c . , Crlm . No. 7^-0 - 

30 (D .N eb . A p ril 25 , 19 7 4 ), a c o rp o ra ti o n char ged w it h d is c h a rin g 

p o llu ta n ts in to "w ate rs " moved to . d is m is s on th e gro und t h a t th e 

Gover nm ent ha d f a il e d to a lle g e th a t th e w a te rs in v o lv e d we re n a v ig a b le .

The m ot io n was d en ie d b ecause th e p o u rt fo un d t h a t th e a lle g a tio n th a t

•*

th e w ate rs we re n a v ig a b le was n o t n e c e ssa ry In s u i t s b ro ught under 

th e W ater A ct. C iti n g fa v o ra b ly th e h o ld in g s in H oll an d an d A sh la nd O i l , 

th e c o u rt fo un d th a t "C ongre ss h as th e po we r to d e fin e away th e o ld 

n a v ig a b ility r e s t r i c t i o n an d d e a r l y In te n d e d to do so in th e 19 72 ' 

am endm ents to th e F e d e ra l W ater P o llu ti o n C o n tr o l A c t. " S lip Op., a t 1.
515

In U.S . v. Phel pa Do dg e, 391 F.S upp. I l 8 l ( D .A r lz ., 197 5)

th e c o u rt re fu s e d to fin d th e W ater A c t's d e f in i t io n o f n a v ig a b le

w ate rs as "w ate rs o f th e U nit ed S ta te s " to be u n c o n s titu tio n a lly

vag ue . The c o u rt s ta te d :

"Th e te rm 'w a te rs o f th e U n it ed S t a te a ' 

a s use d in th e c o n te x t o f th e Ac t an d in keep ­

in g w it h th e l e g i s l a t i v e I n te n t a p p a re n tl y 

means J u s t wh at i s s a id : ' a l l w ate rs o f th e 

U n it ed S ta te s in c lu d in g th e t e r r i t o r i a l s e a s . ’ "

I d . a t 11 85 .

• » •

"F or th e p u rp o se s o f t h i s Ac t to be 

e f f e c ti v e ly c a r r ie d in to r e a l i s t i c a c h ie v e ­

m en t, th e sc ope o f i t s c o n tr o l mus t ex te n d 

to a l l p o llu ta n ts whi ch a re d is c h arg e d in to 

any w ate rw ay, in c lu d in g no rm all y dr y a rro y o s , 

whe re any w a te r whi ch m ig ht flow th e r e in co u ld 

re a so n a b ly end up in any bo dy o f w a te r, to 

whi ch o r In which th e r e i s some p u b li c I n t e r e s t , 

in c lu d in g underg ro und w a te r s ." Id . a t 11 87 .

The c o u rt in U nit ed S ta te s v . Un ion P a c i f i c , 8 ERC 1127

(D .U ta h 1975), concl uded t h a t :

" th e te rr a n a v ig a b le w a te rs o f th e U n it ed 

S t a t e s , ' as use d i n 33 U .S .C . § 13 21(e ) an d 

f u r t h e r d e fin e d in 33 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 2 (7 ), was 

n o t mea nt by C ongre ss to r e s t r i c t r e g u la to ry 

c o n tr o l o v er th e n a ti o n 's w a te rs f o r th e 

p u rp o se s o f p o llu tio n c o n tr o l m er el y to th e 

t r a d i t i o n a l l im i ts - o f n a v ig a b i li t y ."

I d . a t 1128

In U n it ed S ta te s v. S m it h , 7 ERC 193 7 (E .D .V a. 1 9 75), th e 

c o u rt s p e c if i c a l ly a d d re ssed th e q u e s ti o n o f J u r i s d i c ti o n under 

S e c ti o n M04:

"The f e d e r a l r e g u la to r y J u r i s d i c ti o n 

o v e r th e n a v ig a b le w a te rs o f th e U nit ed

• S ta te s u nder th e R iv ers an d H arb ors Act o f

189 9 (3 3 U .S .C . S e c ti o n 403 , e t s e q .) ex te n d s

. up to th e mean h ig h w a te r m ar k. Ho we ve r, th e 

much b ro a d e r f e d e r a l J u r i s d i c t i o n o ver 'w a te rs 

o f th e U n it ed S t a t e s ' under th e 1972 Amendments
516

to th e F e d e ra l W at er P o llu ti o n C o n tr o l Act 

(3 3 U .S .C . S e c ti o n 1362(7 )) ex te n d s w ell 

beyo nd th e mean h ig h w ate r mark to marsh 

w etl ands wh ich a re r e g u la r ly o r p e r io d ic a lly 

In u n d a te d ." Id . a t 19 38 -3 9.

F in a ll y (and th l« Is not an a ll - i n c l u s i v e sy n o p sis o f

a p p li c a b le c o u rt d e c is io n s ) , th e c o u rt In L e s li e S a lt Co. v.

F ro e h lk e , 7 ERC 1311 (N .D .C al . 19 7 4 ), ag ain In a case d i r e c tl y

In v o lv in g S e c ti o n 40 4, h e ld as fo ll o w s:

"We co ncl ude t h a t th e C ongre ss , e n a c ti n g 

th e FWPCA, was e x e r c is in g I t s po wers under 

th e commerce c la u se to comb at p o llu tio n o f 

th e n a tio n 's w a te rs; th a t w ate r p o llu tio n 

u n q u esti o n ab ly a f f e c ts I n t e r s t a t e commerce an d 

t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , lt * w as a p ro p e r e x e rc is e o f 

th e comm erce power to re q u ir e p e rm it s f o r 

d re d g in g o r f i l l i n g which a re p o t e n t i a l cau se 

o f p o llu tio n o f w a te rs o f th e U nit ed S t a te s . . . ; 

th a t th e e x e rc lx e o f th e commerce po we r f o r t h a t 

purp ose I s n o t lim ite d by t r a d i t i o n a l 'n a v ig a b le 

w a te rs ' d e f in i t io n s ; t h a t , a lt h o u g h th e (mean 

hig h w ate r) lin e t e s t may re m ai n as p ro p e r t e s t 

fo r o th e r p u rp o se s. . . , th a t t e s t do es not 

lim it f e d e r a l re g u la to ry po we r under th e FWPCA."

Id . a t 13 14 .

The c o u rt fo un d th a t not only could Con gr es s ex te n d th e f e d e r a l 

re g u la to ry powe r In t h i s way, b u t th a t i t d id exte nd i t th ro u g h th e 

1972 FWPCA am endm ents.
517

NEWS RELE ASE kP AKI M IN I O l IM I * > * ’

O lllC i O l I m I C M IU OF (N O IN ilR S

W tk H iN G tO N D C 70114

FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: 6 May 1975 Locks Mouton

20 2- 69 3- 63 26

FEDERAL AUTHORITY FOR DISPOSAL OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL EXPANDS

Fed er al au th orit y to reg u la te th e d is p o sa l o f dredged or f l l l m a t e r i a l 

In t h e w at er s of th e U ni te d S ta te s w ill be g re a tl y expanded under propose d 

reg u la ti o n s p ublish ed In th e Fed er al R eg is te r to da y and would in cl ud e 

p r a c tic a ll y a l l la k es, st re am s, r iv e r s end w et la nds In th e United S ta te s .

Under some of th e propose d re g u la tio n s, Fed er al pe rm its way be 

re qu ir ed by th e re nc he r who wa nts to en la rge h is st ock pon d, or th e form er 

who wa nts to deepen an Ir rig a ti o n d it ch or plow a f i e l d , or th e mo untaine er 

who wa nts to p ro te ct h is lan d again st stre am er o sio n .

The U .S . D is t r ic t Cour t fo r th e D is t r ic t o f Columbia ha s orde red th et 

th e cu rr en t U .S . Army En gin eer reg u la ti o n s which co n tr o l th e d is p o sa l of 

dredge d and f i l l m a te ria l In "na vi ga bl e wa ters " be rev is ed and expanded to 

In clud e th e "w aters o f th e Uni ted S ta te s ." The Corps of En gine er s p re vio usl y 

co nfined I ts pe rm it a c t i v it ie s to "na vi ga bl e w at er s o f th e Uni ted S ta te s," 

th at I s , th os e w at er s which ar e p resen tl y nav ig ab le have bee n h is t o r ic a lly 

navi ga ble or which co uld be re ea on ab ly de ve lo pe d to be n avlg eb le .

On 27 March 19 75 , th e D is tr ic t Court ru le d th at und er S ec ti on 40 4 of 

th e Fe de ra l Water P o ll u ti o n Co ntro l Ac t Amendments o f 19 72 , th e r e sp o n sib il it y 

and au th orit y of th e Corps o f En gine er s to reg u la te th e d is p o sa l of dre dged 

or f i l l m ate ri al ex te nds to "t he w et er s o f th e Uni ted S ta te s." The Court 

d ir ecte d th at th e pr op osed rev is ed reg u la ti o n s be publish ed w it h in 40 days 

of th e co urt d e c is io n .

The term "w et er s o f th e Uni ted S ta te s" as us ed In th e Fed er al Water 

P o ll u ti o n Con trol Act Amendments o f 1972 ha s no t be en def in ed by th e Co ngres s 

or th e co u rte . Hsw ever, th e En vir on men ts P ro te cti o n Agency d ef in ed th e t e s 

In I t s reg u la ti o n s Im plementing I t s d is ch arg e pe rm it program under S ecti o n 

402 o f th e FWPCA to In cl ude:

(MORE)
518

. A ll nav ig ab le w at er s of th e U .S , and th e ir tr ib u ta r ie s »

b. A ll in te r s ta te w ate rs. '

c . A ll la k es, r iv e r s and stream s w it hin a s ta te wh ich ar e used by 

In te r sta te tr a v e ll e r s fo r recr ea ti o n and ot he r purp os es , or from wh ich fis h 

ar e tak en and so ld in in te r s ta te con me rce , or which ar e used by in d u str ie s 

eng aged in in te r s ta te conm erce, in cl udin g a g r ic u lt u r e .

However, si n ce th ere i s no b a sis in law or co urt e d ic t to d efi n e th e 

term "w ate rs of th e U nited S ta te ," th e Corp s of Eng in ee rs la o ffe r in g fo ur 

a lt e r n a ti v e reg u la ti o n s w it h va ry in g sc op es of a p p li c a ti o n fo r re vi ew and 

p ublic conment to a s s is t i t in th e im plem en tatio n o f th e co urt or der . EPA 

i s a ls o p u b lish in g g u id e li n e s in th e F ed er al R egis te r of 6 May 1975 fo r th e 

d is p o sa l of dredged or f i l l m ate ria l co ve re d by th e Corps o f En gine er s 

re g u la ti o n s. A b r ie f d e sc r ip ti o n of th e sc op e of th e fo ur a lt e r n a tiv e pr op osa ls fo ll o w s:

A lt ern a ti v e 1: Under th is a lt e r n a tiv e , th e bro ad es t of th e fo ur 

a lt e r n a tiv e s , wh ich i s fa vo re d by th e En vir onmental P ro te cti o n Ag en cy, th e 

EPA d e fin it io n of "w aters of th e Un ite d S ta te s" i s us ed and th e F ed er al 

J u r is d ic tio n ov er th e d is p o sa l of dre dged or f i l l m ate ria l would ex te nd to 

v ir tu a ll y ev er y co a sta l and in la nd a r t i f i c i a l or natu ra l body of water as 

d is cu ss ed ab ov e. The F ed er al au th ori ty would ex te nd to th e or di na ry hi gh 

water (mean monthly hig h tid e mark in th e ca se of c o a s ta l w at er s) or to th e 

"a qu at ic v eg eta ti o n lin e ," wh ich ever ex te nds fu rth er shorew ard. The aq uat ic 

veg eta ti o n li n e la th e li n e beyond which p la n ts wh ich depend on p erio d ic 

fl ood in g to grow are un ab le to th r iv e .

Under A lt ern a ti v e 1, th e Corps of Eng in ee rs would be re quir ed to reg u la te 

d is p o sa l of a l l dredged or f i l l m ate ria l in v ir tu a ll y ev er y we tla nd ad ja ce nt 

to co a sta l w ate rs, r iv e r s , e s tu a r ie s , la k e s, str ea ms and a r t i f i c i a l w at er s 

re gard le ss of wh eth er th ose wet la nd s ar e reg u la rly or on ly p e r io d ic a ll y 

co ve re d by s a lt w at er , bra ck is h water or fr esh w ate r. Th is In te rp reta ti o n of 

th e law wou ld ex tend Fed er al au th orit y to reg u la te dr ed ge or f i l l oper ati ons 

in th e thousand s of squa re m iles of lan d pro te ct ed by le v e e s . In th ose ar ea s 

farm ers may re quir e a F ed er al pern i t bef ore beg in nin g plow ing or lan d 

le v e llin g o p era ti o n s.

The cu rr en t Corps o f En gine er s pr oc ed ur es fo r is s u in g pe rm its would be 

fo ll ow ed . S ta te c e r t if ic a t io n or au th oriz ati on may a ls o be re quir ed fo r 

many o f th e a c t i v i t i e s su b je ct to Fe deral r e g u la tio n . As a matter o f p o li c y , 

a Fed er al pe rm it w ill no t be is su ed when sta te au th o riz a ti o n s or c e r t i f ic a ­

tio n s hav e bee n den ie d. However, a F ed er al perm it may be de ni ed ev en i f a 

s ta te perm it ha s been Is su ed be ca us e of over ri d in g n a ti o n a l in te r e s t.
519

Alternativ e 2. Thia alt er na tiv e lnclud ea a more limited def in itio n of

"water of the U .S ." It lncludea only thoae coa ata l waters subje ct to ti d a l

act ion to the mean high water mark or to the sa lt water veg eta tion li n e,

whichever extends furt her shoreward. Ju ri sd ic ti on over Inland waters under

th is altern ative Is limi ted to navi gabl e waters of the United Sta tes and

th eir primary tr ib ut ar ies up to th ei r headwaters. In most cases a permit

would not be required for the dis pos al of le ss than 100 cubi c yards of

dredged or f i l l ma ter ial .

Alt er na tiv e 3. Thia alt er na tiv e adopts the same broad de fin itio n of

the "water of the United States " as contained In Alt ernativ e 1. However,

current procedures for proc essing permit appli cat ion s -w ill be followed only

for disp osa l of dredged or f i l l ma ter ial in navig able waters of the United

St at es . Ho appli cat ion s for dis pos al of dredged or f i l l materi al other than

In navigable waters of the U .S ., w il l be processed unless there Is no ob jec ­

tion from an approp riate state agencyi A favo rab le determination from the

state w il l weigh heavily In the issua nce of a permit unless there are over ­

rid ing nat ion al in te re st to the con tra ry.

Altern at ive 4. Thia al te rn at iv e, favored by the Department of the*

Army, adopts the lim ited def in itio n of Al te rn at ive 2, and the In it ia l st at e

ce rt if ic ati o n and autho risa tion requirements of Alt ernativ e 3 prior to proces sing any ap pli cat ion for the dla pos al of dredged or f i l l materia l In

other than navig able waters.

Under any of the alte rn ative s the Administr ator of the Environmental

Pro tect ion Agency can s t i l l overrule the Department of the Army's dec isio n

on a permit to discharg e dredged or f i l l mat eria l in such cases I f he conclude s that the proposed water dis posal In waters of the United Sta tes

w il l have unacceptable adverse e ff e ct s on municipal water supp lie s,

s h e ll fi ih beds, fis he ry are as, w il d li fe and rec reati on al are as.

Some of the alt er na tiv e proposals would require stat es to es tabli sh

new procedures fo r eva luating the Impact of pla cin g dredged or f i l l materi al

in waters of the United Sta tes and In e ff e ct to develop a st at e permit

program of th ei r own.

Under the broad Interp ret ation of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments, mi llio ns

of people may be presently vi ol at in g the law. Convicted offende rs may be

sub ject to fin es of up to $25,000 a day and one year Imprisonment. These

persons could als o be required to remove any f i l l materia l or stru ctures

placed without a permit In or on waters of the United St at es .

Discharge of f i l l materi al in wetlands w il l not be permitted unless

the app lica nt Is able to demonstrate that the proposed a cti vit y is s ig n if icantl y dependent on the water resource and in the public in te re st .
520

Some of the new regulations would control the placing of dredged or

fill material In Intermittent streams, or those areas that are dry part of

the year as well as lands that are subject to "periodic Inundation" only.

The proposed changes In the Corps of Engineers permit regulation apply

only to the water disposal of dredged or fill material but not to permits

for construction of piers, wharfs, pilings, dikes and dams. Regulations

for the latter are not affected by the proposed rules published In the

Federal Register today.

All comments or suggestions on the four proposed alternative regulations

received in writing by the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of

the Army, ATTN: DAEN-CWO-N, Washington, D.C. 20314, on or before 6 June 1975

will be considered before publication of the final regulations.
521

i - * " ' National Wildlife Federation

«U W ill ST, N.W., WAS HINGTON. O .C XXHfc .•»•• in r.

May 12, 1975

The H ono ra ble Howard H. Cal lo w ay

S e c re ta ry o f th e Army

Pen ta gon

W as hin gto n, D.C , 20301

De ar S e c re ta ry C al lo w ay : •,

The N a ti o n a l W ild life F e d e ra ti o n has alw ay s t r i e d to p la y f a i r w it h 

th e Army Corp3 o f E n g in e e rs , an d we ha ve alw ay s e x p ec te d th e 3ame .

U n ti l r e c e n t ly , I th o u g h t we were d o in g p r e t t y w e ll .

I am In r e c e i p t o f a new s re le & 3e Is s u e d May 6 , 19 75 , by th e O ffic e 

o f th e C h ie f o f E n g in ee rs an d d is se m in a te d a c t iv e ly by th a t O ffic e an d 

' t s W as hin gto n, D.C. an d f i e l d s t a f f . T his r e le a s e com es ao a r e s u l t 

u f a lo ng s ta n d in g b u t I ho pe g en tl e m an ly c o n tr o v e rs y which con ­

s e r v a t i o n i s t s ha ve ha d w it h th e Cor ps c o n c e rn in g th e sc ope o f th e 

C o rp s' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under S e c ti o n MOh o f th e F e d e ra l W at er 

P o llu tio n C o n tr o l A ct. The r e le a s e co n ce rn s new C o rp s' r e g u la tio n s 

f o r dre dge an d f i l l o p e ra ti o n s u n d er S e c ti o n ^O1

), pro posed a f t e r c o u rt 

o rd e r e a r l i e r t h i s s p r in g , an d s t a t e s a t th e o u ts e t :

"U nd er some o f th e pro posed r e g u la tio n s ,

F e d e ra l p e rm it s may be re q u ir e d by th e 

ra n c h e r who w an ts to e n la rg e h is s to c k po nd , 

o r th e fa rm e r who w an ts to dee pen an 

i r r i g a t i o n d itc h o r plow a f i e l d , o r th e 

m o u n ta in e er who w an ts to p r o te c t h is la n d 

a g a in s t s tr e am e r o s io n ." ,

The se s ta te m e n ts , Mr. S e c r e ta r y , a re u n tr u e . Even th e b ro a d e st 

a l t e r n a t i v e In Co rps* re g u la tio n s no whe re p ro p o se s an e x te n sio n o f 

a u th o r ity to co v er s to c k po nd s an d plow ed f i e l d s , an d we ha ve nowhe re 

urg ed I t . The use o f th e wo rd "ma y" re n d e rs th e s ta te m e n ts more 

e lu s i v e , b u t no more a c c u r a te . The r e le a s e Is a p p a re n tly a t a c t i c 

to s c a re fa rm ers an d ra n c h e rs I n to su p p o rt f o r th e n arr o w e st d e f i n i t i o n 

o f th e C o rp s' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y p o s s ib le (w hi ch Is o f co u rs e th e p o s itio n 

th e Cor ps f a v o r s ) . W ith th e a c t iv e a s s is ta n c e o f C o rp s' s t a f f , th e 

p c a re Is w ork in g; th e u n tr u e s ta te m e n ts ha ve been p ic k ed up v e rb a ti m

(• '• •e d it e d In le a d s t o r i e s by s e v e r a l m ajo r n ew sp ap ers . In c lu d in g 

t h e P o rtl a n d O re g o n !a n .
The Hon orab le Howard II. Ca llo wa y 

fa y 1? , 1975 

Pago Two

The sc a re la ap p are n tl y not li m it e d to fa rm er s and ra n ch ero . Ao 

re p o rt e d In th e New York Tim es , May 9 , 1975:

"In a d d it io n to fa rm er s an d ra n c h e ro , a 

spo kesm an fo r th e Corpn s a id th a t th e 

s tro n g e s t p ro p o sal co uld a ls o fo rc e some 

ho us ew iv es and g o lf cours e g re ensk eepers to 

g e t F ed era l perm is sio n to f i l l a ba ck ya rd 

sw lm lng poo l or c o n str u c t a new sa nd tr a p ."

Who 13 th is "C orp s sp ok es man ," Mr. S e c re ta ry ? Does he sp ea k fo r you r 

O ff ic e as w ell ?

I am w rit in g on b e h a lf o f th e la r g e s t co n serv ati o n o rg a n iz a ti o n In 

th is c o u n tr y , an o rg a n iz a ti o n th a t has tr ie d hard o ver th e y e a rs to 

work c lo se ly w it h th e Army Co rps o f E ngin eers to re so lv e our 

d if fe re n c e s . In th e ca se a t han d, th e fa c ts concern in g th e C orp s' 

pr op os ed re g u la ti o n s are p re se n te d In a m is le ad in g and in fl am m at or y 

fa sh io n . P re d ic ta b ly , th e p re ss ha s se iz e d upon th e mo st In flam m at or y 

(and u n tr u e ) a sp e c ts o f th e re le a s e . I a3k th a t th e Co rps Is su e a 

re le a s e a t th e e a r l i e s t p o ss ib le tim e wh ich c l a r i f i e s th i s m a tt e r 

b efo re f u r th e r damage Is do ne .

S in c e re ly ,

THOMAS L. KINBM.L 

E xec uti ve V ic e -P re sid e n t

cc The Hon or ab le V ic to r V. V ea se y, A ss t. S e c re ta ry o f th e Army fo r 

■ C iv il Works

L t. G en er al W. C. G rl b b le , J r . , C h ie f, Army Co rps o f E ngin eers 

Corps o f E ngin ee rs E nvironm en ta l A dv isor y Board •

The Hon or ab le Je nnin gs Ran do lp h, Cha irm an , S enate P u b li c Works Comm 

The Hon or ab le Rob ert E. Jo n es, Cha irm an , House P u b li c Works and 

T ra n sp o rta ti o n Comm.

th e Hon or ab le R u ss ell E. T ra in , A d m in is tr a to r, EPA

The Hon or ab le R u ssell W .- P ete rs o n , Ch airm an , CEQ

The Hon or ab le N ath an ie l P. Ree d, A ss t. S e c re ta ry of th e I n t e r io r

Board o f D ir e c to rs , NWP

T ru s te e s , NWP Endowm ent, In c . . *
523

E C R E T A R Y O F TH fe A R M Y 

W A S H I N O T O N

11 JUN 1975

r. Thomas L. Kim ba ll 

Exe cu tiv e Vice P re sid e n t 

N at io nal W il d li fe F ed era ti o n 

1412 16th S tr e e t, N. W. 

W ashing ton , D. C. 20036

Dear Mr. K im ba ll:

Thi s is in fu r th e r re p ly to yo ur l e t t e r of 12 May 1975 to me and 

23 May 1975 to Mr. Veyse y co nce rn in g th e Co rps o f E ng in ee rs ju r is d ic tio n 

ov er nav ig ab le w ate rs o f th e U nited S ta te s .

We re g re t th e In te rp re ta tio n s th a t are bei ng draw n from th e 

6 May 1975 news re le a s e . U n fo rt u n ate ly , some pe op le have in te rp re te d 

the p re ss re le a se to mean th a t a l l fa rm er s mu st o b ta in perm it s whenev er th ey plow a f i e l d . T hat, of co u rs e, would no t be re q u ir e d .

However, th e U. S. D is tr ic t Cou rt o rd er is very fa r-re a c h in g . With th is 

in mind, we s o lic ite d f u l l p u b li c invo lv em en t in p re p ari n g th e f in a l 

re g u la ti o n . As a member of a le ad in g co n se rv ati o n o rg a n iz a ti o n , yo ur 

comments are p a r tic u la r ly valu ab le to us and mo st welcome.

The Corps has made some p re li m in ary e sti m a te s of th e sh o re li n e s of 

ti d ew ate rs , la k e s, r iv e r s , and st re am s bo un ding a g ric u ltu ra l la nd s whic h 

would be embrace d in < he re g u la ti o n s . Fo r A lt e rn a ti v e s 1 and 3 th e 

sh ore line m ilea ge is ab ou t 2,7 00, 000 m il e s, and fo r A lt e rn a ti v e s 2 and 

4, about 700 ,00 0 m il e s . The d if fe re n c e ,- o f co u rs e, is th e sh o re li n e s 

on which J u r is d ic ti o n would be re ta in e d by th e s ta te s un de r A lt e rn a ti v e s 

2 and 4 . Alth ou gh Con gress se em ingl y d id not pro vid e c le a rly fo r th e 

Corp s to li m it i t s J u r is d ic ti o n over w ate rs o f th e U ni te d S ta te s , we 

are explo ri ng a l l p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and le g is la tio n may be re q u ir e d . In 

th is re g ard , I am in c li n e d to d e le g a te as much of th is program as 

p o ssib le to th e s t a te s , and le g is la tio n wo uld c le a rly be re q u ir ed to 

ac co mplish th i s . 

76-161 0 - 76 - 34
Thomas L. Kimball

The final time for receipt of comments was originally June 6, but

we found that date too early for the preparation of ma ny responses, so

I and the other parties to this action requested that the court permit

U6 to extend the deadline by 40 days. Judge Aubrey Robinson granted

our request on 6 June. Our final revised regulations are to be published

by 26 July.

Mr. Veysey and I sincerely appreciate your interest in this very

important issue. We are attempting, as you suggested, to defuse the

controversy that has received wide press coverage. Mr. Veyse y was glad

to get your offer to meet with him. Please call hi m (697-8986) at your

convenience to arrange a meeting.

With best regards.

Sincerely,
2

[From the Seattle F’ost-IntelliKencer, May 7, 1975)

U.S. Wants to Control 

All Ponds and Ditches

WASHINGTON - The Arm y Corp* of 

Engineers, seeking to expand its jurisd iction over U.S. waters, has proposed a 

regulation which would give it authority 

over every lake, stream, stock pond, ir rigation ditch and marsh in the nation.

It could require farm ers to obtain a 

permit before plowing field s next to levees. dredging irr igat ion ditches or enlargin g artitic ia l stock ponds. It could 

force a mountain dweller to gel federal

approval to protect land against stream 

erosion.

The proposal, the strongest of four 

alternatives submitted by the agency for 

public comment, is supported bv the Environme nta l Protection Agency.' All four 

would grea tly expand the engineers’ auth or ity to regulate the dredge or fill 

operations inv olv ing waters or wetlands.

The proposals stem fro m a recent 

federal court decision giving the corps 

jurisdiction over dumping or dredging on 

waters of the United Sta tes," a phrase

the corps saya has never been leg ally 

defined. The proposals represent an attem pt to define the phrase, the corps

said.

The fo ur proposals:

1. Grant the corps au thority over 

every coastal and inland artific ia l or 

natural body of water in the nation, 

including wetlands. The corps said this 

would extend lederal au thority io regulate dredge or fi ll operations in the thousands of square miles of land protected

by levees. In Those areas farm ers may 

require a federal pe rm it before beginning p lo w in g or lan d-le veling operations.”

2. L im it corps au thority over coastal 

waters to the mean hig h-w ater mark or 

salt-w ate r vegetation line, whichever extends farth er, and over inland waters to 

navigable waters and their prim ar y tr ib ­

utaries up to their headwaters. In most 

cases, the corps said, a federal pe rm it 

would not be required for operations invoicing le u than 100 cub ic yard * of ma 

taria L

3.. Extend the enginee rs' au thority an 

in proposal No. 1. but follow cu rrm rt 

procedures for issuing dredge or fi ll permits only In navigable waters. For other 

waters such as stock ponds and d ra in * !* 

ditches, pe rm its would be issued unless 

appropriate stats agencies oije ct

4. Extend corps au thority as in No.

and the issuance regulations as in No. 3. 

This is the proposal preferred by the 

corps.

All corps permits would be subject to 

revoca tion by the ad minist rator of the 

EPA.

All comments should be submitted to 

the corps by June 6

Environme nta lists end die corps iiave 

been ut odds fur sonic tim e over how 

much au thority ‘ lie corp* should exercise 

und er the la-Wrat Wtaor P e ih itt* * Control 

Act- of H»a. 7Ni> rhe

fegulatc dredging and Idling in "the wa^

tars of tlie Un ited States ."

A Nation al Wildlife Fed eration spokesman said: "T o a real-estate developer a 

coastal wetlan d is a watery wasteland— 

an area to be drained, filled and covered 

with homes or lactories.

The federation and Ute Nation al Resources Dctensp Council won a suit in 

ILS. District Court here March 27 to get 

the corps' jur isdiction extended fa rth er 

inla nd than the tid al mean hig h-w ater 

ma rk.

Judge Aubrey E. Robinson Jr. did not 

say in Ins decision, however, exactly how 

ta r inland the corps' control should extend
2 6

Environm entalists 

decry corps’ tactics

Washington (A P)—Environmental org anization! accused 

the Army Corps of Engineers 

yesterday of stirr in g up a 

nation wide scare campaign by 

asserting tha t a proposed regulatio n would forc e some fa rm ­

ers to get federal perm ission to 

plo w fie lds.

“ With the outrageous scare 

threat tlia t they are going to 

s tr ic tl y po lice the plow ing of 

fie lds and construction of fa rm 

ponds across, the nation, corps 

offic ials are inciting an uninforme d backlash •fro m c it izens,” the organizations said in 

a jo in t statement, in e controversy, they said, could be used 

to help offic ials escape the responsib ility Congress has given 

the m fo r pro tec ting lakes, 

streams, rive rs and wetlands.

“ It has absolutely nothing to 

do w ith a farm er’s spring plow ­

ing or the ran cher’s stock 

pond,” they added. “ The regulation w ill govern spoil disposal 

from dredging operations and 

also the filli ng of wetlands for 

comm erc ial or other develop* 

me nt.”

On Tuesday, the Arm y Corps 

Issued four alternative proposals expanding its auth ority over 

dredge and f il l operations fro m 

navigable waters to “wa ters of 

the United States” to com ply 

with a U.S. D istrict Court order.

The corps asserted In a 

statement that the strongest 

proposal would give it jurisdictio n over “ virtu ally every

coastal and Inland ar tifici al or 

natural body of water.**

In addition to far me rs and 

ranchers, a corps spokesman 

said the strongest proposal also 

could force some homeowners 

and golf course greeuskeepers 

to get fedw ai perm ission to f il l 

a backyard sw imming pool or 

constru ct a new sand trap.

However, a Na tional Re* 

'’O '/ rr-i r e Cc’i re il

spokesman said the corps' legal 

autho rity would not be tha t extensive. The corps’ juris diction 

would be expanded only to inr !” do tho^e wntwhs (Hready regulated for In dustrial and municipal pollution control bv the Environme nta l Prote ction Agency, be said.

The corps’ expansion would 

extend to such areas as marshes and sloughs bordering 

streams, intrasta te lakes and 

marshes over which the corps 

previously had no juris diction 

and tida l or coastal marshes, he 

said.
527

[From t he Detroit Fr ee Press, May 15, 1975)

Army Engineers Deception

TH E ASTOUNDIN G claim a few days 

ego tha t the Arm y Corps of Engineers 

was about to take over every backyard 

swimming pool and stock pond was a paten tly cynical interp ret ation of a court ruling that the Corps must comply with terms 

o f the Federal W ater Pollution Control 

(Act.

The deception was all the more offensive 

because it was the Qorps itself which promulgated the deceit.

In fact the U.S. D istric t Court order only 

confirmed the Corps had expanded author- 

•ity under the law for protecting , the nation 's lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands 

from unwise dredging, fillin g, and soil 

disposal operations.

The Corps' new jur isdiction includes 

such areas as marshes and sloughs bord ering streams, intr astate lakes and marshes, 

and tidal or coastal marshes. All these waters already arc regulated for industrial 

and municipal polluti on control by the 

Environme ntal Protection Agency.

The Corps, in a self-servin g press release, 

unleashed a scare campaign expressly designed to stampede fan ner s and other a ffected citizons into demanding the law's

non-enforcement. Such ridiculous asse rtions were made that farmers would be re ­

quired to get a permit to p ’ow their fields 

next to levees, a nd th at mountain dwellers 

would have to get permission to pro tect 

the ir properties against erosion.

The Corps' shameful performance in this 

matter illu strates perfectly why the 

agency is held in such disrepute by a broad 

spec trum of the public. Environmental 

groups, in a joint statement reac ting to the 

Corps' latest subterfuge, offered this succinct observat ion :

"Evid ent ly the Corps is more inte rested 

in" slau ghtering streams, rivers and wetlands with their dams and channelization 

projects than in help ing to protect them."

The Corps eventually will have to accept 

the fa ct 'it s chief function no longer is to 

dam every free-flowing stream for which it 

can get congressional a utho rization. If it is 

to continue to exist, it must adapt to the 

new climate of environmental concern that 

makes stream and lake protection the paramount goal.

• If the Corps doesn’t feel it can accept its 

new responsibilities, the only remaining 

recourse is for Congress to disband an 

agency that has outlived its usefulness.
528

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

16 MAY 1975 T M t AD MINIST RA TO R

Dear General Grlbble :

It 1s becoming Increa sin gly apparent th at the re ce nt ly proposed 

regu latio ns and guide lines published by the Corps of Engineers and 

EPA governing the implementation of section 404 of the Federal Water 

Pollu tio n Control Act are being misunderstood by the pu blic and by 

Congress. Most of th is confusion and misunderstanding is d ir e c tl y 

att ributa ble to the se rio us ly inaccu rate and misleading press release 

Issued by the Corps at the time the regu lations were publish ed. 

Because of the extreme importance of section 404 as the primary 

mechanism to protec t America's valuable wetland resources, I consider 

i t imp erative that the Corps of Engineers take steps to remedy these 

Impressions.

We are pa rt ic ula rly concerned th at the fa lse impression th at 

farmers must obtain permits whenever they plow a fie ld be corre cte d. 

Since th is was cle arly not contemplated by either the Corps or 

EPA and is not required by the sta tu te , wa fa il to understand how 

such a statement could appear in th is press release. As you are 

we ll aware, the prim ary concern of section 404 is to address 

situatio ns where dredged or f i l l mate rial is discharged in to wetland 

areas. By no stretch of the Imagination can the simple ac t of 

plowing be considered to fa ll w ithin th at category.

The Corps has also stated to the pu blic th at "m illions of 

people may be presently vio la ting the law ." Obviously, there are 

some discharges of dredged or f i l l ma terial presently occu rring 

which arc not regulated due to the Corps' present re s tr ic ti v e 

d e fin it io n . Such discharges should and would be reg ulated under 

a broader approach. To say, however, that .th is number approaches 

m illions is to ta ll y withou t basis.

The illu s tr a ti o n s contained in the press release have led to 

EPA receiving numerous in quirie s about the types of a c ti v it ie s 

covered by the program. The confusion about it s a p p lic a b ilit y is 

apparent. For example, i t has been suggested th at section 404
529

applie s to any area where there 1s a body o f water which has the 

po te nt ial of flo od ing and th at a ri ce fanner is vio la tin g the law 

i f he puts any acreage in to cu ltiv a tio n withou t a pe rm it. Clearly 

th is is not true . While the re may be some rice growing operations 

which are located in wetland areas and which may involve the 

discharge of f i l l material fo r the bu ild ing of dike s, i t is 

unreasonable to assume th at a ll ri ce operations fa ll w ithin th is 

category. Merely because an agricultura l opera tion inv olv es water 

does not mean th at i t 1s subje ct to section 404. As we Ind ica ted 

1n our preamble to our gu idelines , we believe th at regu latio ns can 

be developed which w il l provide eff ective ad ministra tio n of a permit 

program within the broader d e fin itio n o f "navigable wa ters", 

withou t invo lvin g the extreme and unwarranted extensions of fede ral 

ju ris d ic ti o n mentioned 1n your le tt e r.

Both EPA and the Corps have issued polic y statements rec ognizing 

the need to pr ote ct wetland areas. I t would be unfortunate indeed 

I f , on the basis of these recent misconceptions, le g is la ti v e changes 

were made to re tu rn the st at ut or y d e fi n itio n of ju ris d ic ti o n to 

tr aditio n al concepts of navig ability. Such a change would leave vast 

areas of valua ble wetlands withou t the protec tio n of th is regu latory 

mechanism and po ssibly subje ct them to uncontrolled development.

I stro ng ly urge the Corps of Engineers to work with us in the 

development of our section 404 program within the s p ir it of the 

Federal Water Pollu tion Control Act and to take immediate ac tio n to 

co rrec t the misunderstandings which you r departm ent's pu blic 

statements have create d. •

Lt. Gen. William C. Grib ble, Jr 

Chief of Engineers 

Room 4A-245 »

1000 Independence Avenue 

Washington, 0. C. 20314
530

[Fr om th e Co ngres sio nal Record, J une 5, 1975J

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. Presiden t. In 1972, 

the Congress comprehensively revised 

Federal water pollution control policy. 

The 1972 Clean Wa ter Act established 

minimum an d uniform regulatory regime 

for the control of the discharge of effluen ts Into the navigable waters of the 

United States.

Prior to the enactme nt of the 1972 

ame ndm ents. Federal responsibility for 

wa ter pollution control war limited to 

approval of Sta te water quality stan dards and associated Implem entatio n 

plans for Interstate streams. In terstate 

stream s were defined adm inistratively to 

inclu de only a small portion of the Na ­

tion 's surface waters. Few sourc es of pollution were actually subject to Federal 

aba tem ent action. The result was an Inade qua te unsystematic water pollution 

prog ram which was In no way responsive 

to the Nation's demand for clean water.

The only significan t enforce men t tool 

available to the Environ men tal Pro tection Agency was the Uttle-known 1899

Refuse Act which bar red the discharge 

of material Into the Nation's navigable 

stre ams without a perm it. The decision 

to use th at sta tute, combined with th e 

recognition of the inadequacy of the 

wnter quality stan dards approach to pollution control led the Congress to revise 

the basic nationa l water pollution law.

The 1972 law prohibits any discharge 

Into the Nation’s navigable waters without a permit from the Environmental 

Protec lion Agency. The Environ mental 

Pro tection Agency was glve^n the au ­

tho rity to regulate all discharges Into 

navigable waters except for the discharg e 

of dredge or fill m ate rial which Is regulated by the S ecretary of the Army. Also, 

In 1972, the Congress broadened the 

tradition al definition of navigable w aters 

In re cognition of the fact th at p ollu tants 

migrate d Into the Nation's waters 

through water courses, swamps, creeks, 

and underground sources, many of which 

simply were not "navigable" In th e t ra di ­

tional sense bu t th e p ollution impa ct was 

sufficient to merit regulation.

Thu s, the term navigable waters was 

defined to mean "wa ters of the United 

State s Including the territorial seas.” 

The S ena te report on the 1972 ac t n oted 

th at —

Water moves In hydrologic cycles . . . and 

therefore, reference to the control req uire ­

ments must be made to the navigable waters, 

portions thereof, and their tributaries

To complete the history on this Issue, 

th e 1972 ac t defines discharge of pollu ta nt as "any add ition of any pollutan t 

to navigable waters to a point source"; 

and goes on the define point source as 

"an y discernable, confined and discrete 

conveyance, Including but not limited to 

any pipe, ditch, chan nel, tunne l, conduit, 

well, discrete fissure, contain er, rolling 

stock, concentrated anima l feeding operation , or vessel or oth er floating craft, 

from which pollutan ts are or may be dis ­

charged .”

Thus, any discharge of any pollutan t 

Is subject to Federal regulation, If such 

discharge Is from a point source Into a 

navigable water, either by the Env iron ­

mental Pro tection Agency—or a Sta te— 

or the Corps of Engineers. The law did 

no t auth oriz e regulation of polluta nts 

which migra te to the navigable waters 

from nonpo int sources. Polluta nts which 

run from farm ers fields, overflow from 

farm ers stock ponds or otherwise en ter 

the navigable waters from non point 

sources are sub ject to Sta te regulation 

and State reg ulation only.

Mr. Presid ent, I cite this extensive legislative his tory because of a controversy 

which has been provoked by a distorted 

and mischievous announcement of regulatory action by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers relative to Its responsibility to 

regulate the discharg e of dredge or fill 

material Into the navigable waters. The 

Corps, In w hat a ppears to be a deliberate 

att em pt to distort Federal water pollution policy for purposes which I do not 

understan d, publicly announced th at a 

cou rt decision which upheld the Inten t of 

Congress as regards the meaning of 

navigable w ater s would have the effect of 

placing thousands of fan ners In violation of Federal law. Nothing could be 

furthe r from the trut h and the Corps 

knows It.

The Admin istrator of the Environ ­

men tal Pro tection Agency, Russell T rain, 

has ca stig ated the Corps for w hat he describes as a "seriously Inaccur ate and 

misleading pres s release.” I ask unanimous con sent t hat Administrator T rain ’s 

letter, as well as a Washington Post 

editorial be inserted In the R ecokd a t the 

end of my remarks . I also ask unanimous 

consent th at a let ter from me to Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway be 

printe d In the R ecord as well.

The PRESIDING OFFICER Without 

objection, It Is so ordered.

• See exhibit 1.)

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have 

called on the Sec retary of the Army to 

publicly re tra ct the press release which 

has already caused so much concern and 

confusion regarding this im portant Issue. 

I have asked th at the Secreta ry's an ­

nouncem ent of retraction be circulated to 

the media and placed in the Federal Register and I have asked the Sec retary to 

investigate caref ully to determine how 

and why thi s unfor tun ate even t came 

to pass.

I only hope th at this ma tter can now 

be ended and we can get on with the Job 

of regulating the discharge of dredge or 

fill materials In such a ma nne r as to protect both the Nation's wetlands and the 

quality of all of th e Natio n’s waters. 

Exh ib it 1

as hing to n, D C ,

May lg , 1975.

Lt. Gen . il lia m C. Gribble, Jr,

Chi ef o f Eng in ee rs,

W as hi ngt on , D .C.

ear General Grib ble: I t Is becoming In ­

creasing apparent that the recently proposed 

regulations and guidelines published by the 

Corps of Engineers and KPA governing the 

Imp lementation o f section 404 of the Federal
531

W

ate r P oll uti on C ontr ol Ac t a re bei ng m is ­

under st ood by th e publi c an d by Con gr es s. 

M os t o f th is confu si on an d m is u n d e rs ta n d in g 

Is dir ec tly a ttrib u ta b le to th e ser io usl y in - 

ac cura te an d m is le ad in g pre ss re le as e Iss ue d 

by th e C or ps a t th e ti m e th e re g u la ti o n s 

we re publi sh ed bec au se of th e ex tr em e Im ­

port an ce of se cti on 404 as th e p ri m ary m echan is m to p ro te c t A m er ic a’s valu able w etland 

re so ur ce s, I co nsi der It Im per at iv e t h a t th e 

Cor ps of E ngin ee rs ta k e ste p s to re m ed y 

th ese Im pre ss io ns.

We ar e p arti c u la rl y concer ned t h a t th e 

fa ls e Im pre ss io n th a t fa rm ers m u st o b ta in 

p erm it s w hen ev er th ey plow a fiel d be co rre ct ed . 81uce th is wa s cl ear ly n o t co n te m ­

p la te d by e it h e r th e Cor ps or EPA an d Is n o t 

re quir ed by th e s ta tu te , we fa ll to u n d e rsta n d ho w su ch a sta te m e n t could ap p e ar In 

th is pre ss re le as e. As yo u ar e wel l aw ar e, th e 

pri m ar y co ncer n of se cti on 404 Is to ad dre ss 

sit u a ti o n s w her e dre dged or fill m ate ri a l Is 

dis ch ar ged In to w etl and ar ea s. By no str etc h 

of th e Im agin ati on can th e sim p le ac t of 

plow in g be co nsi der ed to fa ll w it h in th a t 

ca tego ry .

T he Cor ps h a s also s ta te d to th e pu b li c 

t h a t "m il li ons o f peo ple m ay be pre sentl y 

vio la ti ng th e la w .” Obv ious ly, th e re ar e so m e 

dis ch ar ges of dre dged or fill m a te ria l p re sen tl y occurr in g w hic h are n o t re g u la te d d u e 

to th e C or ps ’ p re sen t re str ic ti v e def in it io n. 

S uch dis ch ar ges sh o u ld an d w ould be re g u ­

la te d u n d er a bro ader ap pro ac h. To sa y, how ­

ev er, th a t th is n u m b er ap pro ac hes m illi ons 

is to ta ll y w it h o u t ba sis.

T he il lu str a ti o n s co nta in ed In th e pre ss r eleas e hav e le d to EPA re ce iv in g n u m ero u s 

In quir es a b o u t th e ty pes of a c ti v it ie s co ver ed by th e pro gra m . T h e co n fu sio n ab o u t 

It s ap pli cabil it y Is ap p a re n t. F o r ex am pl e, 

It has bee n su gges te d th a t sec ti o n 404 a p ­

pli es to any are a w her e th e re Is a bo dy of 

w ate r w hic h h as th e p o te n ti al o f floo di ng an d 

th a t a ri ce fa rm e r is vio la ti ng th e law If he 

p u ts an y ac re ag e In to cu lt iv a ti o n w it h o u t 

a perm it . C le ar ly th is Is n o t tr u e . W hil e 

th e re may be so m e rice gro w in g opera ti o n s 

w hic h ar e lo ca te d In w etl and ar ea s an d 

w hic h m ay In vo lv e th e dis charg e of fill m a ­

te ri a l fo r th e b u il d in g of dik es , It Is u n ­

re as onab le to ass um e th a t al l ri ce o p era ti o n s 

fa ll w it h in th is ca te gory . M erely bec au se an 

ag ri c u lt u ra l o p era ti o n In vo lv es w ate r d o e s

 

n o t m ea n th a t It Is su b je c t to se cti on 404. 

As we In dic ate d In o u r ex um ple to o u r g u id elines , we be liev e th a t re g u la ti o n s can be d e ­

ve lo pe d w hic h will pr ovid e ef fe ct iv e a d m in is ­

tr a ti o n of a p erm it pro gra m w it h in th e 

bro ader d efi n it io n of "n av ig ab le w ate rs ", 

w it h o u t In volv in g th e extr em e an d u n w a rra n te d exte nsi ons of fe der al Ju ri sd ic ti o n 

m en ti oned In your le tt er.

B oth EPA an d th e Corp s hav e is su ed po lic y 

s ta te m e n ts re co gniz in g th e nee d to p ro te c t 

w etl and are as I t w ou ld be u n fo r tu n a te 

In de ed If, o n th e bas is of th ese re cen t m is ­

co ncep ti ons, le gis la ti ve ch anges wer e m ad e 

to re tu rn th e s ta tu to ry d e fin it io n o f Ju ri sd ic ti o n to tr a d it io n a l coucepts of n av ig abil ity. S uch a change w ou ld le uv e v ast ar ea s 

of val uable w e tl a n d s w it h o u t th e p ro te c ti o n 

of th is re gula to ry m ec han is m a n d po ss ib ly 

su b je ct th em to u n co n tr o ll ed develo pm ent.

I str ongly urg e th e Corp s o f E ngin eers to 

wo rk w it h us In th e dev elo pm ent o f o u r se cti o n 404 p ro gra m w it h in th e s p ir it of th e F eder al W at er P o ll u ti o n C ontr ol Act an d to 

ta k e Im m ed ia te acti o n to co rr ec t th e m is ­

u n d ers ta n d in g s w hic h your d e p a rt m e n t' s 

publi c sta te m e n ts hav e cr eate d.

Sin ce re ly yo ur s,

RU8S EL L E. I'M A IN

Wetlands and

 t h i Coops o r 

Enuinl ers

Ov er th e ye ar s, th e Arm y C orp s o f E nginee rs has ea rn ed a re p u ta ti o n fo r It s o ft en 

h ig h -h an d e d dis re gard of th e en v ir o n m e n t. 

Fro m ti m e to ti m e, one ci tize ns * gro up or 

an o th e r w ou ld tr y to sto p th e C orp s w hen 

a giv en p ro je c t was b la ta n tl y 111-concelved , 

b u t usuall y th ee e g ro ups we re plo w ed u n d er 

as ea sily as a tr e e stu m p by a C or ps b u lldo ze r. B ut th e n an aw ar enes s o f th e n a ­

ti o n ’s fr ag il e ec olog y beg an to sp re ad , and

th e Corp s wa s fo rc ed to a d o p t a m ea xuie of 

re sp onsi bil it y. I t d id s o —h ow ev er r e lu c ta n tl y . 

An In d ic ati o n of Ju st ho w dee p th a t re lu c ­

ta n c e has bee n Is se en tn a c u rre n t ca m paig n 

of th e Corp s in re sp onse to a co u rt o rd e r for 

th e englu eer s to expand th e ir re sp o n sib il it ie s 

u n d er th e Fed er al W at er P o ll u ti o n Act.

Fol lo w in g th e M ar ch dec is io n of a U S 

D is tr ic t C o u rt Ju dg e in W ash in gto n - a d ecisio n in te n d e d to e n li st th e C orp s to p re v e n t 

de vel oper s an d b u il d ers fr om d estr o y in g ec ologi ca lly use fu l w etl ands— th e C orp s re sp o n d ­

ed by a n n o u n c in g th a t "fe d era l p e rm it s m ay 

be re q u ir ed by th e ra n c h e r w ho w a n ts to 

enla rg e h is st ock pond, o r th e fa rm er w ho 

w an ts to dee pen an Ir ri g ati o n d it c h o r pl ow 

a fie ld, o r th e m o u n ta in e e r who w a n ts to 

p ro te c t h is l an d ag a in st ste am er osion " S uch 

a t ac ti c— ro usi ng fa rm ers a n d o th e rs to th in k 

th ey m ay nee d th e g o v ern m e n t’s per m is si on 

to plow a fie ld, dig a d it c h o r w h a te v er— 

m ay hav e bee n u sefu l to th e Cor ps In ra ll y ­

in g th e su p p o rt o f th ose who th in k th e y see 

a fe der al big b ro th e r b eh in d ev er y tr ee . O th ­

ers. w it h b e tt e r vis io n. Im m edia te ly sa w 

w h a t th e Cor ps was doin g. R uss el l E T ra in , 

d ir ecto r of th e E n v ir o n m en ta l P ro te c ti o n 

Ag en cy, sai d In a le tt e r to th e Cor pa th a t 

"confu si on an d m is u n d e rs ta n d in g " we re 

sp re adin g be ca use of th e "se ri ousl y In a ccu ­

ra te an d m is le ad in g" p re se n ta ti o n th e Cor ps 

m ad e fo llow in g th e c o u rt ord er.

A week bef or e Mr. T ra in ’s le tt er, w hic h 

as ked th e Cor ps to en d It s m is le ad in g cam ­

pai gn. a nu m b er of e n v ir o n m e n ta l g ro u p s— 

In clu din g th e N a tu ra l R es ou rc es D ef en se 

C ounci l, one of th e w in n in g pla in ti ff s In th e 

ori gin al su it . Is su ed a s ta te m e n t al le gin g 

th a t "w it h th e o u tr ag e o u s th re a t t h a t th ey 

are goi ng to str ic tl y po lice th e plo w in g of 

fie ld s an d co n str u c ti o n o f fa rm ponds ac ro ss 

th e n ati o n . Cor ps off icials are a tt e m p ti n g to 

In cit e a un if o rm ed b ack la sh fr om cit iz e n s to 

hel p th e Cor ps es ca pe th e en v ir o n m e n ta l re ­

sponsib il it ie s C ongre ss h as gi ven It.

I t Is d o u b tf u l th a t m an y fa rm er s, ra n c h ­

er s or m o u n ta in ee rs are bein g per su ad ed by 

th e C orp s’ p re sen ta ti o n . More like ly , th ey 

w ou ld pre fe r, th a t th e en gin eers get o n w it h 

th e wo rk th a t th e co u rt s. EPA an d C ong re ss 

are askin g th em to do . a n d w hic h th e Cor ps 

kno w s ho w to do we ll. Acc or di ng to th e N ati o n al W ildl ife F ed era ti o n , Am er ic a h a s a lre ad y lo st 40 per c e n t—45 m illi on ac re s— of 

It s w etl and re so ur ce s. An ef fo rt Is be in g m ad e 

to hold th e li ne a t th a t figu re. B u t unle ss 

th e Cor ps of E ngin ee rs ch oo se s to m ak e a 

posi tive c o n tr ib u ti o n , th e d estr u c ti o n w ill go 

on. if th e re Is an y di ff er en ce th is ti m e. It 

Is t h a t th e court s. EP A an d e n v ir o n m e n ta l 

gro ups w ill be w a tc h in g cl os ely to se e th a t 

th e Cor ps is hel d ac co u n ta b le

J u n e 5. 1975

H on . How ar d H. C al la w ay

.

Sec re ta ry of th e Arm y,

T he Pen ta gon. W ash in gto n. D C.

ear M

r. Sec re ta ry I am dee pl y c o n ­

ce rn ed by th e re cen t pre ss re le as e o f th e 

Cor ps of E ngin ee rs re gard in g o p ti o n s fo r th e 

re g u la ti o n o f th e dis charg e of dr ed ge o r fill 

m ate ri als In to th e n a ti o n 's nav ig ab le w ate rs . 

T h is pre ss sta te m e n t Is m is chie vous an d d is ­

to rt s an Im p o rt a n t Issu e. I t dem ands p u b li c 

re tr ac ti o n .

I w ou ld hope yo u will an n o u n c e su ch a re ­

tr a c ti o n in th e sa m e m an n e r an d w it h th e 

sa m e vi go r w hic h obvio usl y accom pan ie d th e 

ori gin al re le as e. Als o. I w ou ld hope yo u 

w ou ld In vest ig ate th e sourc e of th e re le as e 

to d ete rm in e wh y It ca m e a b o u t In th e fi rs t 

pl ac e so th a t an y nec es sa ry re m edia l a c ti o n 

can be ta k en .

I am en clo si ng a co py of th e s ta te m e n t 

w hic h I m ad e on th is Issu e on th e flo or of 

th e S en ate to da y. I h o p e th a t yo u sh a re m y 

se nse of urg ency In re spondin g to th is Is su e. 

8I nc er el y,

E d m u n d S. Mu s k ie

.

Ch airm en , S u b c o m m itte e on EnH ro n-

 

m e n ta l P o ll u ti o n .
53 2

(From th e C um be rla nd News, May 17, 1975)

EPA Str/s rps

m i Sic’teme ofs t

WASHINGTO N (U PI) - The 

E n v ir o n m e n ta l P ro te ction 

Ag ency accused the the Army 

Corps of Engineers Friday of 

falsely claim ing it would have 

to regu l.'te farm plowing end 

o th e r a c ti v it ie s und er a 

proposed rule to safeguard 

Am erica ’s wetlands.

In a sh«rp ly worded lette r, 

EPA ad ministrator Russell E. 

Tra in demanded that Lt. Gen. 

W illia m C. Gribble of the Corps 

to “ take immediate action to 

co rrec t the misunderstandings 

wh ich your department’ s public 

statem ents have crea ted ."

Statem ents by the Corps

ab ou t the im pact of the 

proposed regulation also drew 

fire fro m the Na tural Resources 

Defense Council, a priva te 

environm enta l grou p th at 

charged the Corps '"us conducting a deliberate “ national 

scare cam pa ign."

T he c o u n c il s a id th e 

engin eers were tr yin g “ to 

arouse farm ers and ranchers 

again st the new environmental 

regu latio ns ," which the Corps 

opposes, and thus get the rules 

relaxed. Train implied much 

the same thing in his le tter.

The con troversy stems from 

four altern ative reg ula tions 

proposed by the Corps May 6 to 

pro te ct swam ps from the 

dredgin g and filli ng that has 

turned many of the nation’s 

w e tla n d s in to h o u s in g 

de velop men ts or in dust rial 

complexes.

Corps offic ials said the most 

strin ge nt of the four alternatives, the one favored by the 

EP A, would force farmers to 

get fed eral pe rm its before 

plow ing riv erside fields or 

fillin g in farm ponds. They said 

any area subject to flooding was 

covered and suggested rice 

farm ers would have to get 

pe rm its before puttin g acreage 

into cu ltiva tio n.
533

[From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Ju ne 5, 1975)

Inciting A Backlash

The Arm y Corps of Engineers, not known as 

an arde nt pro te ct or of the en vironm en t, is 

being forced into that role by Congress and the 

courts. Tra ditionally the Corps ’s juris dict ion, 

under the 1899 Refuse Act, extended to dredge 

and fi ll operations in "n av igab le waters.” But 

und er 1972 amendm ents to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, its au th or ity was broadened to includ e a ll “ wat er s of the Un ite d 

States” —lakes, riv ers, streams, wetland s, ri v ­

er ine marshes and swam ps—the ob je ct ive 

be ing to pr ot ec t env iron m en ta l value s and 

human health.

S till re flect in g its accus tom ed interest in 

dam-building and d redging , the Corps, in A pr il 

1974, issued new regulations under the 1972 act 

de aling on ly with “ naviga ble w ate rs ." As a 

re su lt of a su it by the N atu ra l Resources 

Defense Council and National W ild life Federation, ho wev er, a fe dera l d is tr ic t co urt in 

Washin gton in March orde red the Corps to 

revise its regulations to fu lly im plem en t the 

broader defin ition of the 1972 law. In response 

to a court o rder, th<» Engineers then proposed 

fin al regulation s which, the y said in a press 

relea se , co uld re quire fa rm ers to obt ain

perm its be fore plowing fie lds ad jace nt to "" 

levees, dig gin g irrigation ditches or enlargin g 

art ific ia l stock ponds.

The controvers ial press release was obviously designed to influence pop ular reaction to the 

proposed regu latio ns du ring the perio d fo r 

pu blic comm ent which expires at the end of 

this week. En viron men talists characterized it 

as an atte mpt to incite an uninformed backlash fro m citizens to help (he Corps escape its 

environme ntal responsibilitie s. Russell Tr ain, 

the head of the Env iro nm en ta l Pro tection 

Agency, ca lle d it "s er io us ly ina cc urate and 

mislead ing.” One theory was th at the Corps 

wos tryin g to und erm ine the 1972 law because 

it would put und er review many of its favo rite 

dredging and dum pin g sites.

When the fin al regu latio ns go into effect, 

however, the Corps shou ld not be allowed to 

avoid the real congressional objective, which is 

not to inte rfer e with fa rm ers ’ sp rin g plo wing 

but, as the NR DC pu t it, to protect ecologically 

valua ble wetlan ds that “ provide vital w ild life 

ha bitat, absorb and blu nt the force of floods, 

and serve as rec harge areas for o ur d win dling 

groun dwater supp lies.”
534

[From the New York Times, Jun e 16. 1975]

True to the Corps •. •

The Army Corps of Engineers has cooked up a scheme 

. to evade a provision of law tha t i t doesn’t like by reducing a court order to such absurdity that it hopes thereby 

to force a change in the law. The strategy should be as 

unsuccessful as it is unconscionable.

Un til this year, the Corps—which has always been !

 

more interested in building projects than in preserving 

the environment—narrow ly interpreted its functio n erf 

controlling dredging and fillin g operations affe cting the 

country’s waterways. However, in the Water Pollution 

Control Aot of 1972, Congress had made it clear tha t the 

Corps’ protective program was to apply not only to 

■ “ navigable” waters, as heretofore, but also to the countr y’s lakes, streams, rivers and wetlands as well. The 

Corps chose to ignore that extremely significa nt change 

in wording from previous law, continuing to confine its 

attentions to navigable waters only, to the grave detriment of tributaries and wetlands.

The upshot of a suit brought by the Natural Resources 

Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation 

was a United States District Court decision three months 

. ago that Congress meant jus t what it said, whereupon 

' the Corps deliberately proceeded to stretch its newly 

» accepted jurisd iction beyond reason. Federal permits, the 

Corps announced, might now be required of the “ farmer 

who wants to deepen an irrig ation ditch o r plow a field ” 

or “ the rancher who wants to enlarge his stock pond.”

. “ Millions of people,” the Corps solemnly warned, “ may 

Mie presently violating the law” and subject to severe 

f

 penalties.

If such inflammatory nonsense was intended to raise 

a hue and cry, it succeeded. Congressmen are being 

pressed by theJarm bloc and other lobbies to re-establish 

< “ navigable waters” as the only area of the Corps’ juris- 

' .'diction. This would leave at the mercy of the developers 

the 60 per cent of the nation’s economically and environ- 

•• mentally invaluable wetland resources still intact.

;■ . Public pressure should be directed not at Congress to 

tamper with the Water Pollution Control Act but at the 

• Corps of Engineers, the Arm y and the Adm inistration 

. itself to execute, not sabotage, the law of the land as 

‘ interpreted by the courts. <
535

[From the Fo rt Myers News-Press, April 21, 19751

Engineers Corps 

Has No Excuse

A federal co urt jud ge in 

Washington, D. C. finally has 

forced the U. S. Army Corps 

of Engineers to end a threeyear stall and start working to 

protect the environment. The 

three-year delay has been unconscionable and inexcusable 

but is typical of this die-hard 

foe of environmentalists.

Judge Aubrey E. Robinson 

has ruled that the corps must 

greatly expand its authority 

to grant or deny permits for 

private developments along 

our coasts, rivers, lakes and 

marshes.

Rob inson’ s ed ict is bad 

news fo r sh orefront condominium builders and other 

water fro nt developers who 

have destroyed much of the 

nation's wetlands by dredging, fillin g and pollution — 

much of it aided and abetted 

by the co rps’ do-no thing 

stand.

Du rin g most of this century, the corps sought to protect only the “ navigability” of 

waterways. It clung to this 

narrow mandate afte r a 

pu blic ou tcry arose in the 

1960s again st rec kless 

development, and it continued to sit on Its hands even 

after Congress in 1972 

declared that all U. S. waters 

were "n avi guble ” for pu rposes of pollution control.

Congress knew what it was 

doing when it declared all U. 

S. waterways navigable: it 

lore away the legal shield 

behind which the corps had 

long been hiding. Henceforth, 

said Congress, the corps 

should not lim it its per mitgranting powers to the zones 

below the mean high tide of 

coasts or the normal high 

wa term ark of riv er s. It 

should take jurisdiction over 

all wetlands intim ately linked 

with navigable waters.

Yet in the three years since 

Congress dem olished the 

shield of navigability , the 

corps st ill refused to budge. 

Florida conservation groups 

tried in vain to halt ruinous 

coastal dredging. The corps 

continued to refuse to grant or 

deny pe rm its for developments above mean high tide. 

The Na tional W ild life 

Federation and the Natural 

Resources Defense Council 

finally sued the corps in the 

landmark case which Judge 

Robinson has just decided.

The victory will bring most 

wetlands developments under 

a permit review that includes 

public hearings and potential 

vetoes by the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The EPA 

is already dra ftin g pe rm it 

guidelines for the corps. The 

guide lines w ill enable the 

corps to control developments 

below the line of dryla nd 

vegetation along our coasts 

and on lands that could feed 

pollutants directly into lakes, 

rivers or their tributaries

Our wetland s an* an 

economic herilugc thut must 

be preserved. They support 

waterfowl, marsh animals 

and two-thirds of our fish and 

shellfish harvests.

The corps w ill need to be 

watched closely to see how 

well it pe rfo rin s under the 

court order that should never 

have had to be issued.
536

Juno 3, 1975

Office of the Chief of Bigineers 

Forrestai Building 

Washington, D.C. 20314 

Dear Sir:

As a professional ecologist and as a citizen for many years actively interested in maintaining the quality of our environment a nd in the conservation 

of our natural resources, I am writing to urge that the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers exj>and its jurisdiction over the na tio n’s wate rways according to the 

order of U.S. District Court Judge Anbroy E. Robinson Jr. on March 27, 197S.

This was a ruling that could curb coastal and inland waterside development by 

regulating dredgo and fill development in ion-navigable waters.

In other words, I am requesting that all wetlands and non-navigable waters 

be protected under the new Army Corps of Engineers regulations. In particular,

I urge the implementation of Alternative 1, as supported by the EPA, the Justice 

Department, the National Wildlife Federation and the National Resources Defense 

Council. The wetlands developers must be regulated if we are to save our most 

biologically productive ecosystems, and it seems to me that on the basis of 

hydrography and biology, this is presently the most objective a nd reasonable 

way to accomplish these ends.

Sincerely yours

Donald J. Zinn 

Professor Emeritus

DJZ/sla

cc: Mr. Kenneth MacKenthurn
537

[F rom th e New Orlea ns S ta te slt em , Se ptem be r 25, 1975]

Wetlands row

L o u is ia n a Cong ressm en Jo h n 

Breaux and David Tre en ar e vexed 

ove r ne w regu lations exte nding the 

U.S. Army Corps of En gin eer s’ per ­

mit authori ty'in to wetland s a djoining 

navigabl e w ate r bodies.

Until Ju ly 25, 1975, the Corps* authority o ver dred ge and fill ope rations under Section 404 of the fede ral 

Wa ter Pollutio n Control Act amendm e n ts of 1 9 7 2 e x te n d e d o n ly to 

n a v ig a b le w a te rs of t h e U nit ed 

States.

The C or ps * re v is e d regu lations 

wer e pu blished in the Fe de ral Registe r las t J uly 25 in com pliance with a 

federa l cou rt ord er. In three phases 

over th e nex t thr ee ye ars, th e new 

regu lations ultima tely would exten d 

the Corps’ author ity up to the very 

hea d w ate rs of nav igable st rea ms .

; ’T he re m ay be a need for a cle are r 

definition of nav igab le w a te rs , as 

Rep. T reen sugg ested thro ugh an assis tan t at the public h ear ing in Ba ton 

Rouge last Wedn esday. Ye t th e basic 

, purpose of t he revi sed regulation s is 

clea r enough. The purp ose is to discourage public and priva te develo pm e n t s e it h e r in or a d jo in in g 

navigab le wa ter bodies whieh could 

a& ef se ly affect entire ecosystems.

F o r inst anc e, a dam at th e h ead 

w a te rs of th e Tangipa hoa R iv e r 

could ren der the str ea m unna vigable 

and cau se serious dam age to the ecosystem of L ak e Po nlc hartr ain , into 

which the riv er normal ly flows.

Man- made can als, su ch as th o se 

conn ectin g th e forme r wetland s on 

which the Eden Isles subdiv ision is 

con stru cted to L ak e Po ntc hartr ain , 

ma y, as stud ies have dem onstrate d, 

hav e a serio us imp act on the wa ter 

quality an d rec rea tional valu e of a 

public lake. The re is an obvious need 

for s tri ct re gulatio n of such a ctiv itie s 

if w etla nds are to s urvive as prod uctive eco systems .

Unfortu nate ly, th e re is littl e ev idenc e tha t e ither the Co rps or Loui sia n a s ta te agencie s h a v e been 

e ff e c ti v e in controlling ind iscrimin a te d e v e lo p m en t in Lou isia na’s 

wetlan ds. A s tate Coas tal Zone Manag em en t pro gra m, in keeping w it h 

th e fed era l Coastal Zo ne M anag eme nt Act of 1972, of fers some hope cf 

effec tive s ta te control of wetland s 

deve lopment. But the exp erie nce in 

Louisiana ar gues for a stro ng federal 

pres enc e, in an y cas e, if ecolog ical 

1

 havoc is not to prev ail in the st at e’s

va st and prod uctiv e we tlands.
538

[From the Washington Post, May 8, 1975]

Watching Over the Wetlands

HE HO US E PUBLIC WORKS'C om m itte e may

hiv e done environm en tal groups a favor, in a

backh anded way, by vo tin g to block fe dera l regulatio n of dredging and fil lin g In most of the nation’s

wetlands. Th e com mittee's precipitate action has not

on ly focused more public attention on the threats to

valuable marshes, bogs and swamps. It has also compe lle d the advocates of a broad wetlands protection

program to appeal fo r congressional an d public suppo rt. The resulting debate may he lp to dear away

some of the confusion and misinform ation th at h ave

clouded the subject for th e past fe w yearn.

Th e cu rren t controversy goes hack to 1972, when

Congress, in the clean wa tor law, extend ed th e Arm y

Corp s of Engineers' regu latory powers from navigable wgjters to “w aters Of the Un ite d States." Ap pa rently soma legislators faile d to recognize that this

change gave the Corps power,to regulate, dredgin g

and fil lin g operations In ah wetlands areas, small

creeks , lakes and rec reation al canals, as weg as along

commerc ial waterways. Th e Corps Itself did not acce pt this enlarged Jurisdiction read ily , and did not 

mpve to c arry out Ms new au thority until ordered to

do so by a fedssei dis tric t court here last year .

The second a nd most damaging elem en t of misu nde rst anding was Injec ted at th at p o in t In Its in itia l ■

r a p Mbs to th e co urt decision, tbs Corp s declared

th at ah expansive rending of the l aw wou ld re quire '

ev ^ry fa rm er to get a fede ral pe rm it to enlarge a

stock pond or shore up a drain age ditch. Pred ictably,

this bro ug ht a storm of protest from fa rm groups and

oth ers wh o did not wa nt to see tbs porps ma rch ing

up every stream and pa tro llin g ev er y damp field

acrbas th e con tinent. Such fears appear to be greatly

exaggerated, because th e Corps and the Env iro nm en ­

ta l ^rpt ec tlo n Agency have^worked o ut c areful plans

fo r phasing In the n ew sy stem of rev iew sod m inimisin g Interfer en ce w ith m inor projects such aa fa rm

ma intenance. Eve n so, th e eeb jec t ca nf e to be widely

vie wed as anoth er exam ple of o verr eg u la tt a from

Washing ton . This feeling played a m ajo r role In the

Houto ;pa nel's approval Of a proposal, sponsored by

Rep. John a Br eaux O-L aJ . to lim it th e Corps’ authority ) to navigable waters to the mean hig h w ate r,,

m ark , a Jurisdiction sligh tly m ore re stric ted tha n t hat

which the Ar my exercised be fore 1871 - ■

The House com mittee's brusque approach Would

un do years of Increasingly p erceptive efforts t o safegu ard the nation's d windling store of wetlands, along

th e coasts as well as In uplan d and Inland areas.

These Irreplaceable resources a re m ost generally ap ­

preciated as breeding and feeding grounds fo r w ild ­

lif e. Th ey also func tio n, how ever, as na tural cleansers

fb r polluted w aters and as buffer tones f or flood control. These ben efits a re not always apparent until the

wetlands have been destroyed. In No rth Dakota, fo r

instance, many wetlands have been filled for f ar m ing

purposes; one result has been to tu rn the Souris Rive r

in to a ra gin g t orren t in 5 of th e past 7 years.

Th e Br eaux amen dm en t th us reflec ts a short-sighted, Insensitive attitud e toward resources pro tection.

While rightly prote sting th at move, ho we ver, some

en vironm en tal groups have fos tered ye t ano ther misconce ptio n that o ug ht to be dispelled. This Is th e no ­

tio n th at reg ula tio n of wetlands by the Corp s Is the

on ly a lterna tiv e to no co ntrol at all. Despite Its new

en vironm en tal consciousness, the Corps o ( Engineers

la net the Ideal agenc y—an d certa inly no t the on ly

qualified ope—to make delicate Judgments a bout the

fu tu re o f these areas. Mo reoyer, state and local governm en ts should be encou raged to assume fa r more

responsibility than most have asserted until n ay.

ETA A dm inistrator Russell E. Tra in and some me mb tt i o f th e House committee have Indicated in te re s t 

in working out a coopera tive approach th at m ight

w in br oa de r pu blic acceptance than a fe de rally do mina ted p lan , and thu s prove even m ore effe ctive i n th e

tong ru n . I f the B re au x am en dm en t becomes a cat *-'j

lyst fo r this kin d of re-th inking , the House comm ittee's retreat could tu rn out to be advantageous a fter
5 3 9

[ Fr o m t he Bat o n R o u ge, La. A d v ocate, Ma y 2 6, 1 9 76)

Wetl a n ds: A C ase 

Of O verre acti o n

T h e l at e vt m o v e t a t h e m utr o v ar s y o v er c o nt r ol of t he 

L o ui si a n a w etl a n d s a p p e a n t o b e a c a s e at a ctt o no v err e a ctt o n.

T h e r e w a a c o n si d er a bl e c o n c er n, a n d ri g htl y a o, w h e n 

t h e U X C or p s of E n gt o e e n a c q uir e d, u n d er f e d er al 

c o urt or d er, j uri s di cti o n o v er dr u d g e a n d fill o p er ati o n s 

i n “ w at e n of t h e U nit e d M at a s.’’ P r a vi o u sl y, t h e C or p e 

h a d l ar g el y c o nfi n e d Ma c o ntr ol t o n a vi g a bl e str e a m s.

T h e r e w er e f e a n t h at u n d er it s v a st n e w J uri d si cti o n, 

t h e C or p e w o ul d h a v e t h e p o w er t o pr e v e nt a f a n n e r 

fr o n t ti g gi n g a dr ai n a g e c a n al a cr o s s h b l a n d.

X b e C or p s s e e m e d t o t a k e t h e p o siti o n t h at it h a d it s 

h a n d s hill wit h m or e i m p ort a nt t hi n g s, b ut t h e 

c o ntr o v er s y di d n ot g o a w a y.

N o w, R e p. J o h n B. Br e a u x of Cr o wl e y h as i ntr o d u c e d 

a m e a s ur e i n C a n gr a aa t h at w o ul d s e v er el y r e stri ct t h e 

C or p s’ a u t h ori t y t o r e g ul at e dr e d g e a n d fill o p er ati o n s 

I n w etl a n d s, cr e ati n g a n e v e n bi g g er f ur o r o v er t h e 

p o s si bilit y t h at t hi a w o ul d o p e n t h e w etl a n d s f or 

e x pl oit ati o n.

Br e a u x* c o nt e nti o n b t h at t h e ti d al w etl a n d s c a n b e at 

b e pr ot e ct e d t hr o u g h t h e C o a st al Z o n e M a n a g e m e nt 

A ct, w hi c h p er mit s l o c al a n d st at e g o v er n m e nt s-t o 

a d o pt pr ot e cti v e r e g ul ati o n s.

H o w e v er, L o ui si a n a d o es n ot y et h a v e a c o a st al 

m a n a g e m e nt pl a n, a n d t h e f e d er al a ct h e w o ul d r el y 

u p o n d o es n ot a ff e ct i nl a n d m ar s h e s.

Br e a u x h a s n o w dr a w n t h e ir e of offi ci al s of t h e 

I nt eri or D e p a rt m e nt, t h e N ati o n al Wil dlife F att ereti n n 

t h e U S. Fi s h a n d W il d li f e S e r v i c e a n d 

e n vir o n m e nt ali st s.

A n d, t h er e i s c o nt e nti o n t h at t h e Br e a u x bill w o ul d b e 

“ fl a gr a ntl y I n c o nfli ct’’ wit h t h e f e d er al W at er 

P oll uti o n C o ntr ol A ct, w hi c h b s u p p o s e d t o pr ot e ct t h e 

bi ol o gi c al I nt e g rit y of t h e n ati o n’ s w a t e n.

T h e C or p s of E n gt o e e n d o es n ot n e e d, a n d pr o b a bl y 

d o es n ot w a n t, c o m pl et e j uri s di cti o n o v er all w at e n i n 

t hi a n ati o n, i n cl u di n g f ar m dr ai n a g e dit c h e s a n d s m all 

n o n- n a vi g a bl e str e a m s. L o c al c o ntr ol will s uffi c e.

B ut n eit h e r b tt n e ce s sar y t o o v err e a ct t o it s 

n e wf o u n d j uri s di cti o n b y s etti n g u p t hi s c o u ntr y' s 

v al u a bl e w etl a n d s f or d e str u cti o n t hr o u g h pri v at e 

r a z o r s ti o n.

7 6- 1 6 1 0 - 7 6 - 3 5
540

[From the Morrison, N J. Daily Record, May 26, 1976)

[ Our Opinion

Endangered Species

When many people think of swam ps and marshes, they

think of foul-smelling, mosquito-infested quagmires that

ought to be drained. *

But coastal marshes purify the water. Estuaries provide

spawning grounds for important commercial shellfish and

fish such as striped bass.

Inland swamps are homes for fur-bearing animals and

nesting site s for waterfowl and wading birds.

Wetlands capture water during rains, preventing flooding

of rivers swollen with run-off water.

Despite their enormous importance, there is legislation

pending in Congress that could doom the wetlands.

This ecological nightmare com es to us in the form of an

amendm ent by Rep. John B. Breaux, D-La. Under it, millions of acres of wetlands would lose federal protection, including swamps in the Passaic River Basin.

The amendment seeks to overturn a 1975 court order expanding the Army Corps of Eng inee rs’ jurisdiction over

dredge and fill operations to “waters of the United S tates.”

This would restrict the Corps to its traditional jurisdiction running to the tidal mean high water mark in coastal

regions and the ordinary high w ater mark in navigable inland lakes, rivers and streams.

Mr. Breaux contends that coastal marshes could best be

protected by the Coastal Zone Management Act, which 4

gives state and local governments a voice in adopting regulations. But this a ct applies only to coastal areas. It doesn’t

cover inland wetlands.

Many environmentalists, who recognize the potentially

disastrous consequences of the Breaux amendment, have

lined up in opposition to it.

The National Wildlife Federation estimated Breaux’s

amendment would exem pt up to 90 per cent of the nation’s

wetlands in the contiguous 48 states from federal regulation.

A high-ranking Interior Department official has painted

a bleak picture for the future of the wetlands if the amendment becomes law. Nathaniel P. Reed, assistant secretary

for fish, wildlife and parks, say s the amendment would

make the wetlands “vulnerable to wholesale obliteration

through filling and soil dispo sal.”

We share the grave concern Mr. Reed and other environmentalists have voiced. What is really needed is a federal

land use policy that would yniformly protect one of our

most valuable natural resources. The court order in 1975

giving control of the wetlands to the Army Corps was a

step in the right direction. We had hoped that it woulij be

followed up by tough legislation that would protect for all

time our wetlands.

Instead Congress is offering us the Breaux Amendment,

which is a step backwards, a step toward ruination of an

irreplaceable resource.
541

National Wildlife Federation

1412 16IH ST., N W , WASHINGTON, DC. 2OOJ6 •’"on. joj— nr-tiao

J u ly 20, 1976

Maj. G enera l Jo hn W. M o rr is , C hie f 

Army Cor ps o f E ngin eer s 

O ffic e o f th e C h ie f of E ngin eer s 

F o r re s ta l B u il d in g 

W as hin gt on , D.C. 20314

Dea r G enera l M o rr is :

The N a ti o n a l W il d li fe F e d e ra ti o n has be en as ked by R ober t Bau gh er ,

P re sid e n t o f th e Tu rkey Cr ee k C o n serv ati o n Cl ub ( a t Lake Wavase e,

In d ia n a) an d Jim R ic e, E xecuti ve S e c re ta ry of th e In d ia n a C o nacrv at lo n 

C o u n cil , I n c . , to tr a n s m it th e ac co m pa ny ing p e ti t io n s d i r e c tl y to yo u.

The sig n e e :. , ap p ro x im ate ly 50 0, r e s id e a n d /o r own p ro p e rty on or 

su rr o u n d in g La ke Wavase e, a n a tu r a l In la n d la k e w it h a p p ro x im ate ly 26 

m il e s o f s h o re lin e . They w is h to a l e r t yo u to th e Lake Wavasee s it u a ti o n 

v h llc e x p re s s in g t h e i r su p p o rt of a c tio n s o f th e Corps * D e tro it D i s tr i c t 

O ffic e th us f a r .

At th e re q u e s t o f Re gion V o f th e E nv ir onm enta l P ro te c tio n Ag ency, d ie 

C o rp s' D e tro it O ffic e sssumed j u r i s d ic t io n over th e d is c h a rg e of f i l l 

m a te ria ls In to th e la k e and I t s a d ja c e n t v c tl a n d s on Ju ne 15, 19 76 . At th a t 

tim e two d e v e lo p e rs v ere d e p o s it in g f i l l in th e l a k e 's v e tl a n d s . A p re ­

v io u s a tt e m p t by th e S ta te of In d ia n a to s to p th e d is c h a rg e of f i l l 

m a te ria l f a i l e d whep a c o u rt fo un d s t a t e la v in ad eq u ate to h a lt th e f i l l 

a c t i v i t i e s .

The Corps e x e rc is e d I t s a u th o r ity under r e g u la ti o n s pro m ulg at ed to im pl em en t 

S e c ti o n 404 o f th e F ed era l W ate r P o llu tio n C ontr ol Ac t of 19 72 . Tho ugh 

th e in la n d la k e f a l l s und er Ph as e I I of th e r e g u la tio n s , th e Co rps to ok 

a c ti o n be cau se th e d is c h a rg e may ha ve s e rio u s Im pa ct on th e l a k e 's w ate r 

q u a lity . The F e d e ra l D i s tr i c t Cou rt In So ut h Ben a, In dia na Is su ed a tem ­

p o ra ry r e s tr a in in g o rd e r to sto p th e d isc h a rg e o f f i l l m a te ria l upon 

req u e st o f O.S . a tto r n e y s . O ra l ar gum ents on th e case a re schedule d fo r 

J u ly 20 .
542

National Wildlife Federation

The Lak e Wawasee case may be th e f i r s t bro ught by th e J u s tic e D ep ar tm en t 

an d th e Co rp s c o n cern in g an in la n d la k e . The 500 p e t i t i o n e r s fe a r th a t 

th e p re s e n t at m osp here in W as hi ng to n ( i . e . , th e P r e s id e n t's 60 -d ay d e la y 

o rd e r in th e g e n e ra l im p le m en ta ti o n o f Pha se I I , and Ho use a c tio n th a t 

su p p o rts re m ov in g la k e s su ch a s Lak e Wawasee from dre dged and f i l l m a te r ia l 

d is p o s a l r e g u la tio n ) may Im pac t upon th e c a s e . I t i s th e d e s ir e a n d /o r 

le g a l re q u ir em en t o f th e S ta te o f In d ia n a , EPA Reg ion V, and th e D e tr o it 

O ffic e o f th e Cor ps to p re v e n t f u r th e r d is c h a rg e o f f i l l m a te ria l in to 

th e la k e an d i t s a d ja c e n t w e tl a n d s . The F e d e ra ti o n u rg e s you to a c tiv e ly 

su p p o rt t h e i r en d eav o rs .

In c lo s in g , we wo uld p o in t o u t th a t a s id e fro m th e C h ie f E x e c u ti v e 's 

q u e s ti o n a b le a u th o r ity to d e la y th e g e n e ra l im p le m en ta ti o n o f Pha se I I 

o f th e S e c ti o n 404 r e g u la tio n s th e d e c is io n to do so a ll o w s th e Co rp s 

to "c o n ti n u e to ta k e a c tio n to s to p d is c h a rg e s whi ch w i l l ha ve s e rio u s 

im pac t on w a te r q u a lity " . In ou r ju dgm en t, th e Lake Wawasee case c l e a r l y 

r e p re s e n ts a ne ed fo r su ch a c tio n .

S in c e re ly ,

LOUIS S. CLAPPER 

D ir e c to r o f C o n serv ati o n

c c : M art in Ho ffm an, S e c re ta ry of th e Army

V ic to r V ey se y, A s st. S e c re ta ry o f th e Army 

Ji m R ic e, In d ia n a C o n se rv a ti o n C o u n c il , In c. 

R obert Ba ug he r

E nclo su re
543

NEWS RELEASE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

WAS HING TO N. O C 20 314

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 25 June 1976 Edward A Greene

202-693-6346

SECOND PHASE OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF 

DREDGE AND FILL DISCHARGES BEGINS NEXT WEEK

The U. S. Army Corps of En gineers today confirmed that Implementation 

of the second phase of a thre e-p hase program to pro tec t the quality of 

the waters of the United States against harmful discharges of dredged 

o r fill m aterials wiU proceed as scheduled on Ju ly 1, 1976.

Phase n extends the jurisdictio n of the Army Engineers to regulate 

disposal of dr edged or fi ll ma ter ial s to lakes with more than five 

sur face ac res, pri ma ry tribu tarie s of inland navigable wa ters of the 

U. S ., and ne arby wetlands.

In today 's annpuncement the Cor ps of E nginee rs emphasiz ed that 

it will continue to u se moderatio n and a reason able approach in the 

adm inistra tion and enforcem ent of the program . Gen eral p erm its which 

provide blanket auth oriz ation for comparable activitie s with no sign ificant 

adverse environm enta l impact in design ated area s will b e issued as 

much as pos sible to make the program more manageable and pr actical 

by reducing the number of per mits require d.

The firs t phase began las t July 25th when the jurisdiction of the 

Corps of Enginee rs in this matter was limited to coa stal wat ers, 

inland navigable wate rs of the United States and nearby wetlands.

Last July the Co rps also announced the schedule for the second and
544

third phases. The third phase, scheduled to sta rt next year on th<* 

first of July , will furthe r expand the jurisdiction of the Corps of 

Engineers to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into 

other waters generally up to the headwaters.

The Corps' permit progra m is being conducted as directed by 

the Congress under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act Amendments of 1972 and in accordance with the March 27, 

1975, decision of the U. S. District Court for the D istric t of Columbia.

2
545

Fonorable James L. Oberstar 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Oberstar:

I am replying to your recent letter concerning Section 404 

of P.L. 92-500 in which you asked several questions regarding 

the Corps' permit program.

You made note of the Committee Report of 7 May 1976 on the 

Federal Cater Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1976 and the 

cited figures r egarding numbers of permits. I feel further 

clarification and amplification is re quired on those numbers. 

Specifically, the discussion on page 22 could lead one to believe 

that the 404 program would cause a fourfold increase by 1976 

in the permit workload of the Corps of Engineers.

Frankly, I just do n’t believe we are g oing to see that 

kind of an effect. Although the Corps has ma de a strong effort 

to assess the impact of the program, we arc dealing with so 

many unknowns that a firm project of permits is not possible.

Very recently the Corps has compiled their experience data thru 

the first nine months of FY 76; the direct impact of Section 404 

has been 561 additional permit applications deriving from the 

expanded jurisdiction. The inclosure shows the new S ection 404 

workload compared to that of Section 10.

I think we should resist legislative courses of action 

premised on hugh projections of permi t applications and be 

patient in seeing how the actual workload develops. My own 

belief is that the General Permit concept will reduce the 

numbers of permits processed substantially.
546

Although we will be roving into Phase II of the program

next month, and this will undoubtedly increase our work load

significantly, we also are moving toward the use of General Permits

Altho ugh we are still in the formulative stages of General Permits,

the Corps has approximately sixty in various stages of act ive

development. Of the 13 Issued as of 1 June 1976, m ost are for

construction and are applicable to the Section 10 program. A

short status report is Inclosed. As we gain additional experience

with General Permits we will be expanding into more of the dredge

and fill activities applicable to Section 404.

Kith regard to General Permits, there has been occasional

misunderstanding of how the system would work. Basically, the

General Permit allows the Corps to consider a great number of

permit applications for similar type work at one time. There

still Is a requirement for a public interest review, an environmental impact assessment, the issuance of a public notice,

prepa ration of a statement of findings, and even public hearings

and an environmental impact statement if warranted. But all of

this is done once for each General Permit, rather than for each

application. Thia greatly simplifies the administrative pro ­

cedure s and also reduces the inconvenience to the public for

work meetin g the requirements of the General Permit o nce it

is issued. I am Inclosing a copy of a General Permit Issued by

the "Buffalo District. You will note by condition (n) that an

application is required and work may not be performed un til a

determi nation is made by the District Engineer that the proposed

work complies with the terms of the General Permit. This normally

would be accomplished w ith a few days, as opposed to two months

for a normal individual permit application. Other Gener al Permits

might only require the applicant to notify the District that he

is accomplishing work under the General Permit.

Althou gh a simple permit application might be processed in

two months, or even less time, the average for all permits is

approximately four months. This average includes those permits

that are large in scope, are very controversial and whe re

there are significant objections raised. Processing of these

type of permits may take two or three years, particularly when

an extensive Environmental Impact Statement is prepared and where

resolution cannot be achieved at the District level.

I hope that this information is of interest to you. Thank

you for your interest in the permit program.

Sincerely,

3 Incl

As stated

Vict or v. Ve ysey

Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Civil Works)
547

3 Ju ne 19 76

N um ber of P e rm it A p p li cati o n s

F is c a l Y e ar S ecti on 10 *_____S ecti o n 404

1969 7,4 00 -

197 0 7, 500 -

1971 8,2 00 -

197 2 9, 600 -

1973 12,6 00 -

1974 13 , 692 -

1975 14 , 692 -

19 76 ** 13,0 49 561

* In clu des so m e a p p li cati o n s w hi ch als o r e q u ir e p e rm it s u n d er 

S ecti o n 40 4 ju ris d ic tio n o r S ecti o n 103 ju ris d ic ti o n (O ce an 

D um pi ng A ct )

** F i r s t nin e m o n th s only
548

\

1 June 19 76

1 . PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED ............................................... 32

2 . DRAFT IN PREPARATION ............................................... 18

1

3 . GENERAL PERMITS ISSUED ............................................ 13 /

a . Sh or e P r o te c tio n

R ip rap, B ulk h ea d s,

. Timb er C r ib s, e t c ................................ 2

b . Sm al l Boa t Do ck s

& P ie r s ( F i l l ty p e) ...................... 2

c . C u lv e r ts 1

d . Open P i le Do cks

(S m all B oa t) 5

e . B ri dge C o n str u c ti o n ...................... 1

. f . M oo ring Bu oys &

S ta k es 1

g . A id s to N a v ig a ti o n ..................... 1
549

I NF WHAT ION PAPER

DATA SU PP LI ED BY U . S . ARMY CORPS OF ENG INEERS

SUBJECT: P u b li c R es po ns e to 2*5 J u ly 1975 F e d e ra l R e g is te r (S e c ti o n 4 0 4 , 

FWPCA)

FACTS:

1. D uri ng th e 134 da ys th a t fo ll o w ed p u b lic a tio n o f th e 25 J u ly 1975 

F e d e ra l R e g is te r , th e Cor ps a c tiv e ly so u g h t p u b li c in p u t to i t s In te rim 

F in a l S e c ti o n 40 4 R e g u la ti o n . Four (4 ) n a tio n a lly sp onso re d P u b li c 

H eari ngs and 24 3 lo c a l P u b li c M eet in gs wer e co n d u cte d . The p u b li c re sp o n d ed 

by p ro v id in g th e Cor ps 2084 l e t t e r s an d o r a l s ta te m e n ts fo r th e O f f i c i a l 

S e c ti o n 40 4 Rec or d w hi ch c lo s e d on 5 De cemb er 19 75 .

2 . C onta in ed w ith in th e 20B4 p u b lic ly su b m it te d l e t t e r s wer e 2816

in d iv id u a l su g g e ste d ch an ges to th e in te rim f i n a l 404 r e g u la tio n . Ea ch 

su g g e sti o n has a d m in s tr a tiv e ly bee n m at ch ed to i t s a p p lic a b le p ara g ra p h 

w ith in th e r e g u la tio n to pr od uce t h i r t e e n vo lu m es o f c a ta lo g e d p u b li c 

re sp o n s e .

3. P u b li c re sp o n s e to S e c ti o n 40 4 was a p p ro x im a te ly s p l i t : 507. fa v o rin g , 

437. d is a p p ro v in g and 77. n o t s t a t i n g an o p in io n . In c lo se d i s th e f i n a l 

summ ary o f th e 20 84 p u b li c com ments show n by 23 c a te g o r ie s o f re s p o n d e n ts . 

The se f ig u r e s , o f c o u rs e , r e p re s e n t p u b li c re s p o n s e , n o t t o t a l p u b li c 

o p in io n . Q u it e o b v io u s ly , v a rio u s s p e c ia l I n t e r e s t s , b o th fa v o rin g and 

d is a p p ro v in g th e r e g u la tio n , en coura ged t h e i r mem be rshi p to com ment.
•

TO TA L PU BLIC 1 RESPO NS E TO SEC. 404, FWPCA, JU LY 25, 1975 INTE RIM FI N AL REG ULA TIO N

Favors Federal action No position stated Disapproves Federal action Subtotals

Categories of respondents Written Oral Subtotal Written Oral Subtotal Written Oral Subtotal Written Oral total

1. Private individ ual (no nfa rmer)______ 663 23 686 41 2 43 129 8 137 833 33 566

2. Private indiv idua l (farm er, ranc he r),. 5 0 5 0 0 0 36 0 36 41 0 41

3. U.S. Senator ______________________ 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 5 0 5

4. U.S. Cong ressm an.......... . . . ............. 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 10 10 4 14

5. Federal age ncy _____ . . ___________ 2 4 6 3 0 3 4 0 4 0 4 13

6. Corps field office_____ . . . ____ 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6

7. Federal, othe r____________________ 1 1 2 3 0 3 2 0 2 6 1 7

8. Governor_________ ________________ 2 0 2 0 0 0 17 5 22 19 5 24

9. State age ncy______________________ 24 2 26 7 2 9 61 22 83 92 26 118

10. Elected State off icia l_______________ 1 0 1 2 2 4 14 6 20 17 8 25

11. State, other__________ ________. . . 3 0 3 7 - 1 8 6 0 8 16 1 17

12. City or c ounty official_____ _______ 6 1 7 6 0 8 55 4 39 49 5 54

13. Port aut hor ity____________________

14. Conservat ion distr ict ...................... .

6

24

0

2

6

26

1

4

0

1

1

5

1

101

2

19

3

129

8

120

2

22

10

151

15. Local government, ot he r.. ------------ 9 0 9 3 0 3 16 5 51 58 5 63

16. Trad e as so ci at io n .____ . . . _______ 6 0 6 5 4 9 54 21 75 65 25 90

17. Environmental group____ __________ 125 26 152 6 1 7 7 2 9 139 29 168

18. Chamber of co mmerce...... ......... .......... 2 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 9

19. Special interest grou p_____ . . . . . 61 6 67 9 1 10 69 6 75 139 13 152

20. Large co rp or at ion_____ . _____ 10 0 10 16 1 17 95 15 110 121 16 137

21. Small busin ess ___________________ 13 0 13 5 1 6 60 2 62 78 3 81

22. Law firm_________ ________ . . 6 0 6 6 0 6 7 0 7 19 0 19

23. Petit ion------------------------------------------- 2 0 2 1 0 1 11 0 11 14 0 14

Total __ __ . . _____ 974 66 1,040 134 17 151 774 119 893 1,882 202 2, 084

Percentage___________ . . . 49 .9 . . 7.3 42 .8 . 100.0

Note.—This summ ary includes all testimony from public hearings and oral testimony from public meetings where it was sp ecifically stated that it would become a part of the official public response record.
561

Senator Randolph. The final witness is Bruce Hawley of the 

American Farm Bureau Federation.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE HAWLEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FARM BUREAU

Mr. Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We appreciate the opportunity to present Farm Bureau’s views on 

section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Farm Bureau 

is the Nation’s largest general farm organization with million 

member families in over 2,800 counties in 49 States and Puerto Rico.

Farmers and ranchers have been, and continue to be, concerned 

about the expanded regulatory program tha t has been developed by 

the Corps of Engineers under section 404 as many of the requirements 

of this program directly impact them.

The Corps’ expanded program, initiated July 25, 1975, is a farreaching and comprehensive regulatory program which, in our opinion, 

grossly distorts the purposes of section 404.

As you know, the objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the Nation’s waters. 

However, section 404 of tha t act, as described by former Senator 

Allen Ellender,

. . . simply retains the authority of the Secretary of the Army to issue permits 

for the disposal of dredged materials. This is essential since the Secretary of the 

Army is responsible for maintaining and improving the navigable waters of the 

United States.

Section 404 was intended as a narrow exception to the overall 

pollution abatem ent program of Public Law 92-500 for the express 

purposes of continuing to allow for the maintenance and improvement 

of channels of navigation for the purposo of transporting interstate 

and foreign commerce.

At the time the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was passed, 

the Corps of Engineers was regulating about 50,000 river centerline 

miles and 50,000 lake shoreline miles under its permit program.

The Corps’ expanded regulatory program, when fully implemented, 

will extend the Corps’ jurisdiction over 3.5 million river centerline 

miles and 4.7 million lake shoreline miles, according to the Corps’ 

estimates. These expansions represent 70- and 90-fold increases in 

the jurisdiction of the Corps’ regulatory piogram.

We believe this expanded Corps’ regulatory program exceeds the 

congressional authorization. We have mentioned Senator Ellender’s 

comments. We note that, when suit was filed against the Corps, the 

Corps of Engineers legal department, assisted by the Justice Department, opposed such a regulatory expansion.

We note tha t Congress never authorized funding or manpower 

increases for the Corps to administer such an expansion of regulatory 

capability although the Corps estimated additional requirements of 

1,750 employees and $5.3 million.

Such an expanded program is unnecessary. The Department of 

Agriculture estimates tha t continued implementation of - normal 

conservation programs, as mandated by Congress, would require 

60,000 additional permits per year under the Corps’ expanded regulatory program.
562

These permits cost both time and money. It seems counterproductive to the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that 

each Department of Agriculture conservation program activity should 

be delayed from 6 months to 2 years while a Corps permit is being 

processed and issued.

Throughout that period the very pollution problem tha t conservation programs should have abated would be continued unchecked in 

the name of complying with bureaucratic regulations.

The charge is made th at if the Corps does not protect all waterways 

nothing will be done. Yet there are many and varied Federal programs 

specifically designed to protect our environment. These include programs authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Migratory Marine Game-Fish Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act.

The observation was made earlier that people come here simply 

looking to get out from under regulations. Agriculture is totally dependent upon environment of both the land and the water.

We do not seek an exemption from regulation. We seek reasonable 

regulation. We remind the committee t hat section 208 of the law talks 

specifically about “controlling to the extent feasible.” And “to the 

extent feasible” means we can be reasonable, which I think is our 

objective.

If it is the sense of Congress tha t additional legislation should be 

enacted in this area, hearings should be held, testimony from inte rested parties received, and a single coordinated legislative effort 

initiated, we do not believe that the Federal court system ought to 

be empowered to write such laws by default of the Congress.

Section 404, as defined and implemented by the Corps regulations, 

places a substantial cloud over the property rights of private landowners. There are 240 million acres of privately owned agricultural 

land having “excess w ater” problems, and no one knows how much 

of th at land is included in the Corps court-ordered overregulation.

Last ye ar over 55,000 “earth moving” activities, such as dike construction, fishstream improvement, floodwater diversion, ponds, 

pumping plants for water control, and streambank protection, 

were implemented.

Let me interrupt myself for a moment. There has been a lot of 

discussion this evening about ponds and what ponds are subject to 

regulation. I think a misconception has happened. I would like to 

atte mpt to clarify it.

The existing regulations of the Corps talk about interstate lakes 

utilized in the production of agricultural commodities sold and 

transported in interstate commerce. They define lakes:

Lakes means natural bodies of water greater than five acres in surface and all 

bodies of standing water created by the impoundment of navigable waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (h).

Natural bodies of five acres or more are subject to Corps regulation and all 

bodies impounded in waters with a flow of 5 cubic feet per second or greater, or 

in waters defined as wetlands—that is essentially all farm stock ponds—“are 

included and subject to Corps regulations.”

As long as the Corps regulatory authority is allowed to extend to 

the back fields of his farm, a farmer faces the very real prospect of 

being denied the productive use of his land—without compensation 

and w ithout recourse.
553

As an example of the regulations now imposed on farmers and 

ranchers, we cite the case of a potato farmer in the State of Washington, who decided to take some desertland which he owned, couple 

it with some water rights which he also owned, and through the use 

of irrigation to turn tha t desertland into food.

Hank Thompson, working with experts, developed a plan for completing this irrigation project. Upon completion of t hat plan, he was 

required to obtain 47 permits and to spend $87,000 of his own money 

to comply with insatiable bureaucratic appetites at the various levels 

of government in this country.

We do not believe tha t the Congress of the United States ever 

intended to tell Hank Thompson tha t he needs still another permit 

to do tha t which 47 permits already have authorized him to do. We 

do not believe tha t Congress intended to requrire tha t farmers pay 

$100 per permit for each of tens of thousands of permits per year to 

comply with section 404. We do not believe tha t the Congress ever 

intended section 404 to infringe upon the property rights of private 

landowners.

We note that the House of Representatives, by a 2-to-l margin, 

has said tha t it did not intend the Corps to be in every farmer’s field. 

We hope tha t the Senate will concur.

Thank you.

The National Grange, the American National Cattlemen’s Association, the National Association of Conservation Districts, and the 

National Water Resources Association have requested tha t I mention 

their endorsement of this statem ent.

Thank you.

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much, Mr. Hawley.

Is there any comment tha t you have, Senator Burdick?

Senator Burdick. I want to thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

It has been proposed tha t language which indicates tha t normal 

farming operations should not be covered by the act.

You mentioned the irrigation system. Were the parties required to 

get their permits, because tha t was not normal farming operations?

Mr. Hawley. The Corps has not clearly defined what normal 

farming practices are. They say “activities such as plowing, planting, 

and harvesting.”

As you know, a normal farming activity also includes such things 

as streambank protection, drainage ditches, construction of new 

drainage ditches, a laying of new tiles, impounding of waters for the 

express purpose of having something for livestock to drink later in the 

summer, and so on.

As near as we have been able to determine, these activities are not 

exempted by the Corps regulations.

Senator Burdick. Nor do you think there is some question whether 

tha t falls within the so-called definition of ordinary farming operations?

Mr. Hawley. As defined by the Corps, yes, sir, I would.

Senator Burdick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much.

Mr. Clapper. If I am not mistaken, sir, I think the ClevelandHarsha-Hart bill would specifically exempt irrigation practices.

Senator R andolph. Thank you, Mr. Clapper.

Mr. Speth?

Mr. Speth. Yes, that is correct; it would.
554

Senator, one thing just to emphasize—our concern, and I don’t 

think it is the concern of anybody here, is not with these extremely 

small activities carried on in a routine way on farms and in ranches.

Our concern is with big things, such as the conservation of hundreds 

and thousands of acres along the Mississippi River, for example, the 

conversion of swamplands tha t are a vital part of the aquatic 

ecosystem to other types of uses, and things like this.

I think former Congressman Veysey mentioned that last night. The 

rate of destruction of the wetlands in lower Mississippi is phenomenal.

Senator Randolph. Earlier tonight you said tha t we had to have 

the integrity of the natural waters. Is that correct?

Mr. Speth. Yes.

Senator Randolph. I think we can all agree. I appreciate the nine 

witnesses who testified tonight. We will keep the record open for 

further statements until Friday evening this week. Additional sta tements will be received until then. Is there some further comment?

Mr. Ritchie. In listening to the testimony here this evening, 

Mr. Chairman, it has become quite obvious to me—being from 

West Virginia, where we are not within 400 or 500 miles of wetlands— 

that there are concerns for wetlands. I can understand the concern 

over the wetlands very much.

But I have tried to keep track of the number of permits tha t were 

estimated maybe tha t we would have. I am sure we don’t have anywhere near the volume that will occur overall, but 165,000 new permits 

in agriculture, forestry, and highways, plus the mining permits, seems 

to me to create a tremendous workload for whoever does it.

The issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit, if I understand, will 

have to take place for the placing of a pipe in any stream in our State.

We ran into it already in our State where we had an emergency 

bridge repair job tha t had to have a pipe in the creek, to put a road 

across it to keep the traffic moving until we repaired the bridge, and 

we were ordered to cease and desist by the Corps because we didn’t 

have a permit to do that. Although the Corps’ regulations exempt 

emergency repairs, this temporary crossing was a t a different location 

before the deficient existing bridge collapsed.

Senator Randolph. What stream was that?

Mr. Ritchie. It was in the Guiandot River region. But it is, I 

think, an additional permit requirement tha t is covered sufficiently 

elsewhere. I can see a tremendous problem with just the volume of 

permits. They cannot grant these permits unless they look at the site.

If they don’t do that, they are not doing their job and tha t is what 

we all want them to do.

Just our department in the State tha t I live in would require a 

volume someplace in the 5,000 to 10,000 area. And it just seems to me 

like a tremendous problem in the issue of the volume of the permits, 

if they are issued as they should be by an onsite inspection.

Senator Burdick. Do you think section 404 triggers the necessity 

of getting NEPA clearance too?

Mr. Ritchie. I think it is a good question. I think, yes, sir, it is a 

NEPA question. I think it would.

Senator Burdick. That would add an additional layer of administration.

Mr. Ritchie. Yes; the Senator brought up a question about the 

bridge across the Rio Grande River. We have the same problem with 

the bridges we are building across the High River.
555

The Coast Guard is the lead agency for permission to build the 

structure. Now we have to go back to the Corps and also get a permit 

for the same structure under section 404.

Senator Randolph. Any comment?

Mr. Barthauer. Senator, I think there is another aspect of this 

tha t we should look at closely too. The gentleman here has pointed 

out tha t the Corps really should look at every situation. I think all of 

us have to be very conservative in approaching the Corps and getting 

clearance with the Corps.

We wouldn’t be allowed to use very much judgment in terms of our 

activities. The reason for tha t would be that if we carried out an 

activity which we thou ght did not fall within the Corps’ jurisdiction 

and the Corps concluded otherwise, that triggers a mechanism whereby 

a cease-and-desist order is immediately issued.

Until all of the legal aspects are cleared up with respect to th at 

so-called violation, a permit cannot be even processed for th at particular application. In other words, the Corps cannot do any further work 

on a permit application for tha t particular activity. This is in the 

the regulations, if you look at them carefully.

Senator Randolph. Is there furth er comment?

Mr. Hawley. I t would seem, as I have listened to the other witnesses 

tonight, tha t there is a tremendous variety in the nature of activities 

tha t are going to be subject to permit requirements.

I would hope the committee would not attem pt to identify each 

of those specific activities and exclude them, but say, “However, we 

retain auth ority,” but would rather realistically look at the areas 

subject to regulation.

It seems there is very little rationale for retaining authority to 

regulate if we are going to exclude all activities tha t happen within 

tha t retained authority area.

There has been tremendous debate about what areas are subject 

to regulations tonight and in the past, and I am sure will continue 

in the future until such time as Congress clearly addresses t ha t area, 

both with respect to section 404 and other areas as they become 

obvious.

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much.

We appreciate the testimony of our witnesses tonight. We are 

also appreciative of our audience, because these people are intensely 

interested.

And in the spirit of this committee in always attem pting to provide 

a forum for an exchange of viewpoints, the hearings last ni^ht and 

tonight, provided opportunities for those of you who testified and 

for the members who questioned you and made comments to add to 

our knowledge of the subject so tha t we can come to grips with 

these problems as quickly as possible.

The 14 formal witnesses who have been heard last night and tonight 

have certainly helped us.

I am told tha t the correspondence is constantly rising on this 

subject. We are not going to delay on the matter but we are not 

going to be rushed into a quick decision.

A pleasant night to you all.

[Whereupon, at 10 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.]

76 -161 O— 7i •36

Statements and Com mu nic ations S up plied for th e R ecord

T estimony of Senator James Abourezk

Mr. Chairman: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before 

you today to testify on Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

In particular, I am here to support the enactment of S. 3663, which I have cosponsored. This bill represents an exceptionally good balance between the need 

to protect our nation’s wetlands and to insure that in the process farmers, ranchers 

and foresters are not overwhelmed with needless, burdensome, and unproductive 

federal regulations.

I was one of many Senators who reacted strongly to the issuance of proposed 

federal regulations over dredge and fill operations. Initially, it appeared to me 

that these new regulations would be disastrous for farmers; that they would 

subject normal farming operations to extremely time-consuming and burdensome 

procedures. In part, I must say, this impression was created by the Corps’ own 

misleading press release. In order to prevent what I saw as the greater evil of 

overregulation, I cosponsored a bill offered by Senator Dole which would have 

deleted much of the Corps’ authority to protect the wetlands. I can no longer 

support that bill.

Now that I have had time to reflect on the situation, and to consider other 

alternatives, I find that there is a much better way to solve the problem, namely, 

S. 3663. This bill would speak directly to the concerns of farmers and other 

agricultural producers by simply exempting most of their normal activities, and 

requiring only a general permit for most of the remainder. Only in rare extreme 

cases would an individual permit be required. The farmer, in other words, would 

not have the burden of preserving the environment thrust onto his shoulders. 

This point cannot be stressed too strongly, especially given all the confusion 

that has existed on this matter.

The real merit of this approach is that it docs not seek to solve one problem 

by avoiding another: simply exempting most wetlands from Corps jurisdiction 

would mean, of course, that most farmers would not have to comply with federal 

regulations, but it would also not protect the wetlands, which have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Wetlands provide vital environmental benefits, 

including the provision of wildlife habitat, the purification of polluted waters, 

the recharging of acquifers, and other vital functions. Millions of acres have 

disappeared in recent years, and once the wetlands are gone, they are gone 

forever. To reduce federal authority over the wetlands to navigable waters, or 

navigable waters and their tributaries, makes neither good ecological nor legal 

sense. Federal programs are required where national interests are at stake, and 

clearly the benefits provided by wetlands are national, not statewide, in scope. 

While we want to provide every opportunity for the state to act on the problems 

first, it is undeniably true that some states do not live up to this responsibility, 

and that when they do not, we, as a nation, must act to preserve our interests.

In conclusion, then, S. 3663 will provide wetlands protection, but will not do 

it at the excessive cost of overregulation of our farmers. It is understandable 

why this approach has received such broad support from farm and environmental 

groups. It deserves the support of the Congress as well.

Statement by Senator Dewey F. Bartlett

Mr. Chairman: The Public Works Committee, and you particularly, are to be 

congratulated for moving forward with these oversight hearings on the effects of 

Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act, and more particularly the effect of 

the Act’s expanded application under federal court decision.

The House has acted on this matter, and it is now the Senate’s responsibility to 

expedite the consideration of the several bills now in the Public Works Committee 

which seek to clarify the position of Congress on what waters are to be federally 

controlled under the Water Pollution Control Act.

(559)
560

My own bill, S. 3224, provides specific exemptions from federal control for 

bodies of water owned and controlled by either sta te and local governments or 

private citizens.

These oversight hearings should clarify the problems t ha t have been created, a nd 

I hope that the hearings will focus the Senate’s attention on the need to adopt 

legislation before the end of this session. It is impe rative th at Congress clearly 

express its intent so th at the Corps and other federal agencies will have clear and 

specific guidelines within which to operate. Also, it is necessary that Congress 

define the para meters of the Water Pollution Control Act for federal courts, 

thereby precluding any opp ortuni ty for the court to misinterpre t the inte ntio n of 

Congress.

My concern is the implication of this section if the cou rt’s inte rpretation is 

allowed to stand. The decision provides t ha t th e Corps should regulate all bodies of 

water, even if there is no evidence tha t the particular body would ever be navigable.

Not only is this a staggering expansion of federal author ity, not to mention 

the staffing th at would be required, but it is another major extension of federal 

interference into priv ate lives, private business, and local control.

The Corps has published its “interim final” regulations requiring a “general 

permit.” This seems to lead to the acceptance of the premise th at all ag ricultural 

activ ities are “point sources” of pollution. Under P.L. 92-500, the Water Pollution 

Control Act, Congress clearly state d th at only certain ac tivities would be considered 

“p oint sources” requiring tre atm ent. The cost of this permit is $100, bu t this 

expense is misleading because it does not reflect the cost to the farmer in time, 

effort, and delay to secure the permit.

An analysis by several farm organizations shows th at the following steps 

would be necessary to meet the requirem ents being established under Section 404:

1. Permit application.— The application will include a complete description of 

proposed activities; location; purpose; use; schedules; names and addresses of 

adjoining prop erty owners; all other federal, state, and local agency approvals 

requ ired; the type, source, composition, quality and transp ortation method of 

materials involved; and other inform ation requested bv the District Engineer.

2. Public notice, comments and hearing.—Notice must be given by the District 

Engineer of the application allowing opportunities for and consideration of public 

comments to include public hearings.

3. Section 401 certification.— The applicant must obtain certification from the 

state, when an activity would discharge into a navigable water, th at the discharge 

will comply with the acceptable effluent limitations and standa rds for th at particu lar watershed.

4. Coastal zone management certification.—An applicant in a coastal zone area 

mu st obtain a certification from his respective stat e where the activ ity would affect 

land or water in the coastal zone.

5. Environmental impact statement.—The District Engineer must determine 

whether an EIS is necessary for the particular perm it application, and if necessary , must complete prior to the hearing on the application.

6. Corps decisionmaking.— The Corps must apply a complex and lengthy series 

of general and specific policies including factors and criteria mentioned in their 

own regulations, those of the Environmental Protection Agency and policies under 

numerous other statutes. The Corps must also engage in substan tial interagen cy 

consultation.

7. EPA Review.—The EPA must consult with the Corps of Engineers and has 

final veto power if it determines the discharge will have an unacceptable adverse 

effect.

These requirements are in addition to applicable sta te and local requirements, 

which include compliance with sta te environmental policy acts, state forest acts, 

and state and local land use laws. Also, there are other federal requirements 

from specific agencies such as the Department of Agriculture which already must 

be complied with. It has been estim ated by certain agricultural organizations 

th at Section 404 perm it requirements would take between six and twenty-four 

mon ths for completion, depending on the specific project undertaken by the 

farmer.

This type of delay can be ill afforded by the agricultural comm unity or any 

oth er type of business. A decision is made on the basis of a number of tangible and 

intangible considerations b ut particula rly depends on immediate need, anticipated 

need, availability of capital, and present costs. Lengthy delays can do nothing bu t 

detrimentally affect the business planning that has become increasingly imperative in complex agribusiness.
561

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated th at 60,000 additional 

permits per y ear would be required if the normal conservation practices now being 

carried on by USDA and farmers are continued. Each of these conservation practices would be delayed, thu s perpetuating the environm enta l problem th at the 

“practice” is seeking to solve.

1. If the court decision to expand the jurisdiction of the Corps to all bodies of 

water, both public and private, in excess of five acres is an accu rate reflection of 

legislative inte nt, the n it should stand.

However, if the Congress should decide th at it was not their inte ntio n to exten d 

such ju risdiction, then it should immediately act to correct this error, by adopting 

legislation such as I have introduced.

2. If Congress is serious about eliminating unnecessary paperwork, redtape, 

and bureaucratic interference, this is th e specific place to begin.

The problem is app arent, and these hearings stand to draw attention to the need 

for remedial legislation. This legislation is already in the hands of the Committe e, 

and I would again like to congratulate Senator Randolph for this effort to move 

the Senate toward language that will specifically express the original congressional 

intent. I urge the res t of the Public Works Committee to consider the presentations made at these ov ersight hearings and repo rt a bill such as mine to the floor of 

the Senate before the end of this session.

St a t e m e n t by S en a to r L lo yd B en tsen

Mr. Bents en. Mr. Chairman, I wan t to thank you for calling these hearings to 

examine the problems which can be expected with impleme ntation of the Corps of 

Engineers’ dredge and fill perm it program under Section 404 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1972.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I have to tell you or this Committee of the 

degree of concern or the extent of the opposition to the C orps’ proposed regulations. 

Since the courts ordered the Corps to expand its regulatory activity to include 

dredge and fill operations on nearly every body of water in this country, I have 

been contacted by scores of farm organizations, forest man agem ent officials, soil 

conservation distric t managers, water resources boards, our state water autho rity 

and priv ate landowners. They have expressed alarm over the sweeping natur e of 

the proposed regulations, the long delays to be a nticipated with the ir implem entation, and broad intrusion of federal involvem ent in what traditiona lly have been 

sta te and local decisions. I believe we have a responsibility to respond to th at concern, to examine this issue, and find a workable solution to the problem. I am 

hopeful th at these hearings represent the first step toward doing j us t that.

The hea rt of this problem, as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is obviously with the 

definition of “navigable waters” . We m ust clarify which dredge and fill activities 

are to be regulated und er Section 404. We cannot permit this matter to be left to 

the courts or to the regu latory body itself. We have the responsibility to clarify 

what the Congress intends by Section 404 of the Act.

After meeting with many of my constituen ts and carefully reviewing this 

matter, I have concluded th at the currently proposed set of regulations, when 

fully implemented, are simply unacceptable. They will constitu te only one more 

example of bureaucratic overkill; they will resu lt in a tremendous growth of 

bureaucratic redtape ; and they will ac tually be counterproductive to our goal of 

protecting this nati on’s wetlands.

We must acknowledge the m ounting rese ntm ent of the American people to w hat 

they perceive as an ever-growing intrusion of the federal government into their 

lives. We can all cite examples of good programs which have been overadm inistered, to the overall detriment of Congress’ good inten tions. Implem entatio n 

of the current 404 regulations wrould be only one more example.

We have alrea dy had several experiences in Texas which I think should be 

brou ght to th e Com mittee’s attention. One is th e Lake Limestone water conservation and water supply project under construction by the Brazos Riv er Authority, a 

governmental agency of the State of Texas. After having received all of the re ­

quired federal and sta te approvals, permits, and licenses, the Authority began 

construction of this project on July 25, 1975. The Authority determined, however, 

th at it would probably need a Section 404 permit u nder the Corps’ Phase II regulations. It filed an application in October 1975, and the Corps then circulated it to 

other federal agencies for their review' and comm ent. In March 1976, the U.S.
562

Fish and Wildlife Service recommended th at the Corps deny the permit unless the 

Brazos River Authority purchased 15,800 acres of land (in addition to the 15,000 

acres of land required for the dam and lake) and turn the land over to the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Dep artm ent for management as a wildlife preserve. The dam 

and lake project, which is needed to meet the water requirements of the lower 

Brazos Basin and coastal areas downstream now faces potentially serious delays and 

possible complete stoppage because of th e current 404 program for a reason which 

has nothing to do with water pollution control.

Another example is equally instructful, I believe. A small Texas city needing 

a new san itary sewer line recently applied for a Section 404 permit for each of 

five crossings by the sewer line over a small creek, winding through th e c ity. Some 

indication of the amount of paper, time and effort involved in preparatio n of the 

application is given by the fact tha t the public notice alone contained nine pages, 

including plans and profiles, names of adjacent property owners and the a mount of 

ear th (a total of 284.5 cubic yards for all the crossings) to be exca vated at each 

crossing. Hundreds of copies of this public notice were distributed by the Corps, 

which invites review and comments by numerous federal, state and local governmental agencies and by priv ate individuals, companies, organizations and associations of all kinds who might w ant to comment. Think if this example is to be 

replicated every time a sewer system addition is proposed in the cities and town s 

across this country.

If Phase II were to be implem ented Septem ber 1, permits will be required for 

dredge and fill operations on trib utaries of navigable waterways and on inlan d 

“lakes” of five acres or more. In the flat topography of the west, many stock tanks 

and farm ponds cover 5 acres or more when there’s rain. Dredge and fill operations 

on them could well be regulate d under Phase II, and on July 1st of next year, the 

program will be extended to an even larger number of inland waters.

A very substan tial prob ability exists th at thousands of well-intentioned, lawabiding citizens simply will not know’ t ha t they must apply for a permit from the 

Army to carry out certain heretofore routine activities in areas considerably 

removed from what we normally think of as “navigable waters”. And failure to 

apply for permits can subject a citizen to a sub stan tial fine.

Given the Congress’ recent experience with a number of regulatory agencies, 

I do n ot believe we can be satisfied with assurances t hat certain bodies of water— 

for example, farm ponds—will be exempted from the 404 regulations. I urge th at 

we res tric t this program to a well-defined, manageable jurisdiction and th at we 

define precisely those waters which we w ant to see protected.

If we do not, we can expect a mushrooming of perm it requirements and the 

delays and frustrations which will accom pany them. In fiscal year 1974, the Corps 

issued a total of 13,000 permits, 2,900 of them under Section 404. In fiscal year 

1976, t he numbers were up to 20,000 and 9,200, respectively. If Phase II I as now 

proposed were ever to be implemented, the Corps estimates th at it will be processing 30,000 to 50,000 permit applications annually, the vast majority of which will 

be filed unde r Section 404. During th e last four years, the number of persons needed 

to do this processing work has risen from 186 to 613, a more than threefold increase. The Corps has estim ated th at to meet the requirements of a fully implemented Section 404 program, it will need abo ut 1,000 persons. Given the 

projected n umber of applications, I think th at may well be a reasonable estim ate. 

And the Corps estimates a more than fourfold increase in expense, up from $8.1 

million in perm it processing costs in 1972 to an estim ated $35.8 million annually 

when Phase II I is implemented.

One consequence should be readily app are nt: with the rapid escalation of the 

number of activities requiring permits, the quality of the review must und erstan dab ly decline. By trying to do too much, we will be doing too little well, and 

the result will be an irat e citizenry and wetlands which are not being adequately 

protected.

The House of Representatives has already indicated its wish to reduce the scope 

of th e 404 program. On Jun e 4th, it approved a floor ame ndment offered by my 

colleague from Texas, Jim Wright. The Wright amendment would focus the 

program to p rotect waters which th e Corps has historically defined as navigable, to 

coastal wetlands, and to those wetlands lying adjacent and contiguous to navigable 

streams. The Wright amendm ent would explicitly exem pt normal farming 

operations and would allow states with the desire and capa bility to administer the
563

permit program within their own borders. It would also establish a mechanism for 

the states and the federal government to identify and agree upon any additional 

wetlands of sufficient ecological importance to warrant dredge and fill permits.

I believe the real merit of the Wright approach is the focusing of the effort 

on those waters and wetlands which we have the first obligation to protect. State 

authority to administer the program would seem highly advisable and exempting 

normal farm operations would also seem highly desirable.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you again for calling these hearings, and let me 

express my hope th at they will be soon followed by a conference with the House 

on the measure it has already passed.

St a t e m e n t o f S en a to r C l if f H a n sen

Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to be before this Committee today to offer my 

views and those of my constituents on Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act. This Section was, as you know, adopted in 1972 to establish a permit 

program administered by the Corps of Engineers to regulate the dumping of 

dredged and fill material into navigable waters.

Subsequent court decisions have broadened the Corps’ authority to the extent 

tha t it now has jurisdiction over almost all waters of the United States. Under this 

new definition of navigable waters, the Corps’ regulatory authority has been 

expanded almost beyond comprehension. According to some of its own estimates, 

the Corps’ jurisdiction on rivers will expand from the present 50,000 miles to 

over 3.5 million miles; for lake shorelines, from 50,000 miles to 4.7 million miles.

My major concern, and the concern of many of the people in Wyoming and the 

West, is the impact of such an expanded program on agriculture. Many everyday 

farming and ranching activities, including those which are conservation practices 

to reduce soil erosion and improve water quality, will now require Federal permits.

Under the present interpretation of Section 404, farmers and ranchers would 

need permits from the Corps of Engineers for, among other things, construction 

and maintenance of stockwater and irrigation ponds, cleaning irrigation laterals 

and developing irrigation and drainage systems. Millions of agricultural landowners 

will be subject to burdensome, costly and time-consuming procedural permit 

requirements, including public hearings, public interest reviews and environmental 

impact statements.

Recently, there have been several significant developments regarding Section 

404. The State of Wyoming has just initiated proceedings against the Army Corps 

of Engineers, attacking the regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 404. The 

basic objection set forth in the lawsuit is that the regulations constitute an onerous 

and unnecessary regulatory burden upon the State of Wyoming and its citizens 

by extending the definition of navigable waters far beyond the traditional concept 

associated with tha t term.

In addition, on June 10 I joined with eighteen of my colleagues in requesting 

the President to delay implementation of Section 404 regulations which were to 

become effective July 1. President Ford subsequently directed the Secretary of the 

Army to authorize a 60-day delay to give Congress time to examine this issue.

Of great importance to this Committee, Mr. Chairman, is, of course, the legislation tha t is presently before Congress. At this time, the most important piece of 

legislation dealing with this problem is S. 2710. This bill, which includes the 

Wright amendment, is significant in that it does define navigable waters and 

includes contiguous or adjacent wetlands in tha t definition. I t exempts, however, 

agricultural and silvicultural operations, and importantly, the repair, replacement 

and maintenance of existing structures.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this to be a sensible solution to the problem. Because 

contiguous and adjacent w'etlands are included in the definition of navigable 

waters; because this deals only with the permit auth ority of the Corps of Engineers; 

because it deals only with dredge and fill operations and not other discharge of 

pollutants into navigable waters; and because it is intended to be a limited exemption from Section 404 requirements, I believe the Wright amendment is in the 

spirit of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

I would urge, therefore, that this Committee report favorably on S. 2710, as 

it now’ reads.
564

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Commerce,

Washington, D.C., J uly 27, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph, Chairman,

Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr. , Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senators R andolph and Baker: The House amendment to S. 2710 

conta ins a number of s ubs tantive changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act. We would like to bring to your atten tion one p articular provision which is of 

considerable concern as it relates to matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. We refer to the potential effects of section 16 on the protection of the nation’s wetlands.

Many of the programs which have been developed by the Commerce C ommittee 

to preserve the wetlands of this co untry depend in large measure on Federal agencies properly protecting these areas where they discharge their duties. For example, 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires the Corps of Engineers and other 

federal agencies to coordinate their water projects with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and to m itigate damages to fish and wildlife and their habit at which result 

from these activities. In addition, section 7 of the Endan gered Species Act of 1973 

requires Federal agencies, in carrying out their duties, to protect endangered 

species and their habitat. Both requirements directly affect the Corps of Engineers’ 

program under section 404 of the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act.

As you know, the current Corps of Engineers’ permitting autho rity provides 

broa d authority to protect wetlands throughout the cou ntry from physical destruction and pollution contamination associated with dredge and fill operations. 

Section 16 of the House am endm ent, however, would re strict the Corps’ autho rity 

to only those waters which are presently used or are susceptible to use for tra ns ­

portati on of interstate and foreign commerce. This would clearly undermine the 

effectiveness of the aforementioned laws. The “Wright Amendment” on the House 

floor improved the original language as repo rted by the Comm ittee to provide 

protectio n for wetlands adjacen t to navigable waters. Nonetheless, approxim ately 

80% of the wetlands which are protected under existing law by the Corps’ permitting au thority for dredge an d fill discharge would lose th at protectio n under the 

House amendment. Inclu ded would be the vast system of marshes, potholes, and 

other waterfowl nesting areas of the prairies states and elsewhere. At a time when 

the Fish and Wildlife Service under its accelerated wetlands acquisition program 

is in a race with development interests to preserve the nation’s valuable waterfowl 

nesting areas through purchase and acquisition, this makes little sense.

Other problems exist with section 16 of the House am endm ent. For example, the 

general perm it autho rity which authorizes numerous discharges of a specified 

typ e or category lacks criteria as to how this autho rity is to be exercised. In addition, the authority to delegate the permittin g autho rity concerning adjacent wetlands to the States contains no stan dards or criteria for Sta te program adequacy, 

for inp ut from o ther affected States or intere sted parties, or for other measures to 

ensure th at th e perm ittin g autho rity will be carried out appropriately.

Some provisions of the amendmen t appear not to have a negative imp act on 

wetlands programs and would eliminate some problems th at may exist und er the 

404 program. These include the general permitting autho rity (with appropriate 

guidelines) and the elimination of problems associated with permits for agricu ltural and construction purposes. It does, however, seem inappropriate to alter 

oth er provisions of the section 404 program at this point. We urge you to resist 

any such efforts.

It is our understanding th at the Senate Committee on Public Works will be 

taking testimony on this issue during hearings today and tomorrow (July 27 

and 28). We urge that the views set forth in this letter be take n into consideration 

at th at time.

With best wishes.

Sincerely,

Philip A. Hart,

Chairman,

Subcommittee on the Environment.

Frank E. Moss,

Vice Chairman,

Subcommittee on the Environment.

Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.,

Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on the Environment.
565

Sta te men t of Sen at or R uss el l B. Long

Mr. Chairman and members of the Public Works Committee, I tha nk you for 

the opportu nity to express my views on needed modifications and clarification of 

Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act.

Since 1972, when we passed amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act, 

we have had four years to tes t the adequacy or inadequacy of this act. During 

this time, federal agencies have written, revised, revoked, and prom ulgated new 

rules and regulations. The co urts have inte rpreted and rein terp reted the law, a nd 

as far as I am concerned, they have wrongly inte rpreted, among other things, 

“navigable waters” to include almost everything th at is wet.

Gentlemen, when we passed this law it was not, in my judgement, our intent 

for some of these provisions to be as all-encompassing as they now are after cou rt 

interpretatio n. I refer particularly to Section 404. I do not believe th at the proS

josed expansion of autho rity was the intent of Congress when we passed the 

federal Wate r Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This new autho rity 

is neither prac tical nor realistic considering the economic framework which we 

face in this country today. Rather, it is an ill-conceived, judge-made extension of 

the law reminiscent of so many overzealous and misdirected e nvironmental causes 

on which the Congress has legislated in broad term s and on which the bu reau crac y 

has expanded far beyond the Congressional intent.

If Congress in 1972 had been asked to vote on the Section 404 regulations as 

they have since been interp reted by the courts, would they have passed? In my 

opinion, the answer to th at question is an emphatic NO.

On June 10, thirty members of this Senate, including myself and some of vou, 

wrote a letter to the Preside nt urging him to delay impleme ntation of Phase il of 

the Corps of Engineers’ regulations which were scheduled to go into effect on 

July 1. The President heeded our request and delayed implementation of Phase I I 

for 60 days, to give us time to evaluate Section 404 after four years of experience 

and interpreta tion , and to enact needed amendments.

Almost half of these 60 days have passed. We mu st now take action or many 

members of the Senate and the House, who up until now have had few inquiries 

abo ut 404 from their constituents, will find themselves in the unenviable position 

th at I and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Johnsto n, have found ourselves 

in since the current regulations went into effect. You will discover very quickly 

th at your con stituen ts do not want their rights to use their property tam pered 

with in unnecessary and meaningless ways as the y will be when Phase II goes 

into effect.

All sta tes would be seriously affected by Phase II. However, my sta te would be 

devasta ted because of its unique position at the foot of the national watershed. 

Louisiana has th ousands of square miles of land protected by levees and vast are as 

subject to periodic inunda tion . The entire sta te and all of the activities therein 

are virtually at water’s edge, which means th at a gre at many programs and endeavors would be severely disrupted because of the lengthy permit procedures 

and environm ental studies. It is en tirely possible and indeed likely th at progress 

in Louisiana would come to a grinding halt.

As most of you already know, I come from the hills of North Louisiana. Practically all of the permits issued by the Corps in Louisiana have been in the coastal 

wetlands. Since July 1, 1975, citizens of Louisiana have had to apply for almo st 

2,000 permits from the Corps. Of these 2,000, the only ones not in the coastal 

wetlands were in actual navigable waterways such as the Mississippi, Red, and 

Ouachita Rivers.

If Phase II goes into effect, many small creeks and bayous in Winn Parish, 

where I come from, will come under permitting requirements since th ey discharge 

into the Red River. Conceivably, a bunch of boys who m ight build a dam across 

Rock Creek will be in violation of the law. They will be discharging fill material 

into a “primary trib ut ar y” without a perm it, as Rock Creek flows into the 

Potomac, which is, withou t question, a navigable waterway. Moreover, permits 

will be needed for lakes over five acres in area even if they are completely lan dlocked and priv ately owned by a single person. We are not fulfilling our responsibility as elected officials if we permit such unreasonable, unrealistic, unnecessary, 

and unenforceable regulations to go into effect on September 1.

At this point, so t hat I will not be misunderstood by my many friends in the 

Corps, I wish to say th at I am not accusing the Corps of Engineers of an at ­

tem pt to overextend its jurisdiction. The Corps is only abiding by the directives of 

the courts. I am convinced th at the ra tional officials in the Corps did not seek and 

do n ot want this expanded autho rity which is being forced upon them as a result 

of a suit brough t by environ men tal groups and inter-agency agreements.
566

The House has passed a bill, H.R. 9560, containing amendm ents to Section 404. 

This bill was passed by a very large margin. Within the time available to us we 

should consider these amendments, and I believe th at we should ado pt them so 

th at they will become law’. This w’ould reduce the present burden on our citizens, 

bring abo ut a more balanced distributio n of autho rity between the Federal and 

sta te governments, and obviate the impleme ntation of Phase II.

My colleague from the 7th Dis trict of Louisiana, Congressman John Breaux, 

obtained committee approval of a redefinition of “navigable waterways.” His 

definition w’ould restric t the mean ing of the term to essentially what it is under 

Phase I. On the floor of the House Congressman Wright had additional amendments adopted, including exem ptions for agriculture, forestry, main tenance of 

existing structures, and provides for general permits. The Wright amendments 

also provide for delegation of 404 regulatory autho rity to states, if they requ est 

it, and th e exemption from permitting requirem ents of federally funded or assisted 

projects if environmental imp act stat ements are submitted to Congress in conjunctio n with the authorization or funding of the projects.

I strongly support these amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act. 

They will place the regulatory provisions of Section 404 back into th e perspective 

we intended. I do, how’ever, wish to suggest several clarifications and additions 

which will stren gthen the amen dments.

It is my understanding th at under Subsection (j) it was the intent of the 

amendments to perm it deleg at'on of regulatory autho rity over all w’etlands to 

the states provided they have adequate autho rity and capa bility. I have been 

advised th at because of the wording of the definitions of the terms “navigable 

waters’’ and “ad jace nt wetland s” in Subsection (d), this c ann ot be achieved.

This must be corrected. In Louisiana our coastal marshes are 50 miles wide in 

places, and according to Subsection (d)(1), 90 percent of them are defined as 

“navigable waters” because they are subject to the ebb and flow of th e tide and 

lie below the mean high water mark. Subsection (j) provides for delegation of 

functions related only to adjace nt wetlands.

It is true that navigable channels th at are actually used for commerce must be 

regulated by the federal governm ent because of the national interest involved. 

However, there is no reason whatsoever for the federal governm ent to get involved 

in the construction of a pirogue ditch remotely removed from a navigation channel. 

We need language th at will clearly spell out th at functions related to wetlands 

other tha n actual navigation channels, both above and below mean high water, 

may be delegated to states which meet the necessary requirements.

We should also seriously consider the delegation of regu latory autho rity of 

Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to states. Most coastal 

states are in the same s itua tion as Louisiana in th at most of the permits which are 

required are in the coastal wetlands and waterways. We should consider automatic delegation of all Corps of Engineer regulatory autho rity except over actual 

navigable waters to coastal states which are receiving adm inistrative grants 

under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal 

Zone Management Act requires th at states have the capa bility and autho rity 

for managing their coastal areas. This is the best evidence we have th at states 

will be able to adequately handle a regulatory program and will not allow abuse 

of our wetlands.

With regard to the exemption of certain activities, particularly maintenance, 

from regulation under Section 404, I am extremely pleased th at we are looking 

to statutorially exempting farming and forestry. I strongly support putting back 

into the amendments a provision exempting the main tenance of drainage ditches, 

a measure originally proposed in the House by Congressmen Cleveland and 

Harsha.

Mr. Chairman, during the deliberations of this Committee you have heard 

many times about the wisdom of enlarging channels by sta rting at the bottom 

and working toward the headwaters. This is sound procedure and must be 

adhered to in maintenance of drainage channels. We have many drainage channels 

in upland areas of Louisiana which discharge into streams located in wetlands, 

both coastal and freshwater. The portions of these channels in the uplands need 

no perm its for maintenance, bu t the lower portions do. If one of these permits 

is denied or delayed, unnecessary flooding may occur because the lower portion 

of th e channel in question cannot accomm odate the flow. This situation needs to 

be corrected.
567

It is not our inte ntion in Louisiana to perm it unlimited dredging, filling, and 

channelization. We only wish to maintain a proper balance between what needs 

to be preserved and what can be developed. Also, we need to maintain a proper 

balance between what needs to be regulated by government and what can best 

be regulated through the common sense of responsible landowners. Moreover, 

we need to be absolutely sure th at we are regulating for the majority of our 

citizens.

As each day passes, I become increasingly convinced th at we are legislating 

and regulating for the few and not the majority of our citizens who are daily 

concerned abo ut making a decent living for their families. Millions of these good 

citizens live in our cities. This majority also includes our farmers who prod uce 

the food and fiber which we need for our own consumption and for export. Our 

ethnic minorities are a pa rt of this majority.

Mr. Chairman, because of our position we are among the favored min ority 

which can visit the sights of the deserts and mountain s, enjoy the serenity of a 

deserted beach, canoe in the Boundary Waters, or hu nt ducks in our wonderful 

Louisiana marshes. I am happy th at I am in a position to do these things. But 

I feel a need to do more for those whose environmental needs are clean water 

to drink, enough nourishing food to eat, and a secure place to live. Their aesthetic 

and recreational needs may be satisfied by a nearby playground, a clean, vacant 

lot in which to play stickball, or a sluggish, muddy bayou to sit by, pole in hand , 

waiting for the biggest catfish in the world to come along. These are the people 

who deserve our help. We can tak e care of ourselves.

It is my feeling th at we need to balance our ecological goals with our other 

critical needs and approach proper solutions with reasonable attitud es and reasonable actions, and I would sincerely hope th at you share this view to the e xtent of 

amending the law so as to make it clear th at the excesses described herein were 

not the intent of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, for your inform ation and for the use of your Com mittee staff 

I am attaching the testimony which the Director of the Louisiana Coastal Commission presented on behalf of the Sta te of Louisiana to the Water Resources 

Subcommittee of the House Public Works and Tra nsp ortatio n Committee on 

July 16, 1975. It gives some detail of our problems in Louisiana and sheds additional light on matters you are considering at this hearing. I know th at Mr. 

Behrhorst will be most hap py to share his knowledge and experience with your 

Committee staff in providing additional inform ation.

St a t e m e n t of V er n o n B eh r h o r st

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Water Resources Subcommittee, I wish 

to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to express our views 

concerning proposed permitting regulations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Also, I wish to tha nk Congressman Breaux for his most generous intro duction.

First of all, I wish to introduce into the record the letter which Governor 

Edwin Edwards of Louisiana wrote to the Chief of Engineers and the Env iron ­

mental Protection Agency on their proposed guidelines published in the Federal 

Register on May 6, 1975 (Attachment A). Governor Edwards also wishes to 

extend his best wishes to this committee. He served on this distinguished committee while a member of the Congress.

In 1968, while Governor Edwards was a member of the Public Works Committee you authorized the Louisiana Coastal Area Study. This study was the 

first comprehensive study of the needs of our coastal wetlands in Louisiana. 

Our Coastal Commission requested this study. It serves as the information base 

for our coastal zone management program which we are now developing in accordance with the Coastal Zone Manag ement Act of 1972. On behalf of the Board 

of Commissioners of the Louisiana Coastal Commission, I wish to express our 

appreciatio n to the Public Works Committee for authorizing this im portant 

study.

For the record, I am also sub mitting a resolution passed by the Coastal States 

Organization at its meeting here in Washington on Jun e 4th (Attachm ent B). 

I serve on the Executive Committee of Coastal States Organization representing 

the Gulf Coast State s. This resolution, which was adopted unanimously, strongly 

opposed further incursion of federal permitting autho rity into an area of jur isdiction which we believe righ tfully belonged to the s tate s.
568

For those of you who are no t familiar with the extent and problems of Louisian a’s wetlands, I wish t o give you a few brief st atistics to provide some perspec tive. 

The Sta te of Louisiana contains appro ximately one-fourth of our nat ion ’s coastal 

wetlands. Moreover, approximate ly one-fourth of the st ate is covered by wetland s. 

These seven million acres are abo ut equally divided between fresh wate r and 

saline wetland s. You can th erefore appreciate the concern of o ur citizens for permit 

regula tions. Most of these wetlands are alread y covered by Corps of Engineers 

per mit ting activi ties. If the leas t restrictive of the four proposed perm ittin g procedures is adopte d, I r epe at leas t re strictive, it is es tima ted th at more th an 60 % of 

the st at e’s are a will be subj ect to the Corps of Engineers perm ittin g requir ements.

I must emphasize th at we are not opposed to perm ittin g in legitim ate wetland s. 

Both Governor Edwa rds and the Coastal Commission believe th at some typ e of 

regu lato ry mechanism is needed to pro tect the public inte res t in our wetlands. We 

are however opposed to expansion into areas which are only vaguely rela ted to 

our wetlands.

Da ta developed in the Louisiana Coastal Area Study shows th at Louisiana is 

losing a n average of over 16 sq uare miles of its c oastal wetlands each year through 

ma n’s activities, erosion, subsidence and salt wate r intru sion . Obviously, some 

typ e of regulation is needed to reduce and if possible elim inate this massive loss 

of land. However, I wish to stress th at a regulator y program for preserving our 

wetlands alone is inad equate. We need an active coasta l zone progra m which 

include s the physical man agem ent of wate r to arrest this loss and restore and 

enha nce our wetlands. Regu lation and mana gement mus t go hand and hand. The 

att ache d article entitled “Shaping and Resha ping a De lta” by Mr. Fred Chatry 

and Sherwood Gagliano succin ctly yet vividly point s out the problems and possible wate r mana geme nt solutions for coasta l Louisiana (Attachme nt C).

Las t mon th after the proposed Corps of Engineers and EPA regula tions were 

publi shed in the Federal Register, Dr. Walter Peevy, a recognized agronomist 

from Louisiana Sta te Univers ity and I were asked to come to Washington and 

mee t with EPA officials. The purp ose of this meeting was to express our concern 

over the proposed guidelines and to provide EPA with info rmation on Louisiana ’s 

uniq ue problems associated with our wetlands. I wish to express our appreciation 

to EPA for takin g time to listen to our point of view. Among the matters discussed included the ext ent to which perm its would be required for agric ultural 

activitie s, part icul arly rice farmin g. A real question does exist as rice farming 

requires the cons truct ion of levees a few inches high for the retentio n of water. 

Incidentally, our rice farms are not located in the coasta l marshes as some may 

believe bu t prim arily in the prairie section of our stat e.

We also discussed the m att er of ma rshla nd management. In Louisiana over one 

million acres of our marshland are unde r active wate r man agem ent programs 

which involve construction of levees and wate r con trol stru ctures. Pa rt of this area 

is included in federal and sta te wildlife refuges as well as one priv ate refuge 

ope rate d by the Natio nal Audub on Society. Addition al acreage is managed by

E

riv ate companies to provide optim um ha bit at for mig rato ry waterfowl furearin g animals and alligators. Our concern is tha t the man agem ent of these areas 

may be hampe red by burde nsome permitting requi reme nts for day-to-day maintenanc e of existing levees and control struc tures .

Addi tionally we discussed the permitting requ irem ents for main tenance of 

existing draina ge ditche s and irrig ation canals. Also, as much of Louisiana was 

sub ject to periodic overflow pri or to the construction of the extens ive flood control 

syste m, we were concerned abo ut the necessity for permits in areas of Louisiana 

which are protecte d by levees and no longer subj ect to periodic inund ation .

We also pointed out some of the problems associated with using the aquatic 

vegetati on line in delimiting the shoreward limits of the waters of the United 

States. They are indic ators which may be used in mak ing this dete rminati on. 

However, due to rapid changes in the hydrolog y of Louisiana ’s strea ms and 

wetlands, the presence of aqua tic vegetation may not b e a positive indicato r th at 

an area is curr ently s ubje ct to periodic overflow. Cypress which sta rte d as saplings 

in a swamp hund reds of years ago may be on tota lly dry land tod ay due to 

sedim entation.

At the present time, Louisiana along with the othe r coastal and Great Lakes 

sta tes is developing a coastal zone managem ent progra m in accordance with the 

Coastal Zone M anagemen t Act of 1972. From Louisiana’s po int of view the Cou rt 

decision requiring expansion of Corps perm itting juris dicti on has come at a very 

inop portune time. The reason for this is th at in Louisiana practicall y all Corps

S

ermits th at are issued are for activ ities in wha t we define as our coasta l zone.

>uring the first year of per mit ting unde r the guidelines issued by the Corps on
April 3, 1974 only 27 of the approxim ately 1200 permit applications were for 

activities outside the coastal zone. In essence we have come to equate the Corps 

perm itting program with coastal zone management. We envision a coastal zone 

management program as a means of trans ferring permitting autho rity to the state. 

The expansion of Corps permittin g jurisdiction by the Court, which many of our 

citizens consider to be most arbitra ry, has dea lt a severe blow to our coastal zone 

program. It will now be ve ry difficult to convince our Legislature th at the Federal 

Government is really sincere in delegating autho rity back to the states. This 

question also arises, if the states are to regain permitting authority, must we have 

one permitting system for the coastal zone and ano ther for the remainder of the 

state?

To facilitate permitting under the new guidelines which will be published on 

July 26 and to dem onstrate good faith on the part of the Federal Government, 

consideration should be given to some an angeme nt whereby state s have a greater 

say so in the issuance of permits. We recognize th at there is no specific provision 

for this in section 404 as there is in 402. However, an agreement could possibly 

be reached whereby what I call a “clearinghouse permit” could be used. Our 

Commission recommended th at this procedure be considered last year. Under 

such a procedure, a designated sta te agency would secure the necessary review 

and comments from state agencies concurrently with the Corps obtaining review 

and comments from the federal agencies. The sta te agency would then recommend 

to the Corps whether or no t the perm it should be issued. Although not legally 

bound to do so, the Corps would give serious consideration to the recom mendations of the state . This system would involve the state and also reduce the am ount 

of time needed for the processing of permits.

This p ast April I was privileged to be one of the invited speakers a t th e National 

Conference of Water called by the President. My topic was the role of Federal, 

Sta te and Local Governm ent in Water Resources Managem ent. I made the point 

th at the Coastal Zone Managem ent Act is the best example of legislation whereby 

the Federal Government relinquishes jurisdiction to state s and should be used as a 

patte rn for other programs. Many other speakers echoed the same sentim ents. The 

consensus of conference partic ipa nts was th at the federal establishment already 

has involved itself in too many things th at are sta te and local prerogatives. The 

Court decision is ano ther intru sion.

In looking at the Water Pollution Control Act and pending bills th at would 

amend it, we must not lose sight of the purpose of this legislation. Yesterday, both 

Mr. Veysey and Mr. Aim quoted the principle objective of the Act which is “to 

resto re and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the n ati on’s 

wa ter”. We ask, for whom have we established this objective? It is for our people, 

or is it for protection of the natural environm ent, including wetlands, per se? 

Protecting and enhancing our natural environ men t is essential. However, let us 

not forget the majority of our people most of whom live far removed from the 

natur al environment in our urb an areas. Millions of these people because of 

economic or cultural res traints or for other reasons are not able to visit a nd enjoy 

our mountains, wetlands, and sea shores. Our efforts, under the Act must be 

directed to them . Their day -to-day need for clean water and air and food and 

clothing from our farms and factories at a reasonable price must be given first 

consideration. We should no t be overly swayed by the minority who are for tun ate 

in being able to enjoy the great dive rsity of this natio n’s n atu ral endow’ment as 

the y may desire.

In reviewing the four alter natives which the Corps of Engineers published at the 

Co urt ’s direction our imm ediate inclination was to ask Congress to enact legislation 

clarifying Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. A num ber of bills covering this s ubject 

are pending before this committe e. Yesterday, Mr. Veysey, Assistant Secretary of 

the Army for Civil Works, testified th at major variations from all four of the 

proposals might possibly be incorporated into the new guidelines. If we can assume 

Mr. Veysey’s “possibly’s” and “m aybe’s” to mean “will” there may no t be an 

imm ediate need for legislative actio n by the Congress. We recognize th at you are 

able to provide guidance thro ugh oversite hearings, such as the one we are having 

today, and thro ugh the appropriation process as well. Additionally, the judicial 

process of appeal has not been completed. Therefore, Congress possibly should 

wait to review the new guidelines and for results of an appeal before tak ing 

legislative action. Also, Mr. Veysey st ated th at th e new guidelines will be p ut in to 

effect in phrases over a three year period. This should be taken into consideration.

Although I do not recommend hasty action by the Congress, I pu t you on 

notice th at the instant, next mon th or next yea , we see th at adm inistrative 

action is out of line with wh at we believe the int en t of Congress to be we will be
570

bac k requesting appr opriate corr ecti ve legislation. At th at time we tru st you 

will tak e immediate and necessary action.

In the meantime, the Public Works Com mittee should hav e its staff monitor 

consistently the implementa tion of the new guidelines and stu dy and research 

possible corr ective legislation particu larly tha t which will more precisely define 

“ nav igable water” and “ waters of the United Sta tes ” . Moreov er, consid eration 

shou ld be given to legislation which will transfer permit ting author ity to state 

and local governments.

In closing I wish to mak e the following personal comm ent. The Corps of 

Engin eers has been much maligned for wha t is being called overkill in pu blciz in g 

the proposed guidelines. Be th at as it may, we must how ever recognize that a 

valua ble p ublic service has been rendered. The Corps has brough t to the attent ion 

of the people a situation which we believe was not intended by Congress.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Water Resources Subc omm ittee , you are 

to be commended for calling hearings to receiv e the diverse view s of all concerned 

with this matter. This is the appropriate forum for resolving matters such as this. 

I wish to again tha nk you for the privilege of presenting our poin t of view to you .

Sta te of L o u is ia n a,

E x e c u t iv e D epartm en t,

Baton Rouge, May 28, 1975.

Lt. Gen. W. C. Gri bb le , Jr.,

Chief of Engineers, Office of the Chie f of Engineers,

Department of the Army, B ashington, D.C.

D ea r G en e r a l G r ib b l e: A s requested in yo ur letter of M ay 3, 1975, comments 

are herein sub mitted on proposed regulations of the Corps of Engineers and the 

Enviro nmental Protection Ag ency published in the Fed eral Reg iste r on M ay 6, 

1975.

As Governor of th e Sta te of Louisiana, I am faced w ith frequen t decisions which 

affe ct the daily lives of our citizens. Occasionally, a propo sal for which I must 

consider and issue a decision or recom mendation is of overbearin g importance and 

has a tremendous impact on th e prese nt and futu re of our state. The r egula tions as 

publishe d constitute one of the more serious proposals wit h which I have been 

confr onted .

Yo u must realize that Lou isian a is perhaps the most unus ual and wat er-rich 

sta te of the United States. Lou isiana has a dramatic his tor y inseparably tied to 

wa ter and our fut ure is com pletely dependent upon good man agem ent and utilizati on of our w ater supplies within c onstraints now existin g from the federal to the 

local levels and in a manner w hich is environmentally sa fe. This is a uniqu e p art of 

the nation since we in this state exist under thr eats of the extremes of floods as well as 

droughts and a t the sam e time are blessed with a n etwo rk of rivers and streams provid ing more than 7,500 miles of com mer cially nav igable waterway s. Our coastal 

area includes areas exte ndin g from 35 to 50 miles inland from th e Gulf and contains 

some of the most imp orta nt resources of the state; nam ely, oil, gas, sulph ur, salt, 

fish and wildlife. Conseque ntly , there are many improve men ts and act ivities in this 

area includ ing indu stria l location s, port and harb or facilities, nav igation canals, 

major cities, transcontinental pipelines, inte rsta te high way s, agriculture and 

for estry areas, small towns and many other related developm ents. This coa stal 

area is c ons tan tly being thre atened b y hurricanes, floods, high tides, and salt water 

intrusions , but ye t has a sub stantial population with da ily activit ies. Other extremes or contrasting parts of the state are the alluvial flood plains and major 

rivers trav ersing Louisiana coverin g app roximately % of the state. In this same 

Ys area, 78 percent of our citizen s live and work; practic ally all of the major industries are located; at least 80 percent of the sta te’ s dispo sable income is found; 

more than 60 percent of the sta te’s agricultural prod uction is contain ed; and 

fishing, wildlife, and recreational activit ies exist in abundan ce.

This brief ove rview describes a dynamic area, the State of Louisiana, where 

da y to day act ivities are int imate ly involve d in water and related land resources 

and where futu re water related act ivities will hav e to be increased if we are to 

mee t the demands placed on our state. Louisiana is also willing and anxio us to 

deve lop a m ajor offshore oil por t which w ill require ma ny associated deve lopm ents 

and alteratio ns inland. Manag ement and control of such changed conditions have 

largely resided with the local and sta te gove rnm ents throug hou t our history. Thi s 

patt ern absolut ely must be continued to preven t len gth y delays, shutdown s, 

denials, frustration and economic chaos. The same needs exis t in our agricultur al
571

industry where sta te agencies, local governments, and /or special districts also 

regulate drainage, irriga tion, water uses, levee construction , impoundments, and 

other activities. Louisiana would probably be the sta te most affected by the 

proposal in requiring perm its for every project throughout the sta te— for the 

farmer on almo st a ny activity including irriga tion, cultivation, pond construction , 

and clearing; for the private property owner from timber harvesting to building 

a swimming pool; for building homes in reclaimed areas such as the New Orleans 

vicin ity; for indu strial development along our many rivers; for constructing and 

maintain ing indispensable flood control and hurricane protection systems; for 

drain age improvements; and for any u nde rtaking to improve, grow a nd advance. 

Every square mile of Louisiana would fall under the broad perm it system with 

the cou rt’s definition of “ Waters of the United State s.” I do not believe we can 

be successful un der such a federally controlled system with no recourse for appeals.

Therefore, I must emp hatically oppose the proposed guidelines as published in 

the May 6, 1975, Federal Register. If federal controls are imposed to tak e away 

our remaining ability as a sta te to make our own decisions, it is a sad day in 

American history. I do n ot believe th at Congress intended for the control of state 

and local developments to be domineered by federal agencies. Another majo r 

concern is th at no sa tisfactory procedures are allowed in the proposed regulations 

for amending, negotiating or considering repeal of decisions issued by the Corps 

of Engineers and the Enviro nmenta l Protection Agency, when overriding benefits 

are obvious and sanc tioned by the sta te or states concerned. This sta te cann ot 

agree to the proposed regulations for broadening and extending federal autho rity 

into areas th at must remain a state and local responsibility. There is no reason to 

expand the permit autho rity now existing in Section 404 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Louisiana cannot continue to 

exist and move forward und er regulations as proposed.

As Governor of the Sta te of Louisiana, I strongly urge:

(1) That the Corps of Engineers and the Environm enta l Protection Agency 

obtain clearly defined Congressional int en t in defining navigable waters 

and waters of the United States;

(2) Th at the Corps of Engineers request an extension of time from the 

Court to obtain Congressional guidance prior to publishing final regulations 

as required by the Court;

(3) Th at the United States Departme nt of Justice immediately file a 

notice of inten t to appeal the District Co urt’s ruling on behalf of the defendants, and further, th at the appeal process is duly completed.

If these recommended actions are not take n, it will be inexcusable and the 

Sta te of Louisiana and the nation will suffer thro ugh impleme ntation of the 

proposed guidelines; however, if no other option is available and it is unavoidable 

th at one of the four alternativ es must be carried out, then Louisiana would 

prefer Alternative 4 as the least damaging and having less problems.

On behalf of the State of Louisiana, I apprec iate the oppo rtunity to com ment on 

the proposed regulations.

Sincerely,

E dw in E dwtards,

Governo r.

A dopt ed at C oast a l Sta t e s Or g a n iz a tio n M e e t in g in W a sh in g to n on

J u n e 4, 19 75

R E S O LU TIO N

Whereas, the Coastal States Organization, as an arm of the National Governors’ 

Conference, has as its principal purpose the represen tation of the collective 

views of the coastal sta tes in the formulation of national coastal and marine 

policy, and

Whereas, the proposals to grea tly increase the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers’ permitting autho rity to cover many additional activities and much 

more area would have a profound imp act on sta te coas tal zone man agem ent 

program s, and

Whereas, such proposed changes could greatly lengthen the time involved in 

achieving activ ities and would be costly to both governm ent and private parties 

involved in such activities, and

Whereas, many persons doubt the need for such increased regulations, therefore 

be it

76 -1 61 — 76-------37
Resolved, that the Coastal States Organization opposes the imposition of add itional perm itting requirements by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

at this time, recommends th at current procedures and practices be continued, 

and requests that before any substan tial changes are made a thorough assessment 

of all aspects and implications of such changes be done by the Congress of the 

United States, and the results of such study be publicized, and further be it

Resolved, th at copies of this resolution be forwarded to all appropriate officials 

in the Legislative and Executive branches of the government.

(By Frederic M. Ch atry and Sherwood M. Ga gliano 1

)

In 1717, J ean Bap tiste LeMoyne, Sieru de Bienville, sen t his engineer, Blond 

de LaTour, with a party of workmen to lay out a settlem ent on the banks of the 

Mississippi. The site—selected by Bienville despite the heated opposition of 

de LaTour, who believed it to be hopelessly flood-prone—is now the city of New 

Orleans. In recognition of the flood threat, de LaTour took steps to ensure th at 

embankments would be constructed against it. Unknowingly, he thus intervened 

in a contest between the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, and initiate d 

a sequence of events which was to alte r decisively the course of t ha t contest.

For a thousand years prior to de L aTour, th e area which is now coastal Louisiana 

had been building by deltaic action. The building process was a gradual one, for 

the forces of the river and the sea were very nearly in balan ce. The river did, 

however, hold a tenuous initiative, and this initiative manifested itself in grudging 

surrender by the sea of p art of its domain, thro ugh the building of new land by 

river-borne sediments.

The process set in motion by de LaTour was to weaken and ultimately to 

reverse the river’s advantage . A quarter of a millennium late r, the sea is clearly 

ascendant, and the Corps of Engineers finds itself involved in five important 

studies relating to Louisiana’s coastal area. Because of the cha rac ter of problems 

in th at area, these studies involve major implications as to what the natur e of 

man ’s response to a threatene d environm ent should be.

In the current explosion of environmental concern, one is tem pted to believe 

th at the environmental problem was discovered only yesterda y. The rhetoric of 

crisis holds full sway, and the mind boggles in a baffling barrage of editorials, 

articles, speeches, and television shows. Now, it may be th at this barra ge is necessary to mobilize the man in the stre et. But unfortu nately, it tends to impede an 

und erstanding of something crucial: Irrespective of the fut ure efficacy of some 

radical proposals for population control, the aspirations of people are likely to 

generate resources development needs which will go u nm et only at catastrophic 

cost.

Viewed in this light, solutions to the environmental problem must be worked out 

largely in the realm of technology. It follows tha t those of us who work with water 

resources can be most responsive to the environmental thre at by demonstrating 

th at the relationship between development to meet the demands of a highly 

industrialized and urbanized society, and a viable environment, need not be one of 

the inevitable conflict. In short, we must strive to meet essential needs within a 

framework of minimum ecological change of a deleterious nature.

It was mentioned previously that the Corps is currently involved in five studies, 

the environmental implications of which are of special significance. These studies 

include four which are pa rt of the regular Corps program of wate r resources investigations, and one which is being conducted under th e aegis of the Water Resources 

Council. For ease of reference th e studies and th eir basic purposes are shown in the 

accompanying tabulation (see Ch art 1). In all, the coastal area is an important 

elem ent of concern.

The aspects of these studies which this article seeks to illuminate are those 

w’hich relate to the na ture of ecological change in the area, with particu lar reference 

at this time to the area as a ha bitat for fish a nd wildlife. The investigations involved, which will produce essential inp ut to the five studies, are collectively 

referred to as the Fish and IFildlife Study of the Louisiana Coast and Atchafalaya

Basin Floodway. For our purposes, the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway may be 

tho ught of as an integral pa rt of the Louisiana coastal area.

1

 Mr. Chatry Is Chief, Basin Planning Branch, U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans. 

Dr. Gagliano Is Associate Professor, Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana Stat e University, 

Bato n Rouge. La.
573

With the above as prologue, let us take a broa d look at the Louisiana coastal 

zone inclusive of th e Atc hafalay a Basin Flood way. Mostly marshes, swamps, and 

lakes, it presents, in gross aspect, a rather desolate appearance. This desolation 

tends to obscure its value to the Sta te and the Nation. Yet, the more than 5.5 

million acres of wetlands in the coastal zone comprise nearly 20 percent of the 

State. Within or immediately adjacent to the coastal zone resides nearly half of 

the Sta te’s inhabitants. Louisiana ranks second in the Nation in the prod uction 

of crude oil, n atu ral gas a nd sulphur, and the coastal and adjacent offshore areas 

account for nearly all of this production. Louisiana leads the Nation in salt 

production, more than two-thirds of it coming from the coastal zone. Twenty 

perc ent of the State ’s agricultural productio n is derived within or immediately 

contiguous to the zone. The Nation’s second largest port— New Orleans—is 

located within the coastal zone, and two others—Baton Rouge and Lake Charles— 

are nearby.

The important place occupied by commercial fisheries and wildlife in the 

overall economic framework of the State is a matter of common knowledge, and 

nearly all of the harves t of commercially imported species of fish and wildlife, 

which aggregates some $45 million annually, is reaped within the coastal zone. 

The coastal marshes are located at the southern term inus of the Mississippi 

Flyway and up to 50 percen t of the waterfowl using the flyway winter there. The 

coastal zone curre ntly supp orts an estimated 9 million man-days of sports fishing 

annually , an d nearly 2 million man-days of hunting.

The emphasis on economics in the foregoing is n ot intended to imply th at the 

total intrinsic worth of the stu dy area is m easurable in purely economic terms. The 

coastal zone embraces much which is of scenic, cultural, and historical value. 

Unique botanical specimens, and unusu al pla nt communities are found in many 

locations in the area. The zone is marked by its history, and many features of 

gre at cultural value survive, including early village sites, plantations, churches, 

and fortifications. It contains unique topographic and geologic features, such as 

barrier beaches, natural swamps and marshes, salt domes, mud lumps, and the 

meander belts of the Mississippi River. The coastal zone is, beyond question, an 

important part of our dwindling n atural heritage, a nd t he philosophical arguments 

adva nced in sup port of preserving wild rivers and scenic canyons a pply to it with 

equal force.

It has been apparen t for some time th at Louisiana’s coastal zone is th reatened. 

Eve n a casual observer notes great and continuing change. Erosion and subsidence 

are converting land areas to open water. Canals to service the offshore oil and 

fishing industries, and to move a v ariety of commerce, weave a labyrinthine lacework through the marshes. All of these are evident, bu t beyond them more subtle 

changes are taking place: in s alinity, both in the water a nd the soil; in the v egetation; in currents and flow p att erns; changes in fact, in nearly all of the important 

parameters from which the zone derives it unique character.

From the foregoing it is apparen t th at the coastal zone is indeed a thre atened 

environmental asset worth preserving. It is equally apparen t th at the environmental question involved goes beyond the usual dimensions of the developmentpreservation dichotomy common to resources explotitation, such as t ha t epitomized 

in the case of, say, the Salmon River of Idaho, or o ther “wild” western rivers. In 

such cases, the means of preserva tion is inaction, and its costs are measured in 

term s of what migh t have been, i.e., in developmental benefits foregone. Fu rth ermore, inaction in th e case of a wild river basin offers some prospect tha t the objective—preservation—will be a t least partly achieved. In t he Louisiana coastal zone, 

inaction will likely mean a continuation of p resent tren ds, and its costs may well 

include the loss of an existing and thoroughly palpable asset.

It was in the context of increasing awareness of and concern over the environmental threat th at the study was initiated in 1968. Because of the highly 

interdisciplinary natur e of the investigations involved, the Corps, at the outset, 

estab lished an ad hoc interag ency group to conduct them. This s tud y group, which 

is chaired by the New Orleans Distric t of the Corps of Engineers, includes representatio n from the Louisiana De partm ent of Public Works, the Louisiana Wild Life 

and Fisheries Commission, the Louisiana Stream Control Commission, the Federal 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Federal Bureau of Commercial 

Fisheries, the Federal Wa ter Quality Administration, the Bureau of Outdoor 

Recreation, and the United States Geological Survey.

As depicted in Ch art 2, five work units are responsible for work in five areas 

of stud y. Key partic ipa nts in the study are the Coastal Studies Insti tute of 

Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, which is supporting the stud y effort
574

in the areas of hydrology and geology, and the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries 

Commission, whose professional staff includes biologists with an intimate knowledge of the coastal zone.

The objectives of the stu dy are several. Briefly, we seek: (1) to identify the 

nature and extent of ecological change in the coastal area; (2) to quantita tively 

relate prod uctivity in the fish and wildlife resource to the physical and chemical 

paramete rs which, in their totality, comprise the estuarine environm ent; (3) to 

determine the para metric changes required to optimize the estuarine ha bitat; 

and (4) to suggest broa d approaches through which these parametric changes 

may be accomplished.

In June, the Coastal Studies Institut e completed a comprehensive report on 

the hydrology and geology of the coastal area. This r epo rt will serve as an essential 

da ta base for further studies, and is pregnant with insights into the n atu re of th e 

threat to the estuarine environment. The rema inder of this article is devoted 

to a brief description of the report and its more salient findings.

Louisiana’s coastal zone is an integral part of the delta of the Mississippi River— 

it is, in fact, not too much to say that coastal Louisiana is the Mississippi Delta. 

Like all deltas, th at of the Mississippi is a zone of the interactio ns between fluvial 

and marine processes and constitutes one of the most dynamic situations in natu re. 

The interaction of these processes over time results in a dynam ically changing 

complex of environments within delta regions.

Deposition of sediments vies with subsidence and erosion in a never-ending 

exchange of land and water areas. The balance between deposition and the combined effects of subsidence and erosion cause shorelines of deltas alternately to 

advance seaward and then retreat. Seaward growth occurs at the mou ths of active 

streams, whereas erosion results near the mouths of inactive streams which no 

longer transp ort sufficient sediment to sustain the ir seaward advance. This is 

the reason th at delta building is so often depicted as a contest between the river 

and the sea.

If the river deposits sediment faster t han the sea is able to remove it, new land 

is added to the shore, and the d elta is said to prograde. As a delta is extended, it 

gradually builds upward or aggrades by processes associated with lateral shifting 

of channels, by sediment deposition during overbank flooding, and by accumulation of plant and animal remains. Deterioration of a delta occurs if all or part of 

it is deprived of the necessary supply of river-borne sediment for replenishing 

losses due to erosion and subsidence. This results in the reworking and/or removal 

of th e seaward edge by wave attack and the settlin g and subsiding of th e surface 

below sea level.

It follows th at three basic conditions may exist in a delta: (1) th at of seaward 

building, or progradation; (2) th at of building up, or aggradation; or (3) th at of 

transgression, or retrea t. A fourth condition, th at of near-stability, may also 

exist, but this condition is n ot of particular interest here.

If the deltaic plain of the Mississippi is considered as one integ rated , dynamic 

system with riverine and marine inputs, it is only necessary to inspect a map or 

aerial photo mosaic of this system to appreciate its complexity and to understand 

th at it is made up of a number of subsystems. Keeping in m ind tha t four conditions 

may exist, it is possible to identify and examine the subsystems tha t occur in t he 

Mississippi Delta at a given instant in geologic time. This is not to say th at we 

are losing sight of th e dimension of time, bu t rather we are looking at the deltaic 

plain as it exists to day, appreciating the fact th at it does and will change with the 

passage of time.

Our examination reveals tha t all four of th e conditions noted coexist within t he 

delta. For example, the inte rdistribu tary basin lying between the active channellevee system of the modern Mississippi and the abandone d channel-levee system 

of Bayou Lafourche, a former d istributary of the Mississippi, functions as a large 

estuary. Its seaward end is in a condition of dete rioration or retreat, while its 

fresher landward end is in a condition of aggradation. Geomorphic forms and 

sedim entary environm ents reflect these conditions. In comparison, many parts of 

the active birdfoot delta at the river’s mou th are clearly prograding, or building 

seaward, and the distinctive assemblage of geomorphic forms and sedimen tary 

environments found in this pa rt of the delta reflects this condition.

To be sure, conditions can and do change in the subsystem from time to time. 

Most often the framew ork of a subsystem has been imposed on it by conditions 

which prevailed in the past. For example, an aban done d dis trib utary system may 

presently be undergoing transgression or r etreat. Today, the system functions as 

an estuary, bu t its framework has been imposed on it by a dis trib uta ry system 

th at was activ e d uring an interval of progradation which took place a t some tim e 

in the past.
575

In the Mississippi Delta, this habit of shifting sites of progradation has produced a deltaic plain th at is lob ate in surface configuration and cyclic in vertica l 

section. South Louisiana as we see it today has been built up by a series of sed iment 

pods, each of which is associated with an inte rval of delta prog rada tion. Viewed 

from above they are lollipop-shaped masses of sediment.

From the above discussion it might be concluded that, when viewed thr ough 

geologic time, a delta system is always in delicate balance—t ha t is, on one side 

of the fulcrum is the supply in the form of trans ported sediment, and on the other 

is loss in the form of erosion and subsidence. The very existence of south Louisiana 

bears witness to the fact th at there has been net prog radation over a very long 

period.

The same pressures which impelled de LaT our to erect his first levee persisted 

and intensified through the years. For various reasons, alluvial lands are more 

amenable to developm ent than others, and one of the consequences of such development in the Mississippi Delta has been alte rati on of the deltaic processes 

previously described. The protection of the alluvial valley from Hoods has virtually eliminated overban k overflow of the coas tal lands. Furtherm ore, the 

modern birdfoot d elta is now at the edge of the continental shelf and most tra nsported sediments in th e Mississippi are d isappearing into th e deeper bathya l zone. 

A fundame ntal question posed in the investigations was therefore “ Is the delta, or 

for th at m atter, is th e coastal area on the whole, building or r etreating ?”

The question had been approached by a number of investigators. The Corps, 

since its involvement in the c onstruction of the Atch afalaya Basin Floodway, has 

docum ented topographic and hydrographic changes therein. Fisk (1952) indicated 

filling rates in the Floodway. Morgan and Larrimore (1957), in a careful comparison of historic maps, measured rates of progradation and retre at of the outer 

shoreline for the entire Louisiana coast. Saucier (1963) determined rates of shoreline retre at arou nd the Lake Fon tchartrain emb aym ent. Finally, Coleman, Morgan, and Gagliano (1969) determined rates of su bdelta growth in the active area 

of the Mississippi Delta.

We have att em pte d to qua ntify the total land loss picture by using the ratio 

of land to w ater in a given sample area as a n index of n et gain or loss. Fortunately, 

systematic planimetric mapping of coastal Louisiana was initiated in the 1890’s 

by the U.S. Geological Survey. In the 1930’s, this area was remapped, and use 

was made of controlled aerial photo mosaics. Mapping and remapping have 

contin ued since the 1940’s, so th at at present most of the areas have been covered 

at least twice.

Careful periodic remapping of the region has made it possible to determine the 

change in ratio of land to water for a particular area and m apping interval; these 

values in turn can easily be converted into land loss or gain in acres per year. In 

the present study a point-counting technique was used to determ ine changes in 

land-water ratios for each 7}4-minute quadrangle map for the interval between 

the mapping of the 1930’a an d the most recent remapping.
576

t

 v

(A7V|.»nv«« <t

«pp*o>.mot«ly 33 «>«<»»• m.lo»)

, IQB* , QAIN

C _ J 0 - 5 0 L_____ ]

EZ ZIZ] 5o-,oo I, "1

>100

ES TIM ATED

LAND LOSS/GAIN RATES

ACRES PER YEAR PER 1 1/2 MIN QUADRANGLE

C^OTAiS. 2®MI

CHART ONE : FIVE STUDIES OF SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFIC ANCE

Study Title Purpose

Lower Mississippi Region 

Comprehensive Study (Type I)

Identify and quantify the water and related land resources development 

needs of the region, outline broad plans for meeting these needs, and 

indicate the magnitude of the investment required for effectuating . 

such plans.

Old and Atchafalaya

Rivers Control Study

Determine whether any modifications, extensions or additions to the 

existing Old River Control System or its operation are warranted.

Louisiana Coastal Area

Determine the advisability of improvements or modifications to 

existing improvements in the coastal area in the interest of 

hurricane protection, prevention of salt water intrusion, 

preservation of fish and wildlife, prevention of erosion, and 

related wa'ter resources purposes.

West Texas and Eastern

New Mexico Water

Import Study

In conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation, evaluate the '

feasibility of a proposal to import up Io 12 million acre-feet

of water per year to the "High Plains" area of Texas and New Mexico.

National Shoreline Study

Appraise erosion problems along the coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, with 

peripheral consideration of possible remedial measures in the context 

of alternative land and water uses and the total natural environment.

WA TER Ab EG YimU

The map of coastal Louisiana, on page 26, graphically depicts the results of 

the land loss studies. The map dem onstrates th at most of the deltaic plain is in 

a serious condition of dete rioration. During th e last 30 to 40 years significant land 

gain has occurred in only a few areas, notably in the Atchafala ya Basin. Areas 

of maximum land loss coincide with areas of maximum subsidence rates , as 

determined by radiocarbon dating of marsh peats. The computations indicated 

maximum loss rate s in excess of 300 acres per year per 7^-min ute quadrangle. 

For the coastal Louisiana wetlands as a whole, the land loss am ounts to approximately 16^2 square miles p er yea r—th at is, 495 square miles in a 30-year period. 

On the basis of these figures, it is safe to say th at Louisiana has the distinction of 

having the highest rate of land loss of a ny State in the Union.
577

If, as is surely true , land loss in the coastal areas may be considered a pernicious 

disease, what are the prospects of a cure? The key is to be found in those areas 

where land gain is occurring. For example, the Atchafala ya River—th e Mississippi’s only major dis tributary—is actively building a lacustrine delta. During 

the p ast 50 years Atchafala ya sediments have filled a series of large lakes, and the 

river will soon construct a delta lobe into the gulf.

CHART TW O: FISH AND WILDLIFE STUD Y OF CO AST AL LOU ISIA NA

AN D THE ATC HAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY

An extensive coring program in the West Bay area has enabled us to determine 

the thickness of the sedimen tary pod deposited there in a period of about 80 

years through subd elta activity. During this inte rval approxim ately 80 square 

miles of land was constructed by the subdelta and the sedim ent pod exceeded 

24 feet in maximum thickness.
578

The nature of th e solution to the problem of coastal land loss emerges: we m ust 

learn to control and direct the natural processes of sedim entation. Without 

minimizing the formidable problems—technical, institutional, legal, and economic—which would be involved in making controlled diversions of sedimentladen waters in d eteriorated areas, the suggestion th at widespread benefits would 

likely be realized from such diversions is inescapable. Nor would the benefits 

necessarily be limited to reversing land loss tren ds; extension of the land mass 

would provide a hurricane buffer, and extend the length of land-sea interface and 

the length of major estuaries. This, from the standpoint of fisheries and wildlife, 

would be most desirable.

While perhaps not as dramatic as th e study findings on land loss, those relating 

to the area of water chem istry are nevertheless helpful in defining the natur e of 

problems in the estuarine habit at, and suggestive of measures which might be 

employed to deal with such problems. Water balance studies indicate th at the 

coastal zone, which enjoys abundant annual rainfall, is nevertheless subject to 

freq uent periods of moisture deficit. In fact, when climatic energy demand is 

accounted for, the precipitation excess—the water available for streamflow and 

ground water recharge—is no greater than th at available in the State of New 

Jersey, an area which receives on the average only one-half the annu al rainfall of 

the coastal area. This suggests th at the possibilities for beneficial use of supplemental water are likely grea ter than is popularly supposed.

Since direct overflow of t he marshes by the Mississippi River no longer occurs, 

river flow now influences salinities in such areas in a rather roundabout fashion: 

It lowers salinities in the open gulf, and the effect of these lowered salinities is 

reflected in the salinities in the marsh. It follows, and the study results confirm 

this, th at salinities in the brackish marsh zone tend to be much more responsive to 

rainfall, which exerts a direct influence t han they are to river flow. This suggests, 

th at diversions of fresh water from the Mississippi to specific points of need should 

be highly effective in inducing desirable changes in salin ity.

The foregoing has been a sketchy summary of study progress to date. It bears 

repeating , however, th at the nature of the problem, as developed in the studies, 

does suggest th at we must learn to control a nd direc t sedimentation, and develop 

means for providing and utilizing supplemental water where needed. The Fish 

and Wildlife Study of Coastal Louisiana an d the Atchafala ya Basin Floodway will 

answer the question of what is best for the estuarine area as a h abitat for fish and 

wildlife. The mechanism for conducting the investigations which could lead to the 

auth orization of specific projec ts or measures for im proving the h abita t is provided 

by the five studies previously listed.

We are hopeful th at our efforts will co nstitute the vanguard to a program designed to preserve and enhance the estuarine environment. If they do, our hope 

of making the Fish and Wildlife Study of the Louisiana Coast and Atchafala ya 

Basin Floodway an apposite response to the environmental thr eat will have been 

realized.

Sta te m en t of Sen at or J oh n L. M cCle ll an

Mr. Chairman, I apprecia te this opportu nity to present a statem ent for the 

record to the Committee concerning problems relating to Section 404 of the 

Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).

Few issues hav e gene rated as many conta cts with my office as the Marc h 1975 

decision in N.R.D.C. vs. Callaway (392 F.Supp. 687, 1975) interpretin g this 

section of the Act. The broa d extension of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction to all 

waters of th e United States by the c ourt’s decision in th at case, and attem pts by 

regulation to implement th at decision, have brought inquiries from Soil and 

Water Conservation districts, the Arkansas Itiv er Valley Commission, the Sta te 

Game and Fish Commission, the Arkansas Ind ustrial Development Commission, 

other associations and many individual farmers.

I thin k the broad consensus of my constituents is th at Federal Government 

and Federal regulation must remain restricted in the management, preservation 

and wise development of our natural resources. A prop er role for the states is 

desirable and should be preserved in this area. The expanded jurisdiction of the 

Corps in administering its dredge and fill perm it program is a good example, I 

believe, of excessive Federal governmental involvement in s tat e affairs with great 

pote ntial effect on the agricultural and silvicu ltural industries of our coun try. 

This involvement does no t preserve and protect appropriate sta te interests in
579

wate r resource managem ent. Practical aspects, the foremost of which is the 

burden of administering a perm it program of this magnitude, should also receive 

due consideration.

Based on these a nd other factors, I joined in cosponsorship of S.1878, introduced 

by Senator Tower on Jun e 5, 1975, which would limit the Corps jurisdiction 

to waters actually navigable and tida l waters. Since th at time, however, by a 

vote of 234-121 on Ju ne 3 this year th e House passed the so-called Wright amendment which will do much to solve some of the adm inistrative, jurisdictional and 

practical problems resulting from the court decision to which I have referred. 

This ame ndm ent with its agricultu ral exemption should help to furthe r resolve 

this controversy.

Because the House has already strongly endorsed the Wright amendm ent, I 

urge the Committee’s careful review of this proposal.

Adoption of this ame ndment or similar language is required to mainta in a 

significant role for the states in water qua lity preservation and to preven t the 

inevitable bureaucratic tangle resulting from the cou rt’s inte rpretation of section 404 in N.R.D.C. vs. Callaway.

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 27, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear J ennings: Enclosed is a prep ared s tatem ent which I would like to have 

included in the Hearing Record for the Section 404 Water Pollution Control Act 

Hearings.

I am most apprecia tive of your conducting these hearings at this time and am 

hopeful th at your Com mittee can reach a reasonable compromise on this issue 

which is of great importance to the future of energy development in Wyoming and 

the Western state s in general.

Sincerely,

Gale McGee,

U.S. Senator.

Enclosure.

Statement of Senator Gale W. McGee

Mr. Chairman: As you know, the expansion of Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act has serious implications for every sta te’s ability to control and 

administer its own water. You have clearly recognized this and I wish to tha nk 

you and the Committee for scheduling these im portant hearings.

The District Co urt ’s decision in NRDC v. Callaway in 1975 has established an 

extremely broad definition of “navigable waters” . In my view the C ourt has erred 

in inte rpre ting the statute which defined such waters. Furthermore, the ultimate 

effect of this decision would establish Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction over practically every body of water in my Sta te of Wyoming. The State would have no 

control over its own water resources.

Waters in the Sta te of Wyoming are not “navigable” in the traditiona l sense. 

The State of Wyoming has been extremely diligent and responsible in its administering of these waters and there is no justifiable reason for the Corps to extend 

Federal Government autho rity to this area which is properly the domain of Sta te 

jurisdiction. We in Wyoming draw different conclusions abo ut this extension of 

Corps power tha n those of e nvironmentalists outside our State. Those concerned 

abo ut wetlands protection believe th at the Corps of Engineers has changed its 

philosophy away from water and power development. They perceive th at the 

Corps is now the great protector of our wetlands. However, Wyoming citizens 

apprehensively see the power which remains in the hands of the Corps to div ert 

the precious water resources of our Sta te to purposes which are no t of our choosing. 

The people of Wyoming do not dispute the fine work th at the Corps has done to 

protect our wetlands. Inde ed the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has commended the wetlands conservation program of the Corps and is concerned th at it 

continue this effort. Bu t what about the Corps’ trad itio nal and all encompassing 

role in water resource development? There is no disputing the fact th at Wyoming 

and other Western sta tes are under enormous pressures to develop the ir energy 

resources. Nor is there any dispute th at water is the key to this development. 

Can anyone sincerely believe th at the Corps of Engineers will resist the pressures
580

of an Administration clearly comm itted to converting the Western states into 

power plants and energy production centers for the res t of the nation? We in 

Wyoming fear not.

This is the dilemm a we face as a result of the all embracing decision of the 

Distric t Court. I do not insist th at we sacrifice the preservation of our wetlands 

for retention of our State ’s control of its water resources. This appears to be the 

best time to reach a reasonable solution to this problem and it comes at a time 

when the Corps has been ordered to delay implementation of the Co urt’s decision. I do not believe th at those concerned with wetlands conservation advo cate 

the cruel choice between wetlands and Western lands. But if we can reach no 

compromise on this issue which choice shall we make in the interests of all? I 

believe th at the solution can be found thro ugh these hearings and subs equent 

legislation.

We in Wyoming are not oblivious to the conservation issue involved. But we 

must insist on controlling our own destiny; and our destiny is inextricably linked 

to our water. If we are to be called upon to produce significant amounts of energy 

for the nation at the expense of serious disruption of our way of life, it is only 

reasonable and fair th at we be afforded the opportunity to control as much as 

possible the forces th at are shaping our lives. Water is the key to th at control 

and I urge the Committee to ado pt measures which will restore the stat es’ tra ditional authority over their own water resources.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C., July 26, 1976.

Dear Colleague: On July 27 and 28, the Senate Committee on Public Works 

will hold hearings on the implementation of regulations promulgated under 

Section 404 of th e Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This is a m atter of vital 

concern to us all, and I would hope these hearings will convince skeptics of the 

need to amend the original act to reduce the a uth ori ty of the Corps of Engineers.

I believe the best way to reduce the interference w’hich derives from the Corps’ 

extensive jurisdiction under this section of the Act is to ado pt the proposal 

offered—and accepted by almost a two-to-one margin—in the House by Mr. 

Wright.

Many of you, I know’, agree with th at sentim ent. Almost a third of th e Senate 

expressed displeasure at the present situation with the Corps in our letter to 

Presiden t Ford asking for a delay of Phase II of the regulations.

I think the best argu men ts for supporting the “Wright Amendment” are contain ed in the enclosed issue paper prepared by the National Association of Realtors. I hope this material will be of use to you in making your decision, and I 

would draw your atte ntion to the long and impressive list of national, regional, 

and sta te organizations which support this position.

We have an opp ortunity here to truly reduce the burden of government in 

this country. I honestly feel we cann ot pass it up.

If you have fur the r questions, please have y our staff con tact Joe Winkelmann, 

X-42934, in my office.

Sincerely,

J ohn Tower.

Dredge and Fill P ermit Regulations—Army CoRrs of Engineers

(Sec. 404—Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act)

Issue

Army Corps of Engineers’ control over “navigable waters” and their adjacent 

wetlands.

Background

Section 404 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires a Federal 

permit be obtain ed from the Army Corps of Engineers before any dredge or fill 

activity can tak e place in navigable waters and their adjace nt wetlands. Pu rsu ant 

to Section 404, the Corps published regulations only to have them struck dow’n by 

a subse quent court decision, N.D .R.C. vs. Calloway (392 F. Supp. 687 1975). 

The U.S. District Cou rt for the District of Columbia significantly expanded the 

definition of navigable w'aters, and consequently, the scope of th e Corps’ permit 

program.

On June 3, 1976, the U.S. House of Represe ntatives passed the “W right 

Amendment” by a vote of 234 to 121, which redefined th e term “navigable waters”
581

as it applies to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I f passed 

by the Senate and enacted into law, the new definition would bring back into line 

the Army Corps of Engineers’ regulatory authority.

What the Wright amendment will do

(1) Redefine the term “navigable waters” to include those waters presently 

used or susceptible for use, through reasonable improvement, in the transport of 

goods in interstate and foreign commerce.

(2) Mandate the implementation of a dredge and fill permit program for those 

wetlands adjacent to “navigable waters”.

(3) Allow the Secretary of the Army to delegate permit authority to a State 

if it is determined that the State has sufficient authority to effectively protect 

those wetlands adjacent to “navigable waters”.

(4) Exempt normal farming, ranching, and silviculture practices from regulation 

under the Section 404 dredge and fill permit program.

(5) Allow additional wetlands to be added to the Army Corps of Engineers’ 

permit jurisdiction if agreed to by the governor of a State and Secretary of th e 

Army.

Previous to passage of the “Wright Amendment”, the definition of “navigable 

waters” had come to mean “virtually every coastal and inland artificial or natural 

water body.” 1

 This translates into extensive Federal involvement in land use 

related decisions which traditionally had been the province of state and local 

governments.

Action needed by the Senate

Passage of S. 2710, as amended by the House, with the Wright Amendment 

intact.

Reason why action is needed now

In order to enable Congress to act on this important issue, the President has 

suspended for 60 days the implementation of Phase II of the Dredge and Fill 

Permit Program. Phase II was to become effective July 1, 1976, which would have 

expanded the Corps’ jurisdiction to include:

Primary tributaries of navigable waters;

Natural lakes greater than five acres or more; and 

Adjacent wetlands to both primary tributaries and lakes.

The third phase of the program will be implemented July 1, 1977, and will 

further expand the Corps’ jurisdiction to virtually all waters of the United States.

A delay in Senate action on S. 2710 and the Wright Amendment would result in 

the implementation of the Corps’ program and more Federal regulations at a 

time when the public is demanding less, not more, Federal control.

Why the Wright amendment is necessary

The protection of the nation’s wetlands should be done in a comprehensive and 

balanced manner with proper involvement by State and local governments. The 

Army Corps of Engineers’ Dredge and Fill Permit program, however, calls for 

excessive Federal intervention and excludes State or local government involvement.

The Wright Amendment in S. 2710, to limit the scope of the Corps’ dredge and 

fill permit program, should be supported for the following reasons:

1. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program Mandates Excessive 

Federal Involvement.

2. The Present 440 Dredge and Fill Permit Program is too Single-Purpose in 

Nature to Adequately Protect Wetlands.

3. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program Will Require a Large and 

Costly Federal Bureaucracy.

4. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program Will Prove Unmanageable.

5. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program was Mandated by the 

Courts and May Exceed the Original Inte nt of Congress.

6. The Present Dredge and Fill Permit Program Could Have an Adverse 

Impact on Normal Agricultural and Ranching Water Conservation Practices.

REA SO N S TO S U PPO R T T H E “ W R IG H T A M E N D M EN T”

1. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program Mandates Excessive 

Federal Involvement—

1

 Federal Water Pollu tion Control Act of 1976, Report 94-1107, Apr. 30, 1976, p. 20.
582

Under the current dredge and fill program States and localities do not have the 

opp ortunity to be involved in the protection of their wetlands. The program is 

administered solely by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Yet, several S tate s now 

have, or are developing program s to deal with these ecologically important areas. 

In these States the Federal program would duplicate Sta te efforts.

The Wright Amendment addresses this issue by allowing states an opporunity 

to become d irectly involved in the Dredge and Fill Permit Program.

The House Public Works Com mittee’s Report stated , “The Federal government cannot and should not be expected to assume the entire responsibility for environmental

protection.” 3

2. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Prog ram is too single-purpose 

in nature to adequately pro tect wetlands—

Any program to protect the nation ’s wetlands should balance economic, environmental and energy considerations. The case by case perm it approach, only 

dealing with dredge and fill activity, represents too narrow a focus to effectively 

protect valuable wetlands. Wetland protection should come through a comprehensive resource man agem ent approach ra the r than a piecemeal perm it approach.

As the House Committe e Report points out, the Coastal Zone Managem ent 

Program “. . . is the type of comprehensive planning and regulatory program

which is needed for the protection of wetland areas, not the limited project by project

approach under the expanded Section 404 program.” ’

The Wright Amendment addresses this problem by giving s tate s an opp ortunity 

to integrate the dredge and fill program with other wetland protection programs 

in those wetlands not adja cen t to navigable waters.

3. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program will require a large and 

costly Federal bureaucracy—

The Army Corps of Engineers estimates th at an additional GOO employees will 

be necessary to process p erm it applications alone. The Committe e Repor t points 

out, “This does not include enforcement activities which will become increasingly

difficult.” . . . (emphasis added).

At a time when the Federal deficit soars, it is highly unlikely th at neither 

Congress nor the Executive Branch will permit the additional large num ber of 

personnel required to manage the present Section 404 perm it program, which 

some have estimated will be in the thousands.

The number of permit applications under the c urrent Corps’ program . . . “is 

expected to rise from close to 20,000 to at least 40,000 an d more likely 50,000 by 

1978.” *

The Wright Amendment addresses this concern by restricting the jurisdiction 

of the Army Corps’ permit program (under the definition of navigable waters), 

while at the same time placing more responsibility for wetland protectio n with 

the states, thus reducing the need for large expansion of the Federal bureaucracy.

4. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program may prove unmanageable—

The scope of the present program will likely be impossible to manage effectively.

In the case of Minnesota, for example, over 10,000 bodies of water will come 

under the Corps’ jurisdiction.5 *

“The [House Public ITorJfc.s'] Committee is concerned that the program will prove

impossible of effective administration and that more will be lost than gained in the

protection of the Nation's waters." 8

Because of the numerous amoun t of perm it applications, lengthy delays will be inherent in the program. This will add to the already spiraling costs in the housing 

and real estate development industry.

The smaller perm it program manda ted by the Wright Amendment, through 

the redefinition of navigable waters, will restrict the program to a manageable 

scope.

5. The Present 404 Dredge and Fill Perm it Program was man dated by the 

courts and may exceed the original intent of Congress—

The Corps did not expan d its jurisdiction under Section 404 to “all wate rs of 

the United States” until ordered to do so by a Federal distric t court last year. 

Some Federal officials mainta in th at the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act never intended th at Section 404 be a vehicle to pro tect the wetlands.7

» Ibid., p. 22.

’ Ibid., p. 22.

« Ibid., p. 22.

8

 Congressional Record. Apr. 30, 1976, E2256.

• Federa l Wate r Pollution Control Act of 1976, op. cit., p. 22.

’ Comments by Pa ul A. Vander Myde. Deputy As sis tan t, Se creta ry for Conse rvation , 

Res earch and Ed uca tion, Columbia, S.C., Nov. 21, 1975.
583

The Wright Amendment clearly defines Congressional intent of Section 404 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act thro ugh the redefinition of navigable 

waters.

6. The Present Dredge and Fill Permit Program could have an adverse impac t 

on normal agricultural and ranching water conservation practices—

Although the Corps has stated th at it has no intention of regulating norm al 

farming and ranching activities, there is no assurance th at future cou rt action 

will not force th e Corps to become active in this area. Such development a ctivities 

as pond construction, sod waterw ays, diversion ditches, stream bank improvements, and other water managem ent practices will come under the jurisdiction 

of the Corp s’ regu latory program.

“In addition, under the existing Section 404 program given its broadest reach, 

all m atte rs of small agricultural and forestry activities could be subject t o Federal 

perm it regulation.” 8

Eventually, virtually all construction and deve lopment activity would be 

subject to the Corps’ permit program if it is to be conducted adjace nt or contiguous to surface waters.

As previously mentioned, the Wright Amendment specifically excludes norm al 

farming, ranching, and silvic ulture practices from the Corps’ Permit Program.

ORGANIZATIONS SUPPOR TING THE “ WRIGHT AME NDM ENT’ ’

1. American Association of S tate Highway Tra nsp ortatio n Officials.

2. American Concrete Paving Association.

3. American Consulting Engineers Council.

4. American Farm Bureau.

5. American Hotel and Motel Association.

6. American Insti tute of Architects.

7. American Institut e of Steel Construction, Inc.

8. American Land Development Association.

9. American National Cattlem en’s Association.

10. American Paper Ins titute .

11. American Petroleum Ins titu te.

12. American Road Builders Association.

13. American Society of Civil Engineers.

14. American Society of Landscape Architects.

15. American Subcontracto rs Association.

16. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.

17. Associated Equ ipm ent Distributors.

18. Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.

19. Associated Landscape Contractors of America, Inc.

20. Building Owners and Managers Association Internatio nal.

21. Canal Authority of Florida.

22. Ceilings and Interior Systems Contractors Association.

23. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Ins titu te.

24. Council of Construction Employers, Inc.

25. Council of State Legislatures.

26. High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1.

27. Internatio nal Council of Shopping Centers.

28. Miami Conservation District.

29. Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.

30. National Asphalt Pav ement Association.

31. Natio nal Association of Conservation Districts.

32. National Association of Home Builders.

33. National Association of Manufacturers.

34. Natio nal Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors.

35. Natio nal Association of Prop erty Owners.

36. National Association of Realtors.

37. Natio nal Construction Ind ustry Council.

38. Natio nal Constructors Association.

39. National Cotton Council.

40. National Council of Erectors, Fabricators, and Riggers.

41. National Crushed Stone Association.

42. National Electrical Contractors Association.

43. National Env iron men tal Development Association.

44. National Forest Products Association.

8

 Federal Water Pollu tion Control Act of 1976, op. clt., p. 23.
584

45. Natio nal Governor’s Conference.

46. National Grange.

47. National Parking Association.

48. National Realty Comm ittee.

49. National Society of Professional Engineers.

50. National Solid Wastes Management Association.

51. Natio nal Utility Con tractors Association, Inc.

52. National Wate r Resources Association.

53. North Dakota Water Users Association.

54. North Plains Water Conservation District No. 2.

55. Pacific Northwest Waterways Association.

56. Portland Cement Association.

57. Power and Communications Contractors Association.

58. Prestressed Concrete Institute .

59. Producer’s Council, Inc.

60. River Authorities (Brazos, Guadalupe-Blanco, Lavaca-Navidad, Lower

Colorado, Lower Neches Valley, Nueces, Sabine, San Antonio, and Trinity).

61. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contracto rs National Association.

62. Society of American Registered Architects.

63. Southeast Colorado Water Conservation District.

64. Texas Water Conservation Association.

65. Texas Wate r Development Board.

66. Upper Colorado River Commission.

67. U.S. Cham ber of Commerce.

68. Water Resources Congress.

St a t e m e n t o f J am es C. C l e v e la n d , M .C .

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, as principal co-author of an 

amendmen t to resolve the conflict over wetlands protection and the proper 

exercise of Federal regu latory power, I welcome this opportunity to share my 

views with you.
585

This issue represents a classic challenge. How can we protect our wetlands 

without subjecting perhaps millions of Americans to excessive or burdensome 

intrusion of government into their lawful and legitimate pursuits?

The stakes are high. The issue concerns no less than the future of a vita l and 

irreplaceable environ men tal resource, perh aps three-fo urth s of the wetlands 

in this country.

This is a priority objective and one we all share, bu t th at fact is no way diminishes the difficulty of devising suitable means. These must represen t a balanced, 

workable, prac tical and common-sense approach th at takes into account the 

impact on other interests. And they mu st achieve accepta bility and credibility 

to sustain sup port for our environmental protection efforts.

At the best of times this would be a difficult task . And these are not the best 

of times. Not with the climate of misinformation and emotion th at has been 

generated over this and other areas of Federal regu latory activity. I und erstand 

it. I sympathize with it. And given the track re'tford of the Federal bureaucrac y 

I ’ve been arm-w restling with it for nearly 14 years, to some extent I share it.

No citizen in his right mind can be blamed for concern when told th at the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers is going to occupy his back 40, treating 

earth turned over by his plough as a dredge deposit, regulating any stre am he 

can ’t jump across, requ iring a perm it to pu t in a stock pond.

No Member of Congress—least of all this one—is abo ut to let th at happen.

Now you and I know this is a myth. This was never inten ded by the Congress, 

it was never intended by the Adm inistration and it was never intended by the 

environm ental groups pressing for the broade st interp retation of section 404 

of Public Law 92-500. But look how far th at m yth has b roug ht us. It has b rought 

us to the point where legislation is before us to chop back Federal autho rity and 

possibly leave extensive areas of wetlands at the mercy of the developers. Legislatio n is before us which could conceivably preven t Federal regulation of activities creating a hea lth haz ard for sources of the public’s drinking water.

Those myths were slow to grow, in term s of translating initial propagand a 

against a Federal court decision into legislative proposals. They’ll be even slower 

in dying.

But our basic responsibility is to deal no t with myths bu t with facts, devising 

a reasonable compromise and then exercising our responsibility for political 

leadership by providing the public assurances th at we’ve done the job and protected their interests.

In the process, we must assure th at regulation does not go too far. But we must 

also make sure we do n’t cut back too far.

On this basis, I authored, with the sup port of William II. Ilarsha, Ranking 

Minority Member of y our counterpar t Committee in the House, an ame ndm ent 

to meet the legitimate concerns raised with respect to farming, forestry a nd other 

interests facing at least the threat if n ot the reality of over-regulation, excessive 

or burdensome regulation.

First, it would meet head-on many of the concerns raised by exempting by 

statute a num ber of routine, normal farming and forestry practices from any 

regulation whatsoever. Significantly, it picked up certain safeguards bui lt into 

the Corps’ regulations specifically and expressly to pu t to rest th e concerns of the 

agric ultural community. But we didn’t stop there. We added to the enumerated 

statutory exemptions the construction and maintenance of farm and stock ponds 

and irrigation ditches. We also exempted the main tenance, although not new 

construction or extension, of irrigation ditches. The tru th of the matt er is th at 

these sta tutory exemptions in them selves would go far toward meeting th e concerns 

of farming and forestry inte rests. By virtue of being built into statutor y law, 

they would be immune from court challenge or adm inistra tive reversal. So m uch 

for the spectre of the Feds in the farm yard.

Our amendm ent recognized too th at other activities—in addition to those 

exempted flat-out by statute—should no t be subjected to the burdensome requirement of individual permits issued by the Corps. Accordingly, we provide s tatutory 

autho rity for issuance of general permits to provide blanke t coverage for activities 

constitutin g minimal environmenta l impact. We thus met the problem cited by th e 

Majority of the House Committee, in its discussion of the Breaux amendm ent, to 

the effect th at general perm its now provided by regulation might not withstand 

court challenge.

At this juncture, I doubt whether anyone can identify with precision the reach 

of the Corps’ regulatory jurisdiction contemplated by the regulations, partic ula rly 

when Phase II I goes into effect. But I sub mit th at the Clev eland-Harsha approach 

counters this uncer tainty by exempting— before the fact—a broa d rang e of
586

activ ities which are known, normal and routine. Plus which, the device of the general 

permit will have increasing applicab ility to activities of minimal environmental 

imp act as Phase II I goes into effect.

These benefits are not limited to activitie s covered eithe r by statutory exemptions 

or general permits. While reducing the scope of individual permit activity, we 

would free the Corps from expense and diversion of manpower so that resources 

could be devoted to processing of individual permits for more environmentally 

significant practices and reducing the delays to the individual applican t.

So what happened to our amendment?

It was published in the Reco rd and highlighted by lett er to all House Members 

a full week before the m atter came to the floor for debate and action. Thus it was 

made public and available for scrutin y and challenge. It was supported by all 

major environm ental organizations and the White House, the latter afte r exhaus tive 

review of the options.

During debate, floor opposition was virtually negligible. To the distinc t credit 

of my friend Jim Wright and Committee colleagues supporting his sub stitute, 

the y did not denigrate our ame ndm ent but instead focused on the court decision 

in question and the Corps’ regulations. Indeed, in the Wright ame ndm ent the y 

picked up the principles of st atutory exemptions and general perm its—thoug h in 

excessively broad terms. And the problems specifically addressed by the ClevelandIl arsha amendment were cited in sup port of the W right am endment.

Accordingly, the fact th at the Wright amendment—with its surface similarities 

to Clevela nd-IIarsha and promotion as a remedy to the same problems—was 

ado pted as a sub stitute presented first in no way discredits our amendment.

Tod ay as on the day it was offered, it represents a responsible and reasonable 

compromise, avoiding the pitfalls of over reaction to a problem. It does not redefine the definition of navigable water. Specifically, it thu s rejects the approach 

of curbing the jurisdiction of the Corps and creating an inconsistency of s tatutory 

scope within the tota l framework of P.L. 92-500. And it does no t rely for its appeal 

on any illusory notions with respect to State Capability to assume responsibility 

for the program.

Ju st one final point on Sta te delegation. As a matt er of practicality as well as 

philosophy, I am personally com mitted to the principle of encouraging and enabling the states to assert the maximum autho rity and responsibility of which 

the y are capable in th e achie vement of public policy objectives.

As Members of this Com mittee are well aware, th at ’s n ot just a line I came up 

with for this occasion, in th at I authored the State Certification amendment to 

the Title II construction grants program. Th at experience has dem onstrated as 

nothing else could the fact th at when we get into the field of Federal-State relations 

we c an’t legislate by label. In this particu lar case, th at provision had the benefit 

of exha ustive scrutin y by the Public Works Investigations Subcommittee, and 

extensive consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and—most 

important—with the water pollution control adm inistrators in the various states 

themselves. Drafts and re-d rafts were considered, to the point where the final 

pro duct specifically enumerated the functions to be delegated, provided fund ing 

to do the job, and assured judic ial review with respect to the Administrator’s 

dete rmin ation of st ate capa bility to assume delegated powers and responsibilities.

Similarly, I would have no objection to having this principle embodied in the 

Cleveland-IIarsha amendment, with the cave at th at standa rds and criteria be 

spelled out and Federal oversight assured. That, I submit, would be a far cry 

from the Wright amendment in its current form. Rathe r than the Wright amendmen t, a delegation modeled on the 402 discharge permit system would be 

far preferable.

In urging your consideratio n of the Cleveland-IIarsha approach, I would suggest th at I have some credentials in addition to auth orsh ip of S tate Certification. 

And I ’m not talking abo ut membership on the National Commission on Water 

Quality. What I am talking abo ut is the fact th at as much as any Member of th e 

House, I have been outspoken in my opposition to the excesses of the Federal 

bureaucracy—b oth the reach of regulation and the manner of its exercise.
587

State of Vermont,

Department of Highways,

Office of the Commissioner,

Montpelier, Vt., Jun e 22, 1976.

lio n. Patrick J. Leaiiy,

U.S. Senate,

Senate Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Leahy: We are in favor of t he passage of the Wright Amendment to 11.R. 9560 which the House has redesignated as S. 2710. This bill would 

define “navigable waters” in part as “all waters which are presently used or are 

susceptible to use in the ir natural conditions or by reasonable improvement as a 

means to transp ort intersta te or foreign commerce shoreward to the ir ordinary 

high water ma rk” and would be a grea t im provement over the existing three phase 

program which leads to unnecessary duplication of Sta te and Federal permit 

procedures. We are already required by Sta te Statu te to coordinate all highway 

involvement with lakes, stream s, or rivers with the Vermont Department of Water 

Resources and Vermont Dep artm ent of Fish and Game. This bill would also provide flexibility since the Secretary of the Army and the Governor of this Sta te 

could en ter into a join t agreement concerning th e regulation of discharges on those 

projects of extrem e ecological and environm enta l importance (Sec. 17(f)) which 

are not on navigable waters, while at the same time not unnecessarily delaying 

other projects which are already subject to sta te controls.

We also feel tha t a more definitive sta te-by-state definition of “navigable wa ters” 

should be presented to eliminate any possible misunderstanding. We would recommend th at in Vermont the “navigable waters” referred to in S. 2710 be defined as 

the Connecticut River, Lake Champlain, and Lake Memphremagog and the ir 

major tributaries up to their first dams.

The imp act of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act will be 

serious to our state and town road building program. It unnecessarily delays the 

advertising of projects for bid which is a critical factor in Vermont due to our 

short construction season. It has also added unnecessarily to our engineering and 

adm inistrative costs.

For y our inform ation we are enclosing a copy of a lett er with attach me nts th at 

we are sending to M r. Henrick Stafseth, Executive Director of th e American Association of Sta te Highway and Tra nsportatio n Officials.

Very truly yours,

Arthur A. Ristau, Acting Commissioner.

State of Vermont, 

Department of Highways,

Montpelier, Vt., Jun e 22, 1976.

Henrick Stafseth,

Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, Washington, D.C.

Dear M r. Staf set h: As requested, we are enclosing a copy of the questio nnaire 

on perm its for section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as distributed in your mailing of June 11, 1976. We feel th at S. 2710 which incorporates 

the Wright Amendment to II. R. 9560 a nd defines “navigable waters” in part as 

“all waters which are presently used or are susceptible to use in their natur al 

conditions or by reasonable improvem ent as a means to transp ort inters tate or 

foreign commerce shoreward to their ordinary high water ma rk,” would be a 

grea t improvement over the existing th ree phase program, which leads to unnecessary duplication of Sta te and Federal permit procedures. In Vermont, we are 

alrea dy required by State Statu te to coordinate all highway involvement with 

lakes, streams, or rivers with the Vermont Departme nt of Water Resources and 

Vermont Depar tment of Fish and Game. This bill would also provide flexibility 

since the Secretary of the Army and the Governor of this State could enter into 

a joint agreement concerning the regulation of discharges on these projects of 

extreme ecological and environmental importance (Sec. 17(f)) which are not on 

navigable waters, while a t the same time no t unnecessarily delaying other projects 

which are already subject to state controls.

7 6 -1 6 1— 71 ■38
588

We also feel th at a more definitive state-by-state definition of “navigable 

waters” should be presented to eliminate any possible misunderstanding. We 

would recommend th at in Vermont the “navigable waters” referred to in S. 2710 

be defined as the Connecticut River, Lake Champlain, and Lake Memphremagog 

and their major tributaries up to their first dams.

We have been working with the Corps of Engineers on a general permit for 

minor roadway modification projects for the existing three phase program. However, the general perm it program will still require notification and approval by 

the Corps of Engineers before work can be initiated .

For your information, we are enclosing a copy of a lette r that we are sending 

to Senator Leahy and Senator Stafford.

Tha nk you for your invitation to comment on this bill.

Very trul y yours,

Ar th u r A. R is ta u , Acting Commissioner. Enclosure.

A m er ic an Asso cia tio n o f Sta te H ig hw ay an d T r a n spo r ta tio n O ffic ia l s

Q U E ST IO N N A IR E ON P E R M IT S FO R D IS CH A RGE O F D R ED G E D OR F IL L M A TER IA L 

U N D ER SEC TIO N 404 O F T H E F E D E R A L W A TER PO L L U T IO N CONTROL AC T

1. Please list the number of permits under sec. 404 of the FWPCA which you 

anticip ate will be required for highway projects under Phase II of the Corps’ 

regulations, which covers prim ary trib utaries of navigable waters, wetlands 

adjacent to prim ary tribu taries, and lakes of 5 acres or more.

Eighty four—This is an estima te based on the following:

(1) Status Report, applications to the Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard 

(attached ).

(2) Town Highway Bridge Program.

(3) Sta te System Bridge Improvement Program.

Since Phase II applicab ility determination s for projects in 2 and 3 have not 

been completed, this is an estim ate.

2. Please describe, briefly, any activities for which you have sought general 

permits.

Minor Roadway Modification Projects.

(1) Culverts—Fills less th an 25cy to ordinary high water.

(2) Small Bridges—Fills less tha n 500cy to ordinary high water and also with 

less than 400 feet of shoreline alteration.

(3) Shoulder Widening—Less tha n 3cy of fill per linear foot of existing roadway.

See Attachm ents: (1) General Permit Clarifications; (2) Jurisdictional Map; 

(3) Proposed General Perm it.

3. Please relate the s tat us of all applications for general permits.

(1) The Corps of Engineers prepared Proposed General Permit #GP -76-002.

(2) On May 24, 1976, the Proposed General Permit was discussed with responsible state agencies.

(3) Pending approval, the Proposed General Perm it is to be revised.

(4) Prior to issuance of the General Perm it, there is to be an additional commenting period for the Revised Proposed General Perm it.

To: All district engineers via It. O. Munn, Assistant Chief Engineer.

From : E. It. Waibel, Acting Hydraulics Engineer.

Date: May 25, 1976.

Subject: General perm it for activ ities in navigable waters.

On May 24, 1976 R. O. Mun n, W. M. Smith, A. D. Aldrich and I atte nded a 

meeting concerning the above subject. This meeting was conducted by Bill 

Lawless of the New England Division of the Corps of Engineers. A copy of the 

General Permit, including recommended changes, is enclosed. A description of 

the proposed work, including location map and quantities, would still have to 

be forwarded to the Corps of Engineers. Work will not be allowed to begin until 

authorized by the Corps. Although the criterion for issuance of the General 

Perm it was prepared by the New England Division, the same criterion will apply 

for issuance of permits by both divisions. General permit applications will still 

have to be made to either the New England or New York Division of the Corps 

of Engineers (See enclosed jurisdictional map). The Corps also plans to prepare 

a check list which will simplify General Permit applications. Before this revised 

General Perm it may be issued, there must be an additional commenting period.
589

The following clarifications are also a result of this meeting:

1. Clean fill refers to granular material which does not contain organics, rubber, 

or rubbish.

2. The general limit measurement referred to for (1) Culverts; (2) Small 

Bridges and (3) Shoulder Widening, refers to ordinary high water.

3. The applicant will contact the District Highway Engineer. The District 

Highway Engineer will have the added responsibility of notifying the Department 

of Water Resources and Fish and Game Department of all individuals applying 

for General Permits for minor roadway modifications.

4. We will retain our present definition of a bridge (a structure with a span 

over 6'); i.e., a 78" CGM PP would be covered under the Corps of Engineers’ 

requirement No. 2 for small bridges.

5. The 400 feet of shoreline referred to under 2, Small Bridges, also refers to 

lakes, ponds, rivers, brooks, and streams and does not include bridge width, 

(i.e. a project with 100' of channel work above and below a bridge on both sides 

of a brook would be the limit for application for a General Permit.)

6. Channel relocations are not covered under a General Permit, however, 

minor straightening of channels is covered.

7. Special condition ‘C’ refers to each wetland in addition to the other requirements (i.e. if there were three wetland infringements on a project, each would 

have to meet this requirement).

I have consistently advocated elimination or reduction of red tape, citing damage 

to vital, job-creating programs in housing, water pollution control and highways. 

Particularly with respect to highways and I were tne scars to prove it. In the same 

vein, I have been leery of Federal land-use controls, particularly any provision 

tha t would encourage states to override local land-use determinations. And I 

have consistently supported the legitimate interests of the forestry industry in 

my state, a large portion of which is accounted for by the White Mountain National Forest, by opposing ill-considered wilderness proposals.

Against this background, I urge you to consider the approach authored by Bill 

Harsha and myslef, and hope you will share the conviction t hat this approach— 

the principles it embodies—goes far enough b ut not too far, and will do the job.

E x e c u t iv e O f f ic e o f t h e P r e s id e n t,

C o u n c il on E n v ir o n m e n t a l Q u a l it y ,

Washington, D.C., June 18, 1976.

Hon. E dm und M u s k ie ,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r S en a to r M u s k ie : The recently passed amendments to the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) regarding the extent of Corps of Engineer’s regulatory authority under Section 404 raise serious environmental policy 

issues of concern to the Council on Environmental Quality. I want to take this 

opportunity to bring these concerns to your attention.

As stated in two letters of mine to Congressmen Leggett and Forsythe, enclosed, 

the Council strongly opposed the amendment to H.R. 9560 offered by Congressman Breaux which redefined the term “navigable waters.” We did so on the 

grounds th at it would undermine many of the goals and policies declared in the 

FWPCA, that the amendment was unnecessary and the the Breaux amendment 

itself was not subjected to hearings or other public review by Congress. The 

amendment was, of course, not supported by the administration. Instead the 

Council, in accordance with the administration’s position, has supported the 

Cleveland-Harsha amendment to H.R. 9560 that would have established clear 

permit exemption for a range of normal farming and silvicultural activities while 

retaining federal regulatory authority over those activities that would most 

significantly affect the nation’s water quality and water resources.

Unfortunately the House has accepted Congressman Wrright’s amendment 

to H.R. 9560 tha t would substantially curtail this essential federal regulatory 

authority. This new amendment would restrict the federal Section 404 permit 

program to coastal wetlands and to waters tha t are or might be used to transport 

interstate or foreign commerce.

We strongly believe that such an amendment, if accepted by the Senate, 

would constitute a drastic step backwards in the federal efforts under the 

FWPCA “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity 

of the nation’s waters.” Many hundreds of miles of small waterways, and the 

vast inland wetland resources of this nation that provide natural pollution control, will be unregulated and unprotected.
590

The Council is of the opinion th at the Section 404 Program should be given 

a reasonuble chance to develop as presently con stituted with out creating new 

and possibly more onerous problems. We ask the Senate carefully to consider 

the value of this existing program, particu larly when such important ecological 

and economic resources are at stake.

Please let me know if the Council can be of further assistance in this ma tter. 

Sincerely,

R ussell W. Peterson, Chairman.

Executive Office of the President,

Council on Environmental Quality,

Washington, D.C., May 19, 1976. Hon. Robert L. Leggett,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives.

R ashinglon, D.C.

Dear Bob: The Council apprecia tes the opportunity to comment on H .R. 9560 

and the amendment offered by Congressman John Breaux which redefines the 

term “navigable waters” in section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act. The Council strongly opposes the Breaux amen dment, for several reasons.

First, the ame ndment would undermine many of the goals and policies declared in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 101(a) states, “the 

objec tive of this act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological 

inte grity of the nation ’s waters .” The proposed amendment, however, would 

remove existing federal control over an estim ated 85% of the nation ’s water and 

wetland resources. It would permit unrestricted dumping of contaminated dredge 

spoils and fill materials into any waters except the few which are currently used 

for commercial transpo rtation. At the same time the amen dment would drastically 

reduce federal autho rity to manage the wetland resources th at have critical 

ecological and economic importance to the nation. In short, the amendment would 

eliminate an effective program of regulating new environmental insults to the 

qua lity of the nation’s waters and wetlands.

Second, the amendment is unnecessary. The Corps of Engineers has adeq uate 

autho rity both to prescribe regulations w’hich reasonably regulate dredge and fill 

activities in waters and wetlands, and to amend its regulations if they appear 

overly broad or adm inistratively cumbersome. In fact, the Corps’ July 25, 1975 

regulations are sta ted to be interim regulations pending development of a final program with reasonable scope th at can be implemented in an orderly manner. 

In the development of its dredge and fill program, the Corps has made considerable efforts to obtain public review of, and comments on its program proposals. 

In view of these sub stan tial and ongoing efforts to elicit and respond to public 

comment, we believe th at congressional redefinition of the program is not needed 

and would, in fact, be prem ature.

Third, the Breaux ame ndment itself has not been subject to hearings or other 

public review by Congress. Such a drastic change in the scope of the Corps’ 404 

program should not be und ertake n so a bru ptly and with so little opp ortunity for 

public comment.

In summary, the Council believes th at the section 404 program as presently 

con stituted should be given a chance to prove its capa bility to meet the needs on 

which it is focused w ithout creating new problems. There should not be precipitous 

action when important ecological and economic resources are at stake.

Please let me know if the Council can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Russell W. Peterson,

Chairman.

Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary,

„ , Washington, D.C., August 17, 1976. Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

U.S. Senate.

Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested in your lette r of July 15, 1976, we are 

pleased to provide the views of the Depar tment of Agriculture on the interpretation s and implementation of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500).
591

The Department has expressed many concerns with the Corps of Engineers’ 

July 25, 1975, regulations including the Federal land-use control aspects and the 

potential for adverse impacts on the sustained production of food, fiber, and forest 

products.

The Administration’s proposed legislative change to section 404, which was 

transm itted to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Army, Martin R. Hoffmann, on August 11, 1976, 

recognizes this Department’s concerns about the adverse impacts on the production of food, fiber, and forest products. Proposed subsection (o) would exempt normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities from the discharge permit 

requirements of section 404. Although the proposal retains the broad definition of 

navigable waters, subsection (p) would eliminate the need for permits for the discharge of dredged and fill materials on lands currently used for farming, ranching, 

and forestry if th e discharge is directly related to th e production of food, fiber, or 

forest products.

The Administration’s proposal does not address all concerns th at have been expressed by this Department. Nevertheless, in our view the proposal strikes a 

reasonable balance between the Nation’s efforts toward water quality improvement and its need for sustained production of food, fiber, and forest products. 

The Department, therefore, supports prompt enactment of the proposed amendments.

The Office of Management and Budget advises tha t the presentation of this 

report is in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely,

Richard E. Bell,

Acting Secretary.

The Secretart of Transportation,

WasAin(rton, D.C., July 28, 1976.

Hon. J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate, W ashington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Randolph: This letter is in response to your request for the 

Department’s views on the proposed amendment to Section 404 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as contained in Section 16 of S. 2710. 

This amendment would significantly alter the permit program administered by 

the Corps of Engineers under the present Section 404.

As you are quite aware, Section 404 has broad and important application to a 

wide variety of programs, and involves many Federal agencies. We are presently 

in the process of discussing the amendment with other involved Federal agencies, 

with the objective of understanding better their perspective and the implication 

of any amendment on their programs. At this time we can offer only general 

comments about those concerns tha t are especially important to the programs of 

the Department of Transportation.

We believe tha t the following issues should be addressed in any determination 

on this issue:

(1) We must make a concerted effort to avoid any unnecessary and costly 

duplication in our governmental processes. As presently written, Section 404 

presents the possibility of substantial duplication for highway, rail, and other 

transportation projects. Under the present Section 404 a federal or federally 

assisted transportation project tha t has been the subject of an environmental 

impact statem ent that complies with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and tha t also addresses the water quality impact of a project 

is once again reviewed by the Corps pursuant to Section 404. This could involve 

a great duplication of effort by federal and state agencies, and could also impose 

additional costs and delays upon applicants. This problem may occur in any of 

the areas under this Department’s jurisdiction whether it be a highway, rail, 

aviation, or water project.

By way of example, the Federal Highway Administration recently conducted 

a survey of State highway agencies to determine present and anticipated permit 

activities and problems. This survey indicated tha t, as of June 1, 540 permit 

applications for highway work have been submitted to the Corps of Engineers 

since July 1, 1975, and only 90 permits have been issued. It is anticipated that 

1,700 additional high way-related permits will be needed annually under Phase II 

of the existing Section 404 regulations. The preparation of a permit application 

requires about 40 man hours. This represents 2,240 man weeks of highway agency
592

time just to prepare permit applications for Phases I and II. Several Sta te highway 

agencies have p ermit applications which have been outstan ding for up to 8 months, 

and in some cases, the Corps of Engineers does not issue a Public Notice of the 

application for a period of 5 to 6 months. As the program enters Phase II and the 

number of perm it applications increase, delays will undo ubte dly become longer 

and begin to disproportionately influence program scheduling. We believe th at 

there must be closer coordination between the NEPA and Section 404 processes.

(2) Although we believe t ha t the present Section 404 may be in need of change, 

we also very firmly believe th at any amendment must be accomplished in such a 

way as to preserve the benefits and protections of the FWPCA and th at we should 

not adopt a procedure th at will affect adversely the qua lity of our nation’s 

waters and wetlands.

(3) The approach of using general perm its offers some significant potential 

for alleviating some of the problems encountered to date with Section 404, bu t 

to date this potential has not been developed. The only general perm it which has 

been issued for highways severely limits fills for culvert and bridge construction . 

Since administration of the perm it program is delegated to 37 Corps distric t 

offices, a wide divergence exists in implementing the general perm it provision. 

Some of the Corps districts have indicated th at no general permits will be issued 

for highway work, while others have placed severe limitations on the scope of 

work and geographic coverage of proposed general permits.

(4) We also believe th at any amendment should not add to the existing confusion about the definition of navigable waters and the jurisdiction of the various 

agencies on navigable waters. As you may be aware, we are presently working to 

review and analyze the various definitions of navigable waters. The definition 

proposed by Section 16 is not the trad itional definition of navigable waters, and 

the adoption of Section 16 would result in having two definitions of navigable 

waters in the FWPCA, neither of which is the trad itio nal one. Furth ermore, we 

would hope th at any ame ndment would be carefully coordinated with other 

sections of the FWPCA, such as Section 402, and avoid complicating the interpretation of other acts such as the Rivers and Harbors Act. Under present law 

there may be instances where a federal perm it is required for a bridge bu t Section 

16, as presently drafted, would not require a permit for the discharge of materials 

from the bridge construction site. Similarly, if Section 16 were adopted the discharge of pollutan ts (defined to include dredged spoil, rock, and sand) would 

still be regulated in the broad waters of the United States pur suant to Section 

402 b ut the discharge of dredged and fill material would only be regulated in a 

narrow class of waters.

Again, we hope th at these comments are helpful.

Sincerely,

William T. Coleman, Jr.

The Resources Agency of California,

Sacramento, Calif., J uly 15, 1976.

Mr. J ohn Freshman,

Senate Public Works Committee,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Freshman: I have enclosed for your information a copy of an 

analysis of Section 16 of S. 2710. As the analysis points out, there are serious 

ambiguities in the language of th at section. Most serious, perhaps, is the redefinition of “navigable waters” subject to federal jurisdiction, because the 

definition omits historically navigable waters. This could result in significant 

reduction of th e areas now subje ct to federal jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 10 

of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889. Ambiguities in the Wright ame ndment 

may affect enforcement of other sections of th e Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act, insofar as they rela te to pollution resulting from the discharge of dredged 

and fill materials. The exemption of federal projects is ill-advised because there 

is no c erta inty th at an EIS or EAR will result in th e same environmental protection now afforded by Section 404.

The atta che d letter to Senator Cranston sets forth the State ’s position with 

respect to th e Wright Amendment and Section 404. We believe th at the FWP CA 

should not be sub stan tially amended to weaken Section 404.

Sincerely,

John Kramer,

Assistant to the Secretary. Enclosures.
593

T he Resources Agency of California,

Sacramento, Calif., July 13, 1976.

Hon. Alan Cranston,

U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,

H ashington, D.C.

Subject: Section 16 of S. 2710.

Dear Senator Cranston: Section 16 of S. 2710, also known as the “ Wright 

Amendment” , would substantially impair federal protectio n of wetlands. Section 

404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 requires a Corps of En ­

gineers’ perm it for the disposal of dredge spoil or fill materials in the navigable 

waters of the United States. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Calloway held th at Section 404 must be construed as broadly as possible under the Constitution 

to apply to the waters of th e United State s. In response to th e NRDC v. Calloway case, the Corps of Engineers adopted regulations on July 25, 1975, which include 

a broad definition of navigable waters. The Resources Agency has supported the 

approach taken by these regulations.

Section 1G of S. 2710 would amend Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972 to require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ perm its for the 

disposal of dredge spoil or fill material only in tidal waters, in inland w'aters 

carry ing or capable of carrying commercial navigation, and in “a djacent 

wetlands”. Section 16 would also remove sub stantial areas from protection under 

Sections 9 and 10 of the Rive rs and Harbors Act of 1899. I have enclosed for your 

inform ation an analysis of Section 1G which was prepared by John Kramer, a 

member of the Resources Agency staff.

As the analysis shows, the effects of Section 1G on the adm inistration of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

could be significant because it contains serious ambiguities, and its effect on 

existing law is uncertain. Among the uncertainties discussed in the enclosed 

analysis are the following:

1. The definition of “navigable wate rs” for which perm its would be required 

for the discharge of dredge spoil or fill material excludes historically navigable 

waters and historical marshlands. This would remove Corps’ jurisdiction over fill 

activ ities from subs tantial amounts of former m arshlands which would be subject 

to tida l action tod ay bu t for the construction of dikes or levees. Historically 

navigable inland waters could also be so exempted from the requirements of Section 

9 or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

2. Section 1G could substantially restric t the application of Section 404, notwithstanding recent federal court opinions th at Section 404 and other provisions 

of the FWPCA should be construed broadly.

3. The effect of Section 16 on other water q uality control programs is uncertain. 

It could impair the ability of the Corps and the EPA to regulate environm ental 

pollution resulting from the disposal of dredged or fill material under other applicable sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

4. Section 16 would exempt many federal projects and federally financed 

projects from the permit requirements of Section 404.

5. The Corps could delegate regulatory autho rity over "ad jacent wetlands” 

to states, bu t the Corps would be required to regu late in “navigable waters” . 

Bifurcating regulatory au tho rity over a water body and its adjacent wetlands is 

ecologically unsound.

6. Section 16 provides no ade quate standa rds for delegating regulatory authority 

to the states.

I would like to call your attention to a suggested ame ndm ent to Section 404 

which is set forth on the last page of th e analysis. If clarification of Section 404’s 

application to agricu lture, ranc hing and silviculture is found to be necessary, we 

believe tha t th e approach tak en by the suggested amendm ent is preferable to Section 16. The suggested ame ndm ent avoids Section 16’s ambiguities which could 

impair water qua lity programs man dated by other sections of the FWPCA.

Section 16 was proposed and am ended into S. 2710 without the benefit of public 

hearings. We understand th at the Senate Public Works Committe e may hold 

hearings late r this month, and we welcome this development. The Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act should not be drastically altered withou t th e benefit of public 

hearings and careful drafting. We support the current requiremen ts of Section 404 

and believe th at they should not be weakened. The auth oriz atio ns proposed in S. 

2710 should be adopted withou t amending Section 404.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Weatherford,

Deputy Secretary for Resources.

Enclosure.
594

Analysis of Section 16 of S. 2710—The “Wright Amendment”

(By John Kramer)

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

S. 2710 extends certain grant auth orizations under the Federal Water Pollution 

Act of 1972. Section 16 of that bill incorporates an ame ndment to H.R. 9560 proposed on the House floor by Congressman James C. Wright of Texas. II.R. 9560 

was an auth orizations bill similar to S. 2710.

When H.R . 9560 was heard in the House Public Works Committee, an amendment proposed by Congressman Breaux of Louisiana was adopted. The Breaux 

amendmen t would have severely restricted Corps of Engineers regulation of 

dredge or fill activities by limiting jurisdiction to tida l wate rs and waterways 

carry ing inte rstate commerce. When H.R . 9560 was debated in the House, Congressman Wright offered another amendm ent retaining the language of th e Breaux 

amendment, but extending Corps jurisdiction to adjacent wetlands. H.R . 9560, 

including the Wright Amendment, was then amended into S. 2710 and passed 

out by the House on Jun e 3, 1976. A copy of the Wright Amendment is atta ched. 

This analysis considers some of the effects of the Wright Amendment and some of 

the ambiguities in its language.

The declared purpose of the Wright Amendment to Section 404 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is to limit Corps perm its for disposal of 

dredged or fill material to navigable waterways and adjacent or contiguous wetlands. However, it also alters the general federal definition of navigability, and it 

also limits the application of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and other sections of the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act.

BACKGROUND FACTS

As a part of the comprehensive program for the protection of the natio n’s 

water resources set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 

Congress required regulation of dredge or fill activ ities in the nation ’s watersSection 404 of the FVVPCA requires a perm it from the U.S. Army Corps of E ngi ­

neers for the disposal of dredged or fill mate rial in the navigable waters of the 

United States.

The Corps originally inte rpreted Section 404 to apply only to tida l waters and 

inland waters th at carry, could carry or did once carry commercial navigation. 

The National Resources Defense Council successfully challenged this interp retati on in NRD C v. Calloway. The District of Columbia District Court held on 

March 27, 1975, th at Section 404 must be construed as broadly as possible under 

the Constitution to apply to “the waters of the United Sta tes,” which is the 

definition of “navigable waters” in Section 502(8) of the FWPCA. On May 6, 

1975, the Corps proposed four alternativ e sets of regulations which ranged from 

broad to limited inte rpretations of Section 404. The Corps of Engineers’ press 

release accompanying these proposed regulations announced th at a broad interpretat ion of Section 404 would require Department of the Army permits for “the 

rancher who wants to enlarge hi3 stock pond, the farmer who wants to deepen an 

irrigation ditch or plow a field, or the mountaineer who wishes to protect his land 

from stream erosion” . In comm enting on these proposed alte rna tive regulations, 

the S tate of California took the position th at broader inte rpretation of Section 404, 

as required by the Nlt DC v. Calloway case, was possible without the extreme 

resu lts suggested by the Corps’ press release.

During July of 1975, the Water Resources Subcommittee of the House Public 

Works Committee held oversight hearings on the four a lter natives proposed by the 

Corps. The Resources Agency of S tate of California testified at these hearings in 

sup port of broad federal jurisdiction under Section 404 and urged an interp retation 

of the term “navigable w aters” similar to th at adopted by the EPA under Section 

402 of the FWPCA. Correcting the M ay 6 press release, Assistant Secreta ry of the 

Army Victor Vesev testified th at “ We must dispel fallacies th at the Corps is 

proposing to regulate a farm er ploughing his field.” The Committe e did not propose any changes to Section 404.

On July 25, 1975, the Corps adopted the regulations which are now in effect. 

These regulations establish a workable and reasonable program for impleme ntation 

of Section 404. Routine agricultural, silvicultural and ranching activities, such as 

plowing, cultivating, seeding, and harvesting, are presently exempted from the 

definition of “fill material” subject to regulation. Routine main tenance of dikes 

and levees and emergency repairs is also exempted. The re gulations also provide for
595

a system of general perm its to be issued by the Corps for routine activities which 

have only a minimal individual and cumulative adverse imp act on the environment. Once a general permit is issued, activ ities within an authorized categ ory 

require no f urther autho rization.

The July 1975 regulations define “navigable waters” subject to Corps jurisdiction to include tida l areas a nd contiguous or a djacen t wetlands, and inland rivers, 

lakes and streams shoreward to their ordinary high water mark. This definition 

includes natura l lakes of more than five acres in area and rivers and their trib utarie s u pstream to th e point where the flow is normally less th an 5 c.f.s. Wetlands 

contiguous or adjacent to such inland waters would also be included.

The regulations provide for a “phase in” of the jurisdiction just described in 

thre e steps over a tw o-year period. Und er Phase I, the Corps immediately assumed 

jurisdiction over tida l waters and inland navigable waters already sub ject to 

Corps’ jurisdiction . Phase II will become effective on July 1, 1976, and will extend 

jurisdiction to the prim ary tributaries of such navigable waters, to contiguous or 

adjacent wetlands and to lakes larger t han 5 acres. Phase II I would extend jurisdiction to all other wate rs subject to Corp s’ jurisdiction under the regulations.

The Corp s’ regulations give the states an opp ortuni ty to assume the prim ary 

role in regulating disposal of dredged or fill material by providing th at the Corps 

will generally defer to sta te environmental regulation. In the absence of overriding national factors of the public interest, the Corps will defer to the sta te 

w’here the state program follows environmental goals and policies similar to those 

set forth in federal sta tutes such as NEPA. Furtherm ore, the regulations allow 

joint state-federal permit applications and hearings.

The Resources Agency of the Sta te of California has supp orted the regulatory 

program set forth in the July 25, 1975 regulations. The balance of this paper will 

describe (a) the possible effects of the Wright Amendment on the system of regulation which the Corps has long admin istered under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899 (dealing generally with work in “navigable waters of th e 

United Sta tes”) ; and (b) the effect of the amendm ent on the system of regulation 

of dredge or fill activities in the “w aters of th e United Sta tes” under Section 404 

of the FWPCA. This discussion will include an estima te of the specific effects 

the Wright Amendment would have on waters within the Sta te of California.

A. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

1. Summary of the Act.— Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (30 

Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) proh ibits construction of any dam or dike 

across any “navigable water of the United Sta tes” in the absence of congressional 

consent and a perm it from the Corps of Engineers. Section 10 proh ibits the 

unauthorized obstruction or alte ration of any navigable water of the United 

States. Section 11 allows the Corps to establish “h arbor lines” beyond which no 

stru ctures or deposits may be placed withou t the consent of the Corps. Section 

13 is commonly known as the “ Refuse Act” . It prohibits discharging any re fill' 

matter , other than liquid sewage, in the navigable waters and their trib utaries .

2. The Wright Amendment may remove historically navigable waters from ju risdiction under the Rivers and Harbors Act, contrary to judicial precedent and prior

administrative construction providing that such waters remain subject to the federal

navigational servitude.—Subsection d( l) of the Wright Amendment would define 

“navigable waters” as wate rs which are presently used or which are susceptible 

to use in the ir natur al condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to 

transp ort intersta te or foreign commerce including tida l waters shoreward to 

their high water mark (mean higher high water mark on the West Coast). Jur isdiction would also extend to wetlands which are contiguous or adjacent to navigable waters as restrictivelv defined by the amendment.

It appears th at the Wright Amendment could remove historically navigable 

wate rs from Corps of Enginee rs’ jurisdiction over alteration s or obstructions of 

navigable wate rs under Sections 9 and 10 of th e Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

where dredged or fill material is deposited in an area previously inunda ted by 

navigable wate rs susceptib le to use as a mean s of carrying intersta te commerce, 

or in an a rea previously subject to the eb b and flow of the tide bu t now p rotected 

from the effects of the tides by dikes or other barriers. Regulations adopted by 

the Corps in 1972 define waters sub ject to Section 10 jurisdiction to include 

inlan d “. . . waters that have been used in the past, are now used or are susceptib le 

to use as a means to tra nspo rt inters tate commerce landward to their ordinary 

high water mark and up to the head of nav igation” . (Emphasis added) Tid al 

waters and estu arine and tida l marshlands, which were at any tim e sub ject to 

inun dation by mean high tide (mean higher high tide on the West Coast) are 

also subjec t to jurisdic tion.
59G

It is clear th at under the commerce clause of the United States Con stitutio n 

the Federal “n avigational servitude” includes waters which were once navigable 

or sub ject to tidal action. United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Company,

311 U.S. 377 (1940), holds th at the Federal navigational serv itud e applies to a 

river even where it is dammed off and no longer capable of carrying intersta te 

commerce. The court said:

“I n our view, it can not properly be said that the Constitu tional power of the 

United States over its waters is limited to control for navigation. By navigation, 

respondent means no more than the operation of boats and improvements of 

the w aterw ay itself. In tru th, the a uth ority of the United States is the regulation 

of commerce on its waters. Navigability in the sense just sta ted is b ut a pa rt of 

this whole. Flood protection, watershed development, recovery of the cost of 

improvement through utilization of power are likewise pa rt of the commerce 

control . . . The point is t ha t navigable waters are subject to national planning 

and control in the broad regulation of commerce granted the Federal Government. 

The license condition to which objection is made have an obvious relationship 

to the exercise of the commerce power. Even if there were no such relationship, 

disciplinary power of Congress over navigable waters would empower it to deny 

the privileges of constructing an obstructio n in those waters. It may likewise 

gran t the privilege on terms . . . The Congressional au tho rity under the commerce clause is complete unless limited by the Fifth Amendment”. 311 U.S. 

377, 401-402.

3. Substantial amounts of former tidelands could be removed from protection under

Section 10 in Northern California.— In the San Francisco Bay area substantial 

areas have in the past been diked off from the Bay. Some of t he areas behind the 

dikes are wet, some are dry part of the year and wet during winter months, while 

others are kept dry most of the time by pumping. Where the areas have not been 

filled, t hey are below th e plane of mean higher high tide. In other words, bu t for 

the dikes, these areas would still be inun date d by tidal action today. Un der 

Public Notice 71-22 and 71-22(a) issued by the Corps’ San Francisco District, 

Section 10 permits are required for all work below th e mean higher high tide line, 

including work in unfilled portions of the interior of diked areas.

Federal jurisdiction over form er tidelands has been upheld by the Un ited S tate s 

District Cou rt in San Francisco. In Leslie Salt Co. v. Froehlke (No. 73 224 WTS; 1976) the Court held th at Corps of Engineer’s jurisdiction extends to land behind 

dikes. The case holds th at no permits are required for dikes which were in existence 

prior to the time th at the Corps prom ulgated Public Notice 71-22, but perm its 

mu st be obtained for any new structure s or fill in such lands. United States v. Stoeco Homes, 498 F.2d 597 (1974), also recognized the application of a Federal 

navigational servitude to former tidelands, bu t it held th at the servitude had 

long since been surrendered as to former tidal marshland supporting streets and 

houses. The Court described this as “fast land” and “im proved solid uplan d” . 

The Court specifically limited its holdings “to marshlands which had become 

fastlan d prior to th e change in policy of the Corps of Engineers” . 489 F.2d a t 611. 

The Leslie Salt Co. v. Froehlke case holds th at Stoeco does not apply to former 

tide lands which are still below mean higher high water bu t not now sub ject to 

the ebb and flow of the tide.

It is difficult to gage the full extent to which the Wright amendment would 

cur tail the Federal navigatio nal servitude, bu t it would appear to be inconsistent with Leslie Salt Co. v. Froehlke and other cases applying the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899 to historic tidelands. It would also appear to und erc ut 

precedents such as U.S. v. Appalachian Electric Power Company, supra, at leas t as those precedents apply to the 1899 Act.

There is no comprehensive survey establishing the total acreage of tidal marshlands and former marshlands now removed from tidal influence. A paper accompanying a map of the historic marshlands in San Francisco Bay, prep ared by 

Donald Nichols and Nancy Wright contains some good estim ates. In the mid1800’s the water surface of San Francisco Bay, to the outer marsh edge covered 

476 squa re miles. Today, the water surface is 423 square miles. Historically, 

marshlands marginal to the Bay covered as much as 313 miles. Today, marshlands consist of 125 square miles. Salt evaporation ponds cover 63 sq uare miles 

(40,000 acres) of former marshland. Of the remaining 125 squa re miles, a substantial, bu t unknown, amount of marshland is diked off and not subject to the 

direct influence of th e tides. For example, much of the Suisun marsh is inund ated 

by salt or brackish water, bu t m uch of its surface area is regulate d by dikes. Land 

belonging to gun clubs may be dry in the summer and inunda ted during the fall 

and winter. A 1962 report of the California Dep artm ent of Fish and Game esti-
mates th at there are 49,500 acres of leveed land in San Pablo Bay and 63,100 

acres of such land in Suisun Bay. There are at least 10,000 acres of leveed marshland outside San Francisco Bay, located at Hum boldt Bay, San Diego Bay, 

Elkhorn Slough, and Bolsa Chica Lagoon.

The Wright Amendment could remove a substantial portion of the above 

areas from jurisdiction under Section 10 and Section 404. Section 10 would no 

longer apply to historic marshland, and it would be difficult to characterize diked 

off land which is not inun date d or supporting aqu atic vegetation as “w aters” or 

“adjacent wetlands”. The application of Section 10 and Section 404 to managed 

wetlands and saltponds would be uncertain.

4. The Wright Amendment would not retain jurisdiction over freshwater wetlands

contiguous or adjacent to tidal areas.— Subsection (d)(2)(A) defines coastal we tlands as areas periodically inunda ted by saline or brackish waters. This definition 

excludes fresh water wetla nds which may be adjacent to tidal areas. Some of the 

former marshlands which have been diked off are periodically inunda ted by rainwater runoff so t hat at least during parts of the year a fresh water wetland may 

exist adjacent to tide water. These areas provide valuable ha bitat and resting 

areas for wild fowl.

B. Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972

1. Water now covered by Section 404-—The regulations adopted by the Corps of 

Engineers on July 25, 1975, require a permit for the disposal of dredged or fill 

mate rial in “navigable waters” . Section 502 of the FWPCA defines “navigable 

waters” simply as “th e wate rs of the Un ited States, including the te rritorial seas” . 

The July 1975 regulations provide th at waters of the United States include:

(a) those w aters to which the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 applies;

(b) all coastal wetlands, mudflats, swamps, and similar areas th at are contiguous or adjac ent to other navigable wate rs;

(c) navigable rivers, lakes and streams;

(d) artificially c reate d channels and canals;

(e) trib utaries of navigable waters;

(f) interstate w aters :

(g) inters tate rivers, lakes and strea ms utilized by inters tate travelers for 

recreational purposes, for the removal of fish sold in inters tate commerce, 

for indu strial purposes by industries in inters tate commerce, or in the production of agricultural commodities sold or tran spo rted in inter sta te 

commerce;

(h) freshwater wetlands contiguous or adjacent to other navigable waters;

(i) other wate rs and perched wetlands which the District Engineer de termines necessitate regulation for the protection of water quality.

This definition is similar to the EPA definition of navigable waters p rom ulgated 

under Section 402 of the FWPCA.

The Wright Amendment, by comparison, would restric t Section 404 jurisd iction 

essentially to coastal tidclands and rivers carrying commercial shipping and to 

their “ad jacent wetland s” . This omits coastal wetla nds not contiguous or adjacent 

to tidclands, freshwater wetlands which are contiguous or adjacent to tide land 

waters, and freshwater wetlands which arc not contiguous or adjacent to oth er 

inland waters now covered by the Section 404 regulations.

2. The effect of inland waters now covered in California.— A major portion of 

California’s wetlands—approximately 60 percen t—consist of freshwater an d inland 

marshes which arc adjacent to streams not now “navigable” (in the narrow sense 

of floatability) or which lie above the ordinary high water mark of navigable 

streams. These areas are covered under the July 1975 regulations bu t would be 

withdrawn from regulation under the Wright Amendment.

Enactment of the Wright Amendment may thus eliminate Section 404 jurisdiction from most of the wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley which amoun t to 

approximately 100,000 acres, largely within the grasslands area. Here there are 

hundreds of natural perm ane nt ponds and marshes which provide one of the most 

imp ortant water habit ats in California. In the Sacramento Valley, Section 404 

jurisdiction could be removed from approximate ly 50,000 acres of privately 

owned wetlands, the largest tra ct being in the Butte Basin. The Sacramento and 

San Joaq uin Valleys are majo r wintering areas for waterfowl. Approximately 

40,000 privately owned acres of marshes, lakes and potholes within the Kla math 

Pit Plateau could be removed from Corp s’ jurisdiction. Furtherm ore, the Wright 

Amendment would remove Corps’ jurisdiction over approximate ly 1,000 lakes 

and reservoirs which cover approximate ly 800,000 acres. This would include the 

Salton Sea and Clear Lake. Fills for real estate developments, marinas and com-
598

mercial establishments have already destroyed considerable marshland along the 

shores of Clear Lake with consequent im pairment of waterfowl and bass spawning 

habitat.

3. The Wright amendment may remove all federal regulation of pollution from

dredge or fill material discharged in waters other than coastal waters and ship channels.—a. Regulation under other sections of the FWPCA may be impeded. Subsections (h) and (e) have serious ambiguities. Both could result in a sub stantial 

num ber of discharges being entirely removed from regulation under any provision 

of the FWPCA. Subsections (h) and (e) contain language which states th at the 

discharge of dredge or fill material in waters other tha n navigable waters (as 

restrictively defined) “is not prohibited, by, or otherwise subject to regulation 

und er this Act” . These sections could cause serious difficulties in interpreting 

oth er sections of the FWPCA. If a discharge of dredged or fill material contains 

pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides or salts, it may be difficult to regulate 

it. The term “this Act” may exem pt such discharges from oth er sections of the 

FWPCA such as Section 307 and 401 and 402.

b. Other sections of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 would not apply.

Subsection (e) would exempt discharges in non-navigable waters (under the 

new definition) from regulation und er the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Such 

discharges would be exempted in historically navigable waters, since they are 

not included in the definition of “navigable waters’’ under the Wright Amendmen t. Notwith standing the holding of the old appalachian Power case and rela ted cases which impose the federal navigation servitude on historically navigable 

waters, Subsection (e) gives color to the argument th at historically navigable 

wate rs could be filled or dammed without a Corps permit under terms of the 

Wright Amendment.

4. Federal projects would be excluded from Section 404-—Subsection (1) of the 

\\ rig ht Amendment excludes all discharges of dredge or fill mate rial made in 

connection with a federal or federally-assisted project auth oriz ed by Congress, so 

long as th e effects of such a discharge were considered in an environmental imp act 

sta temen t or environmental assessm ent, and such sta tem ent or assessment was 

sub mitted to Congress in connection w ith authorization or fund ing for the projec t. 

This is a s ubstantial exception. Many landfill and recla mation projects have been 

carried out by the Federal Governm ent or th ey have involved financial assistance 

authorized by Congress. It is possible th at an EIS on a major project migh t refer 

briefly to dredge or fill activities which are a p art of the p roject, bu t if no specific 

disposal site had been designated, there would be no significant environm ental 

review of the effects of the disposal. However, the project could proceed nonetheless, unregulated.

The Corps of Engineers’ permit process provides an important means for 

sta tes and local governments to comm ent on federal projects. Elim inating the 

Corps’ public notice on federal projects would significantly reduce the opp ortu nity 

for states, and particu larly for local agencies, to review and comment.

5. The joint agreement provision is ambiguous.—Subsection (f) of the Wright 

Amendment allows the governor of a sta te and the Chief of Engineers to enter 

into a joint agreement th at the discharge of dredged or fill material in wate rs 

oth er tha n navigable wate rs should be regulate d by the Corps of Engineers. 

The standard for inclusion of certain waters within such an agreement would be 

“ecological and environm ental importance of such waters”. This section does not 

solve the problems posed by the Wright Amendment. It is n ot clear whether th e 

Corps must accept the state’s view of whether additional wate rs to be regulated 

hav e a ppropriate “ ecological and environm ental importa nce ”. Thus, Corps’ jurisdiction could possibly not be expa nded unless both the state and the Chief of 

Engineers agree. Furthermore, this agreement would be revocable at the option 

of the Corps or the governor, so it provides no certainty of continuity of the 

regulatory program. Finally, the re is the question of wheth er such an agreement 

would be subjec t to judicial review in the event private in tere sts, or other governmental entities, disputed the Corps and governor’s “findings” as to whether 

given areas are ecologically important. It is n ot clear wheth er such an agreement 

could exten d jurisdiction to all areas now covered by Section 10 of the 1899 Act.

G. No standards are provided for delegation to stales of jurisdiction over “adjacent

wetlands”.—Subsection (j) of the Wright Amendment auth orizes the Corps to 

delegate to a stat e upon its r equest, any or all of the Corps’ Section 404 responsibilities in adjacent wetlands. This Section provides almost no stand ard s to govern 

such a delegation. The Chief of Engineers may delegate to a s tate if he finds th at 

the sta te has “the author ity, responsibility and cap ability” to regulate wetla nds, 

and if he finds th at such a deleg ation is in “t he public interest” . This section
provides no signific ant stan dards or criteria for the ad equacy of a s tate regulatory 

program nor does it con tain requirem ents for procedures similar to the Corps’ 

public notice. Thus, it would not require inp ut from other affected st ate s or local 

governments. Furthermo re, there are no ade quate sta ndard s or cond itions governing revocation of a delegation . T he Corps would a ppare ntly be left to in ter pret 

in a new set of regulations the conditions upon which the Corps would see fit to 

delegate to a s tate or possibly revoke such a delegation.

7. Separating “navigable waters” from “adjacent wetlands” is ecologically unsound

and impractical.—Subsection (j) carries further the artificial bifurcation of “adjacent wetlands” from “nav igable wate rs” . The Corps would be required to retain 

404 and Section 10 jurisdiction over navigable waters bu t it could delegate its 

jurisdicti on to states over any “ad jacent wetlands”. While water bodies and

their peripheral wetlands are a single ecosystem, there is no certainty under 

Subsection (j) th at the regulatory approaches tak en by the Corps and a sta te 

would be consistent. Furthermore, the lack of stand ard s in the delegation section 

poses the risk of inconsistent regulation of a single wetland ecosystem by a dja cent 

sta tes as well as by the s tate and federal governments.

8. The Wright Amendment could unduly limit EPA’s participation in the program

for protecting the nation’s waters from effects of disposal of dredge or fill material.—

The Subsection (j) delegation procedure is inconsistent with the approach to 

delegation taken in Section 402 of the FWPCA. Under Section 402, EPA has 

substan tially grea ter responsibilities for assuring adequate state crite ria under 

Sections 208(e) and 402 governing water quality permits. (See e.g. Sections 

402(d)(2) and 304(f)-(h).) While Section 404 now requires th e EPA to coordinate 

with the Corps on the regulation of the disposal of dredged and fill material, 

there is no provision in the Wright Amendment to assure th at the EPA be consulted prior to a delegation or have any other role in the delegation process.

C. Importance of Corps Regulation to the State

Wetlands play a critical role in the life cycles of migrator}' waterfowl. Coastal 

wetlands and diked-off areas provide resting and feeding areas for thousands of 

waterfowl. Wetlands in the Sacram ento and San Joaquin Valleys are wintering 

grounds for thou sands of ducks, geese, and swrans. Many of the diked-off tidelands, even though removed from tidal action, have not been filled or developed 

other tha n for pasture or salt production. Portions of these former tidelands are 

often seasonally flooded by run-off or seepage and they too provide feeding, 

resting and nesting areas. Wetlands are also important spawning grounds for 

many species of fish and shellfish th at are taken by sportsmen and commercial 

fishermen. Commercial fishing is a $100 million industry in California. Last 

year 2)4 million sports fishing licenses were issued.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 661 ets eq.) requires 

th at agencies of the United States, including the Corps of Engineers, consult 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and responsible state fish and game 

officials on any proposed modification of a water body. The State of California 

has achieved significant protection of its wildlife resources thro ugh permits 

issued by the Corps of Engineers. In 1974, the California Departme nt of Fish 

and Game reviewed 558 Corps perm it applications. In 1975, the Departme nt of 

Fish and Game reviewed 450 applications. The comments of the Departme nt 

include, as appropriate, measures necessary to preserve significant wetlands 

habitat. This comm enting process has enabled the Sta te to achieve significant 

protectio n of its wildlife resources while insuring at the same time, th at development compatible w ith these goals can proceed.

D. Summary and Recommendations

1. Summary.— The Wright Amendment would res tric t implementation of the 

second and thir d phases of Corps’ jurisdiction un der the July 25, 1975, regulations. 

It contains many ambiguities and uncertainties which in addition may severely 

restric t other federal regulatory programs under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. U nder the Wright A mendm ent, 

Section 10 would not apply to historic tidelands and this could remove a sub stantial 

amount of former tide land and marshland from jurisdiction in the San Francisco 

and N orth Coastal areas alone. The Wright Amendment would also leave o ut s ubstantial amounts of freshwater wetlands. Furthermore, a statutory definition of 

“adjacent wetlands” sep ara te from “navigable waters” appears to be environmen tally questionable, especially where each could be subject to regulation by 

different agencies.
600

2. Recommended amendment if any legislation is considered necessary.—There is an arguable need to clarify the intent as prese ntly set forth in the Corps regulations th at Section 404 is not inte nded to apply to routine agric ultural and silvicultura l operations, except reclamation or conversion of wetlands. However, the 

exemption in the Wright Amendment could remove these activities entirely from 

the FWPCA, regardless of th eir effects on w ater quality.

A more appropriate amendmen t to Section 404 would read as follows:

“ No perm it shall be required under this section for disposal of dredge or fill 

material (1) resulting from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities 

such as plowing, cultivating, seeding, and harvesting for the production of food, 

fiber, and forest products; (2) placed for the purpose of maintenance, including 

emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts of currently serviceable 

structure s such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, rip-rap, and breakwaters, causeways and bridge abutme nts or approaches and transp ortation structure s; or 

(3) placed for the purpose of con struction or maintenance of farm ponds and stock 

ponds and irrigation ditches and for the m aintenance of drainage ditches’’.

This amen dment would make it clear th at routine agricultural ranching and 

silvicultu ral operations would not require Section 404 perm its without bringing 

into question the application of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or other sections of the FWPCA.

AP PE ND IX

T h e W e ig h t A m en d m en t

P E R M IT S FO R D RED GED OR F IL L M A T ER IA L

Sec. 16. (a) Subsection (a) of section 404 of the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding immediately afte r “navigable 

waters” the following: “an d adjace nt wetlands” .

(b) Such section 404 is furth er amended by adding at the end thereof the 

following new subsections:

“ (d)(1) The term ‘navigable wate rs’ as used in this section shall mean all 

wate rs which are prese ntly used, or are susceptible to use in this natural condition 

or by reasonable improvem ents as a means to tra nsport interstate or foreign 

commerce shoreward to the ir ordinary high water mark, including all waters 

which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high 

water mark (mean higher high water mark on the west coast).

“ (2) The term ‘adjacent wetlands’ as used in this section shall mean (A) those 

coas tal wetlands, mudflats, swamps, marshes, shallows, and those areas periodically inun date d by saline or brackish waters th at are normally characterized 

by the prevalance of salt or brackish water vegetation capable of growth and 

reproduction, which are contiguous or adjacent to navigable waters subject to 

the ebb and flow of the tide, and (B) those freshwater wetlands including marshes, 

shallows, swamps, and similar areas th at are contiguous or adjacent to oth er 

navigable waters, th at sup port fresh water vegetation and th at are periodically 

inunda ted and are normally chara cterized by the prevalence of vegetation th at 

requires satura ted soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

“ (e) Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, the discharge of 

dredged or fill material in waters other than navigable waters or adjace nt w etlands 

is not prohibited by or otherwise subjec t to regulation under this Act, or section 9, 

section 10, or section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899.

“ (f) If the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 

and the Governor of a Sta te enter into a joint agreement th at the discharge of 

dredged or fill material in wate rs other than navigable waters or adjacent wetlands of such Sta te should be regulated because of the ecological and environmental importance of such waters, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of 

Engineers, may regulate such discharge p urs uan t to the provisions of this section. 

Any joint agreement entered into pur sua nt to this subsection may be revoked, 

in whole or in par t, by the Governor of the State who entered into such joint 

agreement or by the Secre tary of the Army, actin g through the Chief of Engineers.

“ (g) In carrying out his functions relating to the discharge of dredged or fill 

material under this section, the Secretary of th e Army, acting through the Chief 

of Engineers, is authorized to issue those general permits which he determines to be 

in the public interest.

“ (h) The discharge of dredged or fill material—

“ (1) from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, including, bu t 

not limited to, plowing, terracing, cultivating, seeding, and harvesting for the 

productio n of food, fiber, and forest products:
601

“ (2) for the purpose of main tenance of curre ntly serviceable struc ture s, inclu ding, b ut not limited to, dikes, dams, levees, groins riprap, breakwaters, causeways, 

and bridge abu tme nts and approaches, and other transp ortation stru ctures (including emergency rec ons truction); or

“ (3) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds and 

irrigation ditches,

is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under th is Act.

(i) The discharge of dredged or fill material as part of the construction, altera ­

tion, or repair of a Federal or federally assisted project authorized by Congress is 

not prohibited by or otherwise subjec t to regulation under this Act if th e effects of 

such discharge have been included in an environmental impact statem ent or environmental assessment for such project p ursuan t to the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and such environm ental impact statem ent or 

environmental assessm ent has been sub mitted to Congress in connection with the 

authorization or funding of such project.

“ (j) The Secretary of t he Army, acting thro ugh the Chief of Engineers, is a uthorized to delegate to a State upon its requ est all or any pa rt of those functions 

vested in him by this section relating to the a djacen t wetlands in t ha t Sta te if he 

determines (A) th at such Sta te has the authority , responsibility, and capability 

to carry out such functions, and (B) that such delegation is in the public interest. 

Any such delegation shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary 

deems necessary, including, bu t not limited to, suspension and revoc ation for 

cause of such a delegation.” .

T he Resources Agency of California,

Sacramento, Calif., July 22, 1976.

lion. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: On July 13, 1976,1 wrote to you concerning Section 

16 of S. 2710, the “Wright Amendment.” I und erstand th at Section 404 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act will be the sub ject of hearings before the 

Senate Public Works Committe e on July 27 and 28. I would apprecia te it if my 

letter of July 13 (copy atta che d) could be made a pa rt of the record of those 

hearings.

If any amendment of Section 404 is necessary this year, it should not significantly 

alte r th e extent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction over dredge and 

fill activities. For this reason, we support the basic approac h of the Cleveland 

Amendment set forth in the Congressional Record of May 26, 1876, at page 

H5004. The language of the Cleveland Amendment is incorporated in S. 3663, 

which is set forth in the Congressional Record of July 2, 1£76, at page SI 1509. 

The Cleveland Amendment also is consistent with the approach suggested in the 

analysis of th e Wright Amendm ent attach ed to my let ter of July 13. The Cleveland Amendment would clarify the e xtent of the Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction 

by exempting dredging a nd filling associated with a wide range of farming, ranching, silviculture and mainten ance activities.

Section 404 should not be sub stan tially altered in the absence of full oversight 

hearings. We believe th at Phase 2 of the Corps’ Section 404 program should be 

given a chance to work. Full oversight hearings could th en be held n ext year on the 

merits of extended wetlands protectio n und er Phase 2.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Weatherford,

Deputy Secretary for Resources.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission,

San Francisco, Calif., July 21, 1976.

Subject: Proposed amendmen ts to section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has directed me to write and express the Commission’s concern 

with the proposed amendmen t to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
602

Control Act—the so-called “ Wright amendment.” As you may know, the Commission by State law has planning and regulatory responsibilities for all of San 

Francisco Bay, including many thousands of acres of salt ponds and managed 

wetlands adjacent to the Bay. The Commission would appreciate this communication being brou ght to the attention of the members of the Committee and, 

if possible, made a pa rt of the records of any further proceedings on Section 404 

amendments.

The Commission is particularly concerned abo ut the lack of public hearin gs or 

opp ortunity for public testimony on the scope or imp act of the Wright amendment. As a result, the Commission has been unable to determ ine whether the 

definitions of “navigable waters” or “ad jacent wetlands” in the Wright amendment include the salt ponds and managed wetlands around the Bay. This is of 

great importance to the Commission because, even though diked off from the Bay, 

the salt ponds and managed wetlands are essential to the ecology of th e Bay and 

to the climate of the Bay Area. The Corps of Engineers, whose jurisdiction would 

be altered by the Wright amendment, has played a major role in the protection 

and preservation of these areas. It would be a major setback for public efforts 

to protect the Bay if the effect of the Wright ame ndm ent were to remove these 

areas from Corps jurisdiction.

The present language of the Wright amendment appea rs to be an improvem ent 

over earlier versions proposed in the House. It includes adjacent wetlands within 

the jurisdiction of the Corps (though as noted earlier, it is not clear whether the 

Corps would reta in its existing jurisdiction over Bay salt ponds and managed 

wetlands); it allows delegations of regulatory autho rity to the States; and it 

gives the States the option to include additional areas if they wish. However, 

because no public hearings on the Wright ame ndment have been held, and there 

has been no real assessment of the impacts on the Nation’s wetlands of passage 

of the Wright amendment, the Commission believes this amendment to Section 

404 is premature.

Very tr uly yours,

J oseph C. Houghtelino, Chairman.

Sta te m e n t o f G o v e r n o r R e u b in O’D. A sk e w , Sta te o f F lo ri da

The State of Florida strongly opposes any ame ndm ent to Section 404 of Public 

Law 92-500 which would decrease protection for the Nation’s wetlands.

W’etlands, actin g as nursery grounds and habit at for fish and wildlife, nutrient 

removers from overloaded urban runoff, water storage areas, buffers for storm - 

caused erosion, and esthetic wonderlands, m u4 be protected from the undue 

pressure of man’s encroachment. Many of the recreational activities which 

support Florida’s vital tou rist industry are depende nt on its wetlands and those 

of neighboring s tates. Without adeq uate wetland protection, Florida’s commercial 

and sport fisheries, flood control programs, and other economic water-relate d 

activities could be severely jeopardized. With some estimates classifying as high 

as 54 percent of the State of Florida as wetlands, these potentia l effects cannot 

be overemphasized.

The Section 404 regulations of the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(40 Fed. Reg. No. 144, Friday, July 25, 1975) were developed a fter long hours of 

study with many built-in compromises which balanced economic and environmental concerns. The Corps of Engineers regulations will no t take full effect until 

July 1, 1977; however, the preliminary experience in Florida with Phase I of these 

regulations has been positive. It would be premature for Congress to legislate 

changes in these regulations before Phases 2 and 3 can be implemented and 

evalu ated.

Wetland destroyed by unregulated development no longer perform their v ital 

functions and are often irreplaceable. It would be wiser to adopt a cau tious policy 

of conservative regulation than to remove controls from many of the Nation’s 

wetlands and permit the ir destruction.

I urge you on behalf of the State of Florida t o defer th e adoption of ame ndments 

to Section 404 w'hich would alter the effect of the present Corps of Engineers 

regulations.
603

[Mallgram]

Tallahassee Fla., Jun e 18, 1976.

Hon. Edmund S. Musk ie,

Washington, D.C.

I strongly oppose the Wright Amendment to the Water Pollution Control Act 

(H.R. 9560) (S. 3037). Corps of Engineers regulations unders ection 404, ad opted 

after full public hearing, should be implemented. No amendm ents affecting 

sectio n 404 should be considered without full public evaluation hearings.

R eubin O’D. Askew, 

Governor, State of Florida.

T he Canal Authority of the State of F lorida,

Jacksonville, Fla., August 4, 1976.

Hon. J ennings Randolph,

Senate Public Worts Committee,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senato r: We are deep ly disturb ed to learn th at the recent hearings of 

the Public Works C omm ittee on ame ndments of P.L. 92-500 received no testimo ny 

from sta te or local officials rega rdin g the adverse effects of existing Section 404 

as presently interprete d by Federal court ruling, and as being implemented by 

the Executive Branch.

The court ordered interp retation of the legislative intent for Section 404 is 

generating massive expansion of federal bureaucracy controlling sta te and local 

governm ent efforts to conserve, develop, or pu t to beneficial use national Water 

resources.

By July I, 1977 it is proposed th at non-federal governmental agencies mu st 

obtain a federal permit for every w ater resource project u ndertake n on practically 

any stream, lake, or pond in the nation.

\Ve alrea dy are experiencing impa cts from this federal bureau cratic control 

when local river authorities such as the Brazos Riv er Authority in Texas is being 

required to obtain a federal permit for a dam the Authority is building with its 

own funds and for which it has previously received all requ isite gove rnmental 

approval. This p arti cular example does n ot even pertain to a navigable stream.

For reasons unrelated to water quality, these and oth er projects are facing inflated costs, delays, and bureaucratic intrusion in following a law citing its objective 

as protecting and improving the qua lity of our national water.

We believe th at the only ration al and equ itab le solution to this problem is for 

Congress to make clear its tru e inten ts with respect to Section 404 of P.L. 92-500. 

The House of Rep rese ntatives alread y has enuncia ted this inten t th rough passing 

an amen ded S. 2710 c ontaining the “ Wright Amendmen t” to Section 404.

We urge t ha t th e Senate Pu blic Works Comm ittee bring th e Wright amendm ent 

to a Senate vote, or a t least allow the Senate a vote on any other proposed amendment to Section 404 which will eliminate requirement th at local and sta te governments obtain federal permits for local and sta te w’ater resource projects 

und ertake n by these bodies politic.

Sincerely yours,

Giles L. E vans, Jr., Manager.

Office of the Governor, 

Atlanta, Ga., August 2, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 5121 Dirksen Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The Public Works Com mittee has recently concluded oversight hearings on the Corns of Engineers’ Section 404 permit program 

for dredge and fill activities. The Sta te of Georgia has closely monitored the 

development of the Corps’ permit program and its relationship to the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and other Sta te and federal programs. I 

believe th at the individual states have a large and eminent role to play in the 

successful impleme ntation of a permit program intended to protect the rivers and 

streams and their adjacent wetla nds from abuse.

7 6 -1 6 1— 71 -39
604

In floor ac tion on II. R. 9560, the House of Representatives adopted sub stitute 

language for the Section 404 perm it program in the so called Wright-Breaux 

amendment. The various provisions of this amendm ent reflect the diverse viewpoints which con tributed to its composition. I believe the Committee faces a 

difficult task in discerning from the provisions of this amendment the aspects 

required to reta in the original inte nt of Section 404. I would like to address several 

of those provisions which are critical to the interests of the State of Georgia.

I strongly advo cate th at the Section 404 program ado pt the simplest and least 

cumbersome permitting procedures possible. One of the states* major concerns 

is the excessive paperw ork and burdensome procedures th at have been adopted. 

Extending these procedures to the full three implementation phases will require 

a q uantity of permits that will create substan tial procedural problems and project 

delays. Minor actions and complicated procedures should not be allowed to obstr uct assessment of the impa cts of major actions.

The provisions in the Wright-Breaux a mendment to exempt specific agriculture, 

silviculture, and ranching practices as well as “ serviceable” structural maintenance 

from the permit requirements are necessary. In effect, exemptions currently in 

the regulations would be raised to the status of law. I believe the exemption of 

these activities clearly dem onstrates th at Congress does not inte nd Section 404 

to become a “bureaucratic nightmare.”

One of the most effective means of assuring th at the Section 404 perm it program 

will adequately address majo r issues without becoming entangled in procedural 

problems would be to delegate th e program to th e individual states. The delegation 

to the states of the permit program under Section 402 of P.L. 92-500 has worked 

well and a system similar to th at is recommended for Section 404 permits.

The State of Georgia is particularly interested in delegation of the perm it 

authority. This would allow the State to further centralize environmental permitting within a single agency. The ability to consolidate federal and state environmental permits and enforcement in one agency is essential to industry and sta te 

and local government when discussing the needs and potentia l for economic 

development and environment protection requirements.

Consideration should be given to providing some financial assistance to states 

administering this joint federal and state program. Using the language and autho rity in Section 402, the Environmental Protection Agency is able to monitor 

sta te perm it program s as well as disburse federal funds.

The Section 404 permit program, as presently mandated by the N.R.D.C. vs. 

Calloway Federal Court decision, goes far beyond the expectations of the language 

enacted in 1972. I agree th at clarification of Congressional intent is now required. 

The definition of navigable waters in the Wright-Breaux ame ndment injects a 

new undefined limit of jurisdiction under Section 404. I recommend a clearer 

definition of this jurisdiction or retention of the definition of navigable waters 

for the present as it had evolved prior to passage of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972.

If you are interested in discussing my concerns in more detail, or drafting 

possible language for amendments, please let me know so that I may make the 

appropriate staff available. I would respectfully request tha t the above comments 

be included in the hearing record.

Sincerely,

George Busbee, Governor.

State of Louisiana,

Executive Department,

Baton Rouge, La., Ju ly S I, 1976. Hon. J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: Attached is my sta tem ent for the record of the 

Public Works Com mittee and your consideration. It summarizes the problems 

th at we have e ncountered with Corps of Engineers’ permitting requiremen ts and 

the undue burden these requirem ents have placea on the citizens of Louisiana. Additionally, I am suggesting some modifications to the Wright-Breaux amendments which will reduce the burden on our citizens, provide for greater sta te 

participation in the regulatory process, and still provide protection for our 

wetlands.

Mr. Vernon Behrhorst, Director of the Louisiana Coastal Commission, will be 

in Washington from July 26 to July 28 and will a tte nd y our Committe e hearings.
605

I respectfully request th at you arrange for him to m eet with th e staff of th e Public 

Works Committee to discuss in further detail our situation in Louisiana. He will 

also be able to suggest specific language for th e modifications which I am proposing.

I urge your Committe e a nd the Senate to take positive action to restore balance 

to our regulatory programs, a balance which 1 believe was the original intent of 

the Congress.

Sincerely,

E dwin Edwards, Governor.

Atta chm ent.

Statement of Edwin W. E dwards, Governor of the State of Louisiana

Senator Randolph and members of the Public Works Committee, I grea tly 

appreciate the opportunity to sub mit to you my views on the Water Pollution 

Control Act.

This comm ittee and its counterpart in the House of Representatives are two 

of the most important committees in the Congress to the Sta te of Louisiana. Our 

almost unlimited water resources—fresh water for agricultu re, cities and industrie s; navigable waterways, and fisheries—are, for the most part, under the jurisdiction of your committe e. You have tre ate d us generously and fairly in the 

deve lopment of these water resources. For this, we tha nk you. We are confident 

you will give us comparable consideratio n in the requests that I am sub mitting 

at this time concerning amendmen ts to Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control 

Act.

First, let me assure you th at the citizens a nd officials of the Sta te of Louisiana 

are greatly concerned about our water resources, par ticu larly our wetla nds. I 

bring this to your atten tio n as we are too often portra yed as devastators of our 

wetlands and ou t of ste p with the rest of the nation in natur al resources management. We are more aw are than m ost about m aintaining water qua lity as one-third 

of the flow of all the rivers and streams of the United States passes through 

Louisiana on its way to the sea. This water can be likened unto our lifeblood; 

we cann ot stand to have it poisoned and polluted.

Secondly, I was a member of the Public Works Com mittee of the House during 

initial consideratio n of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. 

At that time, I and many of my colleagues in the Congress had not the slightest 

idea th at the courts would expa nd the definition of navigable waters far beyond 

what we intende d it to be. However, we must abide by the rulings of our courts. 

I m ust also abide by the wishes of the citizens of my state. Therefore, I respectfully 

request you to clarify Congressional intent with regard to Section 404 of the 

Water Pollution Control Act. This, I believe, requires further amendments to 

the Act.

I could quote statistics on the vastness of Louisiana’s wetlands, elaborate on 

the magnitude of the task of managing and protecting them, and protest the 

great burden placed upon our citizens by regulatory programs. Rather than 

be repetitious, I am atta ching the statement I submitted a t the hearings conducted 

by the Office of the Chief of Engineers in Baton Rouge on September 23-24, 1975 

(Attach men t A). It conta ins this inform ation.

Additionally, in my oral presentation I urged the Corps of Engineers to appeal 

the decision of the District Court which drastically expanded the jurisdiction of 

the Corps of Engineers. It is regrettable t ha t the Department of the Army made a 

decision not to do so. Congress must now act.

My successor in the 7th Dis trict of Louisiana, Congressman John Breaux, 

obtained approval of an ame ndm ent in comm ittee th at defines navigable waterways essentially as the term was inte rpre ted prior to the recent court decision. 

His amendment removed the historical use tes t as one of the criteria for navigability . The deletion of this tes t will, if the ame ndment is ena cted into law, remove 

a number of stream s, small ones in particular, from regulation of the discharge 

of dredged or fill material. In Louisiana natural changes take place very rapidly, 

as we are geologically an infant state. As a result, some stream s th at were actually 

used for navigation one hundred years ago are no longer capable of being used 

or d on’t even exist today. Therefore, there is sound reasoning behind the deletion 

of th is test.

My majo r concern lies in Section 16(j) of H.R. 9560, as passed by the House. 

Subsection (j) authorizes the delegation of regu latory autho rity under Section 

404 to state s, if the sta te so requests and meets prescribed requirements. Our 

problem in Louisiana, and it may be a problem of similar magnitude in other 

states, is th at the delegation of regulatory autho rity is restricted to “ad jacent
606

wetlands.” There are no provisions for delegation of this autho rity to states for 

functions related to “navigable waterways.” The major objection we have to 

restricting the delegation of autho rity to “adjacent wetland s” is th at 90% of 

Louisiana ’s coastal wetlands lie below the mean high water mark and are the refore, according to Subsection (d)(1), navigable waters. Conversely, this can be 

interprete d to mean th at it is the intent of Congress for the Corps of Engineers 

to retain exclusive jurisdiction over the wetlands lying below mean high tide. 

People in Ix^uisiana agencies have told me th at in their discussions with individuals from the federal government and from other states, they agree th at this 

was not the intent of the Wright-Breaux Amendments. If it is the intent of 

Congress th at states may assume, upon their request, jurisdiction over coastal 

marshlands below the mean high tide, a clarification is required.

The Louisiana Legislature is now considering coastal zone managem ent legislation. Significant opposition to enactm ent of coastal zone legislation is occurring. 

One of the major reasons for opposition is a strong feeling th at the coastal regulatory program required by the CZM Act of 1972 will just place an additional 

layer of regulatory autho rity on them.

Between July 1, 1975, and Jun e 30, 1976, essentially the period when Phase I 

of the new regulations went into effect, the citizens of Louisiana submitted 1664 

oerm it applications to the New Orleans District of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers for approval. This is not the entire number for the sta te because small 

portions of Louisiana lie in the Galveston, Fort Worth, Vicksburg and Mobile 

Engineer Districts. Practically all of these permit applications were for activities 

within our coastal wetlands.

Our citizens need assurance th at regulatory autho rity can be delegated to 

Louisiana before we can expect stron g supp ort for coastal resources legislation. 

Our citizens are wary of the consistency provision of Section 307 of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act. They are quite insistent that provisions for delegating 

regulator authority be a sta tut ory delegation. Here is an opp ortunity for Congress 

to give our citizens this assurance.

Louisiana would like for legislation to be enacted that will provide for delegation 

of regulatory authority to states, not only under Section 404, bu t also under 

Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, providing the states have the 

required authority and capa bility to handle a regulatory program. If this can not be 

supp orted by the Congress a t this time, delegation of autho rity under Section 404 

alone would be a major step forward in achieving adequate s tate participation in 

regulating our wetlands.

It is appropriate th at the sta tes assume regu lator autho rity over at leas t our 

coastal wetlands and adja cent wetlands. With regard to actua l navigable channels 

which are used for commerce, I believe the federal government should retain 

jurisdiction over these waterways as most of th e navigable channels in Louisiana 

were either constructed or are being main taine d partially or entirely with federal 

funds. I see no argu men t over jurisdiction of these channels. Possibly language 

can be developed whereby regu latory authority over the wetlands below mean 

high tide, excluding navigable channels, can be delegated to coastal states.

Although we are concerned about regulation in all our waterways and wetlands, 

our majo r concern is the wetlands within our coastal zone. I suggest th at the 

Wright-Breaux Amendments be further amended to specifically provide for automatic transfer, upon request, of a regulatory autho rity to coastal states which are 

administering a coastal zone program pursuant to Section 306. The tran sfer of 

regulatory authority could be limited to the coastal zone as defined by the state.

I strongly suppor t the provisions of Subsection (g) which provides for the 

issuance of general permits. This will help to reduce the burden of permits required 

for such things as very small bulkheads which people co nstruct to p revent erosion 

of the ir property. I do, however, ask th at the Congress consider extending the 

general perm it autho rity under Section 9 and 10 of th e Act of March 3, 1899, to 

small structures which do no t in themselves interfere with navigation. Since 

navigable waters have been interpreted to include wate rs up to the mean high 

tide, hundreds of Louisiana sportsme n have had to obtain permits to constru ct 

isolated hunting and fishing camps in areas which have no relationship whatsoever 

to actual navigable waterways. These make up a significant share of the permit 

applications in Louisiana and con stitute a nuisance requirement to our citizens.

Subsection (h) goes a long way tow'ard removing the cloud of confusion with 

respect to who needs to apply for a perm it for activities in navigable waters and 

wetlands. This subsection is of particular importance in Southwest Louisiana where 

rice, requiring irrigation in leveed fields, is a principal crop. This provides a specific 

exemption. As we have a considerable amount of silvicultu re involving bottom 

land hardwoods, it also clarifies this situation.
607

The provisions of Subsection (h) are essentially the provisions of the amendments offered by Congressmen Cleveland and Harsha. However, one important 

provision of the Cleveland-Harsha Amendments was not incorporated into the 

Wright Amendments. Paragraph (3) of the Cleveland-Harsha Amendments 

exempted existing drain age ditches from regulation under this Act. I recognize 

th at some of th e s upport for strong regulation of waterw ays and wetlands has resulted from abuses in drainage programs. There have been abuses. However, adequa te drainage is essential for existence in Louisiana. We have th ousa nds of miles 

of drainage ditches in non-wetlands areas, yet, because the lower portion, sometimes a mile or less, lies in wetlands, we are required to obtain a permit for m aintenance of these essential drainage ditches. Attached is a statem ent by the Louisiana 

Departme nt of Public Works which clearly states our problem (Attachment B).

I strongly urge the Senate to restore the exemption for maintenance of existing 

drainage ditches.

One of the majo r activities in our coastal wetlands is their managem ent for 

migratory water fowl and fur bearing animals. Much of our marshland is more 

prod uctiv e under a managemen t program requiring levees, control gates and 

pumps than it is under natu ral conditions. We have several million acres of private 

lands and sta te and federal refuges under a managem ent program. Manage ment 

of much of this land has been restricted or halted because of the requ irem ent for 

permits, and in some cases, environmental impact stat ements costing more tha n 

the m aintenance of existing levees and structure s. To me, this situatio n contains a 

contradic tion. We are burdening an act ivity which maximizes productio n of 

species we are trying to save. In Para graph (2) of Subsection (h), which provides 

for th e m aintenan ce of su ch struc ture s, possibly clarification is in orde r to specifically spell o ut exemptions for m ainte nanc e of s tructures involving man agem ent of 

wetlands for migratory water fowl and fur bearing animals. Aquaculture should 

be considered as well.

Section (i), which provides for exemption of federal or federally assisted projects from perm it requirements, if an environmental impact statem ent or assessment has been sub mitted to Congress in connection with the authorization or 

fund ing of the project, can be a step forward in reducing the time lag between 

authorization and construction of projects. We must be sure, however, th at these 

EI S’s or assessments are adeq uate . There is also the question whether or not these 

projects will be exempt from regulation by states, if delegation of autho rity is 

exercised u nder Subsection (j).

At your reque st, the Presiden t has deferred the implementation of Phase II 

in order to provide sufficient time for you to consider modifying Section 404. I 

urge you, in the time available, to amend Section 404 to remove the unnecessary 

burden upon our citizens and return to a reasonable balance of regulatory autho rity among federal, state, and local agencies. I believe th at the modifications 

contained in the Wright-Breaux Amendments, along with my suggestions to your 

committee, can reduce this burden, while retaining adequate regulatory autho rity 

over our navigable waterways and wetlands.

Attachment “A”

Sta te m e n t o f E dwin W . E dw ard s, G o v e r n o r o f L o u is ia n a , B e fo r e a H ea rin g C o n d u cted by t h e O f f ic e o f t h e C h ie f o f E n g in e e r s, U .S . Army

C o rps o f E n g in e e r s , B ato n R o u g e, L a., S e p t e m b e r 2 3 -2 4 , 19 75

General McIntyre and represen tatives of the Corps of Engineers: On behalf 

of the citizens of Louisiana I exten d to all of you our warm est welcome. N ot only 

do we extend to you a han d of welcome, we stand ready to assist you in any way we 

can. Above all, I offer a sincere thanks to the Corps for its contribution to the 

Sta te of Louisiana. Witho ut your efforts Louisiana would not be the thriv ing 

sta te i t is today.

I wish to personally tha nk you as well. While in the Congress, I served on the 

Public Works Committe e, which has jurisdiction over many matters affecting the 

Corps. Also, while I have been Governor, you have helped us engage in two successful flood fights which spared the lives of our people and protected their 

property from devasta tion. Ironically, the mighty Mississippi, whose destruc tive 

force you have tamed, is also one of our m ajor natur al resources. With your help 

the Mississippi is our door to the world. The River, the GIWW , and our other 

waterways float the bouuty of our farms to our seaports. At this moment, a few 

yards from here, ships are loading grain which will become bread to feed a hung ry 

world.
We have enjoyed a friendship with the Corps th at has lasted for many years 

and one which I hope will continue for many more. It is in the spirit of friendship 

th at I app ear before you on behalf of the people of Louisiana. What I say—and 

must say as the one responsible for the welfare of the citizens of Louisiana—is 

said in this sp irit of friendship.

In March of this year, the Corps was directed by the District Court of the 

District of Columbia to develop new regulations governing the issuance of 

perm its in “navigable wate rs” as redefined by th at court. You and I know how 

your expanded jurisdiction came about, but many do not. It was expanded by 

judicial interpreta tion beyond what I believe was ever inten ded b y t he Congress. 

This new burden of regulatory powers was placed upon you and not solicited by 

you.

The Cou rt has ruled and you must fulfill your duty. Our system has survived 

for two hundred years because we have respected our courts and abided by the ir 

decisions. But keep in mind th at o ur system of government also survives because 

it grants you and me the righ t to voice our disagreement with these decisions. 

Nothing in my study or in my experience in government, both in the legislative 

and executive branches, provides one shred of supporting evidence for expand ing 

your mission to include control over our wetlands.

If Congress feels th at the federal government should control our wetlands by 

assigning you this jurisdiction, let Congress then do it by means of a clearly 

worded act passed a fter full hearing and debate. I, among many, want the oppo rtunity to appe ar before mv former colleagues to impress upon them th at the 

citizens of Louisiana are opposed to the further intrusion of federal autho rity 

into what we consider primarily an area of state and local jurisdiction. Le t’s 

be honest and define wetlands as what they are and regu late activ ities in them 

accordingly. Please don ’t do it und er the guise of defining them as “navigable 

waterways”.

The Chief of Engineers wrote to me and asked me to comment on th e proposed 

regulations you published on May 6 incompliance with the Court order. I wrote 

to General Gribble on May 28 stating my position and giving my recom mendations. Your new regulations have altered my position very little. I am atta ching a 

copy of t ha t letter to this s tatem ent so th at it will be in the record for you to 

review again while considering changes in the present regulations.

In my letter I stressed the uniqueness of the physical setting of Louisiana, 

par ticu larly our abu ndant water resources and our topo graphy which differs 

from most of the othe r states. T he Corps understands our uniq ue situ ation because 

you have been involved in our water managem ent program for years. Un fortun ­

ately, there are others who have little knowledge of our situ ation in Louisiana. 

This is why I am pleased that t he Corps is the agency which is working with us.

Louisiana’s misunderstood and unique physical setting has served as an environmental laboratory, the results from which have added to our knowledge 

and benefitted people throughout our country and the world. May I cite several 

examples?

If you fly over Louisiana’s coas t you know it ’s a busy place. We have been 

working in the marshes and swamps for a long time. Many of our people earn 

their living there during the week. They boa t and fish on the weekend in those 

bay s and marshes. Our history and culture are tied into the marshes and w etlands. 

So we know they are vitally important areas. We want to use and protec t them for 

a long time to come.

Louisiana is no beginner in knowing how to live and work in the marshes. 

We’ve been producing oil and gas for decades, to feed an energy hungry nation. 

To do t ha t you have to drill, dig, dredge, fill, maintain, rebuild—and on an d on— 

to get the oil and gas o ut of the ground. You can’t get oil ou t of marshes without 

moving through them and pushing them around. Years ago we may not have 

been as efficient an d economical as we could because we were just learning. But, 

about 15 years ago, we started changing all tha t. Today Louisiana is tops in the 

nation and the world in knowing how to regulate oil and gas operations in marsh 

and swamp areas. People from all over the world come to visit us—ab out every 

other day it seems—to learn how to work safely in the marshes.

We know how to do the job right because we have been doing it longer tha n 

anyone else. We have made industry aware of the problems and taught it ways to 

avoid pollution, conserve the oil and gas, and preserve the marsh. We have 

developed state agencies which are experts in policing the marsh area to make 

sure public interests are being protected.
609

As I said before, we know we have a vitally important resource and we intend 

to protect it. We’re not going to sacrifice any part of it—the oil or the fish. I t’s 

too much a pa rt of the lives of our people.

I would be remiss if I did not mention our efforts to develop an offshore oil port. 

Before Congress ever enacted any Superport legislation, Louisiana had developed 

and put into effect an environmental protectio n plan which anyone constructing 

a supe rport off our coast must rigidly follow. Consequently, we are far ahead of 

other states.

In wildlife man agem ent the Sta te of Louisiana and priv ate landholders have 

been leaders in developing management programs for main taining highly productive habitat for waterfowl and fur-bearing animals, including too many 

alligators. We are proud of our state wildlife refuges, and remember, they are 

managed by man as much as by nature.

Additionally, let’s not forget the work done by Louisiana agencies in areas of 

pollution abatem ent, water supply, beach erosion, soil conservation, and forestry. 

Consider what Louisiana has accomplished in environmental protection. Please 

do not condemn us for what we have not done.

We are pleased th at you have incorporated some of the changes suggested by 

Louisiana agencies in you r interim final regulations. These revisions will make 

the regulations somewhat easier to live with. We feel, however, th at additional 

revisions are required. Sta te agencies will submit their recom mendations e ither at 

this hearing or in writing before th e close of the comment period. I wish to m ention 

a few th at are of general interest.

First, the new regulations provide that agricultu re and forestry activ ities do 

not need p ermits. I s upp ort this wholeheartedly. We cannot produce the food and 

fiber we need if farmers are required to get perm its for working their fields or 

foresters need your approval to harvest their trees.

Second, the main tenance of existing stru ctures such as dams, levees, water 

control stru ctures and bridges in an emergency situatio n still requires a perm it. 

It is unrealistic, a burden, and a possible danger to require perm its on these 

main tenance activities. I urge th at these emergency activities be exempted from 

perm it procedures. When a flood is about to hit, the re’s no time to file a permit.

Third, allowing a p roperty owner to build protective bulkheads withou t getting 

a perm it is welcome. At the sta te level we review these efforts routinely to make 

sure public waterbotto ms are not infringed.

Fou rth, it is imp erative th at we make a clear distinction between activities with 

a natio nal intere st and those th at are strictly of state and local interest. Ma tters 

of sta te and local intere st should be dealt with only by sta te and local agencies. 

Ever since the New Orleans District Engineer issued a public notice sta tin g th at 

even duck camps would requ ire a perm it, the public has become very aware 

of—and is concerned about—th e further intrusion of the Federal Governm ent 

into a ma tte r we consider to be of s tat e and local concern. There is hardly any 

federal interest involved in this ma tter. You now propose a system of general 

permits. If we have to live with these regulations, I urge you to make general 

permits applicable to duck camps and the many oth er activ ities which do not 

interfere with navigation. This will redu ce the burden on our people immensely.

Fifth , you have provided for shortening th e permit process by joint notices and 

public hearings by the Corps and the State. The regulations provide for processing 

to “an inde pendent conclusion”. I believe the State’s “independ ent conclusion” 

should be given the greatest weight possible. In fact, unless a matt er of utm ost 

national concern such as national defense is involved, I think the Corps should 

follow the S tate’s lead and the regulations should reflect this policy.

I wish to emphasize t hat the S tate of Louisiana does not oppose the regulation 

of a ctivities in navigable wate rways and wetlands insofar as it serves the public 

interest and welfare. Like e very other sta te we req uire persons and businesses to 

obtain permits and licenses for a wide variety of activities affecting the public 

interest.

But who should issue the permit or license? We believe th at most of the activities which affect the public interest in our wetlands are of state and local concern only. I say m ost because there is obviously an overriding federal inte res t in 

such things as navigation, flood control and the offshore oil industry. The sta te 

must reassume its jurisdiction over these a ctivities which do n ot involve an overriding federal interest.

Three years ago Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Man agemen t Act. It 

provides the best vehicle, to my knowledge, for sta tes to assume control over 

activities in coastal wetlands. We have our best experts in the sta te working to
610

develop a good coastal manag ement program. Once we have this program in place, 

federal actions in the coastal zone must be consiste nt with the State’s program. 

From my viewpoint this means th at most, if not all, Corps permits will have to 

conform to the St ate’s actions. I am fully behind the developm ent of a coastal 

zone program in Louisiana and I am urging our state agencies and local governments to move ahead in this area.

Sixth, I recognize t hat to pin down definitions t ha t are acceptable to everyone 

in every part of our country is nearly impossible. This in itself points out th e folly 

of tr yin g to regulate at th e Federal level. There are, however, a numb er of definitions which need clarification and amplification and some which need to be completely changed if th ey are to be workable.

In Louisiana we not only dredge oyster shell for construction purposes, but 

for live oysters as well. Are oysters included in dredge material? Furtherm ore, 

what are “normal farming o pera tions” ? How do we define the term “contiguous” 

or “ad jace nt to ” in reference to areas of aquatic vegetation in proximity to 

navigable waterways? Similarly, we have the term “prevalence of vegetation 

th at requires sat ura ted soil” . How prevalent? These are only examples. Many 

more will be cited to you. Above all, the term s “navigable w aters” and “ navigable 

wate rs of the United States” are used and are confusing.

Also of major concern to us are the delays which we encounter in pursuing 

activ ities in our navigable waterways and wetlands because of perm it procedures. 

In the oil industry, we have had economic loss because of delays in issuance of 

perm its. I say not non-issuance, bu t simply delay.

Likewise, we have had delays of sometimes many years because of disagreem ent 

between federal agencies while st ate agencies have all concurred. As a m ember of 

Congress, I helped develop the Cameron-Creole Watershed Project which will 

control the intrusion of salt w ater into a large area of S. W. Louisiana. The perm it 

for this imp ortant project has not to this day been issued because of conflicting 

views of federal agencies. Yet, sta te agencies have urged the rapid completion 

of the project. Costs have increased by thousands, if not millions of dollars, and 

every day we are losing more acres of valuable fresh water marshes. This can not 

go on.

Since you have published your interim and final regulations on July 25th, you 

have published additional proposed regulations governing the preservation of 

cultural resources. These regulations published on September 8th have again 

pushed you into an area which I believe to be more appropriately handled at the 

sta te level. The Sta te of Louisiana has its own program for cultural prese rvation. 

We have a rich heritage of both prehistoric and historic culture which we are 

entrusted to preserve. We have sta te laws governing the preservation of our 

cultural heritage. Do we need any furth er regulation?

I have only touched briefly on m ajor issues involved in your proposed regulations 

and how they affect Louisiana and other states. I close by repeating th at my 

original letter conta ins Louisiana’s position. We hope th at you can revise these 

regulations to more closely conform to our needs.

I urge you, pu t your money and expertise into helping the state do its own 

job better. The funds you use in massive federal regulatory programs could be 

more efficiently used in the sta te. Urge your chief in Washington to issue regulations allowing ultimate sta te control where there are no natio nal interests 

involved. Fight court decisions th at go against the philosophy of more sta te and 

local control.

Work with us to let us manage our coast for ourselves. Let ’s work something 

ou t here in Louisiana so the Corps can support the sta te and not run it. If th at is 

impossible under the law, then let’s go to Congress togethe r to act for a change 

in law to put the autho rity back where i t belongs.

State of Louisiana,

Executive Department,

Baton Rouge, La., May 28, 1975. Lt. Gen. W. C. Griuble, J r.,

Chief of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers,

Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

Dear General Griuble: As requested in your letter of M ay 3, 1975, comments

are herein subm itted on proposed regulations of the Corps of Engineers and the 

Environm ental Protectio n Agency published in the Federal Register on May 6, 

1975.

As Governor of the S tate of Louisiana, I am faced with freq uen t decisions which 

affect the daily lives of our citizens. Occasionally, a proposal for which I must
611

consider and issue a decision or recommendation is of overbearing importance 

and has a tremendous impact on the present and future of our state. The regulations as published constitute one of the more serious proposals with which I have 

been confronted.

You must realize tha t Louisiana is perhaps the most unusual and water-rich 

state of the United States. Louisiana has a dramatic history inseparably tied 

to water and our future is completely dependent upon good management and 

utilization of our water supplies within constraints now existing from the federal 

to the local levels and in a manner which is environmentally safe. This is a unique 

part of the nation since we in this state exist under threats of the extremes of 

floods as well as droughts and at the same time are blessed with a network of rivers 

and streams providing more than 7,500 miles of commercially navigable waterways. Our coastal area includes areas extending from 35 to 50 miles inland from 

the Gulf and contains some of the most important resources of the state; namely, 

oil, gas, sulphur, salt, fish and wildlife. Consequently, there are many improvements and activities in this area including industrial locations, port and harbor 

facilities, navigation canals, major cities, transcontinental pipelines, interstate 

highways, agriculture and forestry areas, small towns and many other related 

developments. This coastal area is constantly being threatened by hurricanes, 

floods, high tides, and salt water intrusions, b ut yet has a substantial population 

with daily activities. Other extremes or contrasting parts of the state are the alluvial flood plains and major rivers traversing Louisiana covering approximately 

}

/

3

 of the state. In this same y3

 area, 78 percent of our citizens live and work; practically all of the major industries are located; at least 80 percent of the sta te’s 

disposable income is found; more than f>0 percent of the state’s agricultural production is contained; and fishing, wildlife, and recreational activities exist in 

abundance.

This brief overview describes a dynamic area, the State of Louisiana, where 

day to day activities are intimately involved in water and related land resources 

and where future water related activities will have to be increased if we are to 

meet the demands placed on our state. Louisiana is also willing and anxious to 

develop a major offshore oil port which will require many associated developments and alterations inland. Management and control of such changed conditions 

have largely resided with the local and state governments throughout our history. 

This pattern absolutely must be continued to prevent lengthy delays, shut downs, 

denials, frustration and economic chaos. The same needs exist in our agricultural 

industry where state agencies, local governments, and/or special districts also 

regulate drainage, irrigation, vzater uses, levee construction, impoundments, and 

other activities. Louisiana would probably be the state most affected by the 

proposal in requiring permits for every project throughout the state—for the 

fanner on almost any activity including irrigation, cultivation, pond construction, 

and clearing; for the private property owner from timber harvesting to building a 

swimming pool; for building homes in reclaimed areas such as the New Orleans 

vicinity; for industrial development along our many rivers; for constructing and 

maintaining indispensable flood control and hurricane protection systems; for 

drainage improvements; and for any undertaking to improve, grow and advance. 

Every square mile of Louisiana would fall under the broad permit system with 

the court’s definition of “ Waters of the United State s.” I do not believe we can 

be successful under such a federally controlled system with no recourse for appeals.

Therefore, I must emphatically oppose the proposed guidelines as published in 

the May 6, 1975, Federal Register. If federal controls are imposed to take away 

our remaining ability as a state to make our own decisions, it is a sad day in 

American history. I do not believe tha t Congress intended for the control of 

state and local developments to be domineered by federal agencies. Another 

major concern is tha t no satisfactory procedures are allowed in the proposed 

regulations for amending, negotiating or considering repeal of decisions issued by 

the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, when overriding benefits are obvious and sanctioned by the state or states concerned. This 

state cannot agree to the proposed regulations for broadening and extending 

federal authority into areas tha t must remain a state and local responsibility. 

There is no reason to expand the permit authority now existing in Section 404 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and Section 103 of 

the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Louisiana cannot 

continue to exist and move forward under regulations as proposed.

As Governor of the State of Louisiana, I strongly urge:

(1) That the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency 

obtain clearly defined Congressional intent in defining navigable waters and 

waters of the United States;
612

(2) That the Corps of Engineers request an extension of tim e from the Cou rt to 

obtain Congressional guidance prior to publishing final regulations as required 

by the Court;

(3) Th at the United States Dep artm ent of Justice immediately file a notice of 

intent to appeal the District Co urt’s ruling on behalf of the defendants, and 

further, th at the appe al process is duly completed.

If these recommended action s are not taken, it will be inexcusable and the 

Sta te of Louisiana and the nation will suffer through implementation of the 

proposed guidelines; however, if no other option is available and i t is unavoidable 

th at one of the four a lter natives must be carried out, then Lousiiana would prefer 

Alternative 4 as the least damaging a nd having less problems.

On behalf of the Sta te of Louisiana, I apprecia te the opp ortunity to comment 

on the proposed regulations.

Sincerely,

Edwin Edwards, Governor.

State of Louisiana, 

Department of P ublic Works,

Baton Rouge, La., Ju ly 22, 11)76.

Attachment “ B”

Hon. Edwin E dwards,

Governor, State of Lou isiana,

State Capitol— Fourth Floor,

Baton Rouge, La.

Dear Governor Edwards: We have been asked to provide our views concerning problems associated with amendments to IT. It. 9560, th e Wright-Breaux 

Amendment affecting the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers’ 404 Permit Program. 

Accordingly, we are pleased to express recommendations of the Department of 

Public Works.

Specific needs and problems of this Department are reflected through the 

police juries and local governing bodies who are experiencing numerous delays 

in performing normal, critical and unusual maintenance of existing drainage channels. These drainage channels usually have been designed and are co nstru cted 

as a part of the state-wide drainage program. While waiting for approval of 

permit applications, repe ated flooding of developments and improvements 

frequently occurs. These delays seriously discourage and p rev ent drainage channel 

maintenance by sta te and local governing bodies. It is imperative th at these 

drain age channels be promptly maintaine d through a contin uous program without 

extended delays while acquiring a p erm it from the Corps of Engineers.

A statem ent in sup port of au tho rity for states or local public bodies to perform 

such main tenance is attach ed. It is requested th at congressional support and 

approval be obtained if possible. Should you have questions or need additional 

information, I will be happy to obtain it for you.

Sincerely yours,

Roy Aguillard, Director. Enclosure.

Statement in Support of Maintenance of Drainage Channels to be E xempt Under Section 404 Permit Requirements of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act

Louisiana is unique among all other states relative to its geography and 

physiography. Being located at the lower most point of a drain age area to which 

41% of the United States directs its total runoff, Louisiana is forced to contend 

with flood t hreat conditions on a continuous basis while these waters are orig inating dis tan tly away from the state. Added to the problem is the fact th at Louisiana 

is predominately an alluvial area and consequently contains extrem ely wide, 

flat, gradually sloping areas. The flood plains in Louisiana occupy approximately 

one-third of the total area and contain vast majorities of the natural resources. 

These same areas also provide the natio n’s richest agricultural production areas 

and contains all of the stat e’s larger cities, most of the principal highways, pipelines, utilities and major industries. The coastal area, including up to abo ut 35-50 

miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico is also rich in n atu ral resources, agricultural 

areas, fish and wildlife, and extensive developments.

These natu ral conditions and resources provide wide o pportun ities for development and production. From the days of the earliest settlers until today a nd surely
to continue into the fu ture is the continued development, expansion, improvement, 

and use of these prime attra ctive areas th at are unlike any o ther s tate or portion 

thereof in the United States. Along with this development, the need for drainage 

and flood control has been met with comprehensive planning and construction of a 

statewide drainage program and flood control systems to provide protectio n to 

developments as they are justified.

Our area has prolific growth rates along with unusu al sedimen tation and 

consequently drain age chan nnels have to be maintained more freq uen tly than in 

other par ts of the nation so th at growths and silt deposits within the drainage 

channels which protect tremendous investments an d costly improvem ents m ust be 

timely controlled and removed. Practically all of these channels come under ths 

jurisdiction of the present Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Program which requires 

th at a permit application be submitted and the permit acquired prior to performing 

normal main tenance on the drainage channels in many locations througho ut the 

coastal area and river flood plains.

While the perm it application is in process, which requires from three to six m onths 

up to a year or more, we are repeatedly experiencing serious flood damages to 

businesses, industries, re sidential area, and agricultural operations simply because 

the maintenance program could not be carried our as required. Such a process has 

created an impossible situ ation whereby the Sta te of Louisiana must regain its 

autho rity to maintain drainage channels under the statwide drainage program. As 

it becomes necessary, these maintenance procedures should be freely available 

without extended delays of acquiring a permit from the Corps of Engineers.

States in which drain age channels play a vita l role in protecting from and 

preventing flood damages to crop lands and improvem ents generally lie in coas tal 

areas of the United States. T hat portion of Louisiana mainly affected is the S tate’s 

coastal area comprised of the following parishes: Cameron, Calcasieu, Vermilion, 

Iberia, St. Mary, Terre bonne, Lafourche, St. Charles, Jefferson, Plaquemines, 

Orleans, and St. Tam man y.

Therefore, it is recommeded th at Senate considerations of the Wright Amendment authorize the Sta te of Louisiana and local governing bodies, and any other 

sta te which has similar problems, to perform required main tenance on drainage 

channels, particu larly those located within “adjacen t wetlands” or areas defined as 

“navigable w aters” which does no t in fact contain a commerical navigation arte ry. 

Such an exemption is vita lly necessary if Louisiana is to retain and continue its 

historical practice of fulfilling the St ate and local responsibility for maintenance of 

existing drainage channnels. Should this auth ority not be restored, serious setbacks 

to the State economy will result and many developments and improvements will 

have to be aban doned.

Maryland Department of Agriculture,

Annapolis, Md., Ju ly 30, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Room 5121, Dirksen Building, U.S.

Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: Your attention is direc ted to hearings to be conducted on July 27 and 28 relative to interpretation and implementation of Section 

404, the Dredge and Fill Proposal, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

All of us in Maryland were extrem ely concerned when the courts determined 

th at the autho rity of the Corps of Engineers under present law would cover “all 

waters of the S tat e.” Maryland has been vigorous in its attem pts to exert control 

over the environment. Even before this intrepretatio n, legislation was passed 

and regulations were effective whereby a point source of pollution was being 

corrected through the use of the perm it procedure. Additional autho rity by the 

Corps of Engineers in this area is indeed fru strating to our citizens and our Sta te 

agencies. As you well know, many regulations of indu stry , priv ate proper ty an d 

businesses have been placed into effect. We recognize th at th ere must be an effort 

on our pa rt to make people conscious or the need for correction in these areas 

th at are creating problem s for water quality. It seems unfa ir though to sub ject 

them to an even more extensive delay and red tape. We do have a good program in 

Maryland and do not need the additional autho rity of the Corps to preempt our 

Sta te Regulations. To give you an example, there is one situation where a pr ope rty 

owner was losing approximately one foot of his property each year to erosion. His 

inte rest in try ing to correct this problem required no t only permits from the State, 

bu t also from the Corps of Engineers. The land which he was attem pting to con-
614

tain and the structure being used was only the length of the area which had eroded 

in the last 30 years. There was a 4 month delay in getting approval with Sta te 

hearings and the Corps of Engineers’ permission.

I respectfully urge you to lend your supp ort to the Wright Amendment which 

in my opinion gives the Corps of Engineers the autho rity in the area in which it 

should have. \ our favorable consideration will be very much appreciated by all 

-of Maryland agricultu re and I am sure by the citizens of the State.

Sincerely,

Young D. Hance, Secretary.

Sta te o f M in n e so ta ,

O f f ic e of t h e G o v er n o r,

St. Paul, Minn ., Ju ly 26, 1976.

H o n . J en n in g s R andolp h,

t/.S. Senate, 5121 Dirksen Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: As you are aware, the Senate Public Works Committee has scheduled oversight hearings for July 27 and 28, 1976 on c urrent problems being experienced or anticip ated on impleme ntation and administration of 

the Corps of Engineers 404 dredge and fill regulations. The Committee expects to 

report legislation shortly after the conclusion of these hearings as a potential conference vehicle for IIR 9560 (S. 2710) which passed the House in June, 1976.

We have been informed by Committee Staff that the oversight hearings have a 

closed witness list and th at July 27 is the date for testimony by members of the 

Senate and th e four executive agencies involved.

Your cooperation would be most apprecia ted and presenting the views of the 

Sta te of Minnesota on this issue. Attached herewith is a copy of a statem ent on 

behalf of the sta te we would like to have read into the record.

Sincerely,

Wendell R. Anderson, Governor. Enclosure.

St a te m e n t on B eh a lf of t h e S ta te of M in n eso ta

The State of Minnesota is concerned with the forthcom ing Senate action on the 

present legislation S. 2710 concerning the extension of U.S. Corps of Engineers 

autho rity over dredge and fill operations in navigable waters.

A careful review and evaluation of HR 9560 (now designated S 2710), which 

passed the House by a wide margin, indicates th at the original bill as further 

amended by the Breaux and subseque nt Wright amendments would be most 

acceptable to the Sta te of Minnesota subject to the consideration that additional 

separate legislation is prepared to provide for adeq uate federal controls to protect 

certain wetlands not covered by S. 2710.

The Wright Amendment as presented in the Ju ne 3, 1976 Congressional Record 

would be acceptable for the following reasons:

(1) It would appropriately limit the definition of “ navigable wate rs” as used in 

Section 404 of PL 92500 in rega rd to federal jurisdiction, to those waters which 

have traditionally been included, for adm inistrative purposes, under federal 

jurisdiction through unw ritte n agreements and admin istrativ e actions between the 

States and the Corps. The addition of the definition of “adjacent wetlands” will 

afford the protection needed for those coastal and freshwater wetlands which are 

located contiguous to and within the reasonable limits of the “navigable waters” 

hydrologic and biologic systems.

(2) It would authorize mutual agreements between Governors and the Corps 

to designate additional wetlands for fpderal permit control. This would allow 

those states who have existing regulatory programs to maintain their existing 

permit programs, while a t the same time providing a mechanism for those states 

without such program s, or with only limited programs, to enter into agreements 

with the Corps of Engineers for federal regulation. In Minnesota, major efforts 

arc underway to implement a program for delineating and classifying “public 

waters” of the states to carry out a local-state program for regulation of changes 

in the course, current or cross-section of these “public waters.” Interference with 

th at program at this time would severely ham per state legislative intent to create 

a sound local-state program of perm it regulation addressing environm ental as 

well as economic concerns and it would inhibit successful implementation of the 

recently enacted sta te laws authorizing such actions. If oth er states wish to work 

ou t other agreements on regulation, they should be allowed to do so, bu t such a
615

{

irogram should be a negotiated action and not subject to manda tory federal 

aws.

(3) It would authorize the Corps of Engineers to delegate any functions of the 

404 perm it program to inte rested states to avoid duplicative programs. This 

would lead to a better program of mutual cooperation and would reduce “bureaucratic red tap e” by simplifying and shortening the permit process. In essence, it 

represents the same concept presently being enacted on a local-state basis in 

Minnesota—the development of mutually acceptable regu latory rules and regulations within a broad legislative framework and the impleme ntation of the program a t a local level w herever feasible and practical on ma tters of dominant localregional concern. Minnesota has accepted delegation of the NP DE S perm it 

program from the USEPA. This program is operatin g very successfully, and we 

see no reason why similar delegation of the Federal 404 program would no t be 

equally successful.

(4) It would exempt the regulation of dredge and fill discharges resulting from 

normal farming, silviculture, ranching, certain maintenance activ ities or regulation of these areas as they affect wetlands bu t this should not be accomplished 

under federal water pollution control legislation. If such control is to be provided, it should be done und er a comprehencive wetland managem ent program 

which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and which 

provides for adequate mitigation (compensation) for regulatory restrictions on 

use of certain specified wetland areas. Such federal legislation could be most 

helpful, bu t it should be thro ugh a separate legislative act which is carefully 

conceived to allow reasonable economic development without excessive destruction of environmentally valuable wetlands.

(5) Finally, the Wright ame ndm ent provides au tho rity for the Corps to issue 

“general permits” to cover minimal perm it situations. This provision could help 

to reduce the proliferation of perm its required and allow more time for the Corps 

to concentrate on major permit matt er of national significance without requiring 

large new Corps funding and staff additions for adm inistration.

In summ ary, the Sta te of Minnesota urges th at the Senate ena ct the key provisions of S. 2710 and thereby assist the states in their water resources manageme nt efforts in a spirit of mutu al coordination and cooperation. It is also essential 

th at appropriate comprehensive federal wetland protection and preservation 

legislation, including economic mitigatio n and compensation provisions, be 

prep ared and considered as s epa rate legislation.

Ih e futu re environmental and economic well-being of Minnesota as well as 

•the r states rests with the deve lopm ent of carefully prep ared federal legislation 

which ensures a meaningful federal-state working relationship.

State of Montana,

Office of the Governor,

Helena, Mont., July 27, 1976. Hon. J ennings R andolph,

U.S. Senate, Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Suite 4^02, Washington,

Dear Senator R andolph: Mo ntana’s position regarding S. 2710 is presented 

in the enclosed copy of my July 2 correspondence to Senator Lee Metcalf.

The Section 404 perm it program of the Corps of Engineers is an unpo pular 

extension of federal au tho rity and an unw arranted usurpation of s tate and local 

rights. Because adequa te laws exist to regu late strea m projects, the duplicative 

federal regulations would dela y if not alto geth er discourage desirable projects and 

ext rac t unnecessary expe nditures on the pa rt of both landowners and regu latory 

agencies.

Particularly because the W right A mendment could help resolve the controversy, 

Mo ntana urges the support of the Senate Public Works Committee for S. 2710.

Sincerely,

T homas L. J udge, Governor. Enclosure.

J uly 2, 1976. Hon. Lee Metcalf,

U.S. Senate, Dirksen Offi.ce Building, Room 1121, Washington, D.C.

Dear Lee : According to inform ation recently received from the National 

Governors’ Conference, the House, on June 3, passed H R 9560, th e Federal Wate r 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1976, by a vote of 339-5. This bill is now 

pending in the Senate as S. 2710.
616

As passed by the House, the bill contains several provisions of interest and 

concern to Montanans, including:

1. Amendments to Section 404 (P.O. 92-500).

2. Authorization for the Construction Grant Program for fiscal years 1977, 

1978 and 1979.

3. Certification of Construction Gra nt activities by the States.

4. Extension of the Section 208 Water Quality Planning Program with full 

federal funding.

Perh aps the most significant of these concerns is the Section 404 auth ori ty of 

the Corps of Engineers to require permits for dredge and fill activities in navigable 

waters. Under regulations published by the Corps in 1975, they would unde rtake 

Phase II of this program Jul y 1, 1976, thereby extending coverage to tributaries 

of navigable waters.

We, in Mon tana, are opposed to this further intrusion of federal control 

onto traditiona l areas of Sta te responsibility. We also feel this would impose an 

additional burden on present and futu re users of Montan a’s waters, who would 

have to meet the Corps requirements.

A recent survey by the Inter sta te Conference on Water Problems indicated 

th at Mon tana has existing legislation to control nearly all the activities which 

would be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. The Streambed Protection 

Act, the Mon tana W ater Use Act, the Floodway Manage ment Act an d the Montan a Water Pollution Control Act provide a sub stantial foundation for State 

control. It should also be noted th at Montana was am ong the first of the western 

States to be delegated autho rity by the Environmental Protection Agency for 

the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The Corps program under 

Section 404, would, therefore, seem to be duplicative of existing State programs, 

besides being burdensome and costly.

An amendment to Section 404 by R epresentative Wright of Texas was approved 

on the lloor of the House 234-121, and is contained in S. 2710. I feel it would 

resolve the controversy now surrounding Section 404, and I, therefore, urge you 

to initiate p rom pt Senate action on S. 2710.

With warm personal regards, I am,

Sincerely,

T homas L. J udge, Governor.

State of Montana, 

Department of Fish and Game,

Helena, Mont., August 13, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee or Public Works, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The proposed Wright-Breaux ame ndment to 

the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act will allow accelerated destruction of this 

natio n’s valuable and irreplaceable wetlands. As an agency charged with the 

managem ent of fish and wildlife, much of which is produced in wetland areas, 

we strongly recommend th at the Wright-Breaux ame ndment not be passed.

We request th at this letter be made part of the hearing record.

Sincerely,

Wesley R. Woodgerd, State Fish and Game Director.

State of North Carolina,

Governor’s Office, 

Raleigh, N.C., Ju ly 28, 1976.

Senator Edmund S. Muskie,

Senate Committee on Public Works,

4204 Dirksen Building,

Wa shington, D.C.

Dear Senator Mus kie: The State of North Carolina had hoped to be represented at the hearings conducted by the Committee on Public Works pertaining 

to amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Unfortunately, we w’ere unable to obtain time on the hearings schedule. I would like to 

request that the attach ed statem ent which outlines our position on the amendments be inserted in the record in lieu of direct testimony.

Your cooperation in this m atter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

J ames E. Holshouser, Jr., Governor.

Attachment.
Because our sta te was unable to appear before your subcommittee on July 27,

I request th at this sta tem ent be included in the record as North Carolin a’s 

position on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, including Section 

404.

While we certa inly endorse the Senate’s inte ntions to underta ke a comprehensive review of this legislation next year, we would urge adoption of several 

proposals as quickly as possible. These include equitable formulas for distrib uting 

construction gra nt funds among th e state, more realistic deadlines for completion 

of ma ndated water quality man agem ent plans, streamlined procedures for the 

review and approval of wastewater tre atm ent plan applications, and extension of 

the deadline for compliance with 1977 tre atm ent requirements. In approving 

HR 9560 the House of Representatives has alre ady adopted several of these 

much needed changes.

We endorse the Talmadge-N unn allocation formula, which would be based 50 

percent on population and 50 percent on needs, as t he most equitable formula for 

the d istribution of “ 201” construction gra nt funds. The present formula is riddled 

with inaccuracies and has been repudiated by EPA. North Carolina is inequitably 

treate d by the formula which is based entirely on needs.

We support the House-passed ame ndm ent to Section 203 of the Act, which 

would permit the consolidation of steps two and three for projects under one 

million dollars. This revision would clearly expedite the certification of small 

projects. Presently, in many instances, the curre nt three-step process has caused 

excessive delays in the completion of small projects.

Wate r qua lity managemen t planning as authorized in Section 208 of the Act 

is another area of critical concern. A recent Federal court ruling man date s the 

completion of such plans statewide by November, 1978. The experience of regional 

planning agencies across the country suggests t hat a t least two and one-half years 

is required to produce a “208” plan, from the date of gra nt award to the actual 

approval of EPA. At our request Senator Morgan has proposed an amendmen t to 

relate the deadline for plan completion to the award date for the planning g ran t. 

I urge your suppor t of t hat amendment.

Section 13 of the House Bill proposed amendmen t of Section 301 of the Act 

to allow extensions of the original deadline of July 1, 1977, for public tre atm ent 

plants to meet secondary tre atm ent stan dards. At present, it appears th at less 

tha n half of the publicly owned plants in the nation will be able to meet those 

stan dards. It seems only reasonable to perm it defined extensions to those local 

governments th at are making a conscientious effort to att ain compliance.

In regards to Section 404, North Carolina would favor the introduction in 

the Senate of an ame ndm ent which would achieve the following:

A simple moratorium on the enforcement of Phase II and II I permit 

requirements. The Congressional moratorium would remain in place for 

one year until a comprehensive review of P.L. 92-500 could be und ertake n 

and completed by the next Congress. In the interim, the ACE would continue to require perm its in Phase I areas only, and future permit requirements 

would not affect projects c urre ntly under con tract for construction.

Our second preference would be a* follows:

The Wright/Hart Amendments with certain clarifications and additions . . .

(a) With regard to the Wright ame ndment:

The definition of navigable wate rs should be revised to include waters 

which have been used in the past as a means of transp ort in inters tate commerce as well as those which are or could be used in this manner, 

(Section 404(d)(1) of the amen dment). This revision would make the Wright 

definition synonomous with the definition of navigable waters in existing 

ACE Regulation, 33 CF R 209.120(d)(1) which governs permits under the 

1899 Act.

The section outlining th e exemption of federal or federally assisted projects 

which require an environmental impact state me nt or assessment is too broad. 

It should be made more specific or eliminated.

Any am endmen t should include a section which allows the ACE to delegate 

the p ermit programs to the st ates with a provision for penalties. In addition, 

there should be a provision authorizing mutual agreements between sta te 

governors and the ACE to allow designation of wetlands in addition, there 

should be a provision authorizing mutual agreem ents between state governors 

and the ACE to allow designation of wetlands in addition to those covered 

in the Phase I definition.

(b) With regard to the Hart ame ndment:
618

We are supportive of the provision to exempt from perm it requirements 

normal farming silviculture, ranching activities, c ertain mainte nanc e activities 

or regulation of farm stock ponds or irrigation ditches.

We su ppo rt the autho rity for issuance of general permits.

We are concerned abo ut the use of the wording “minimal adverse cumulative effect” which is vague and can vary greatly depending upon the issuance 

of regulations. This should be clarified in the Ha rt Amendment.

A provision for delegation to states of the responsibility for the adm inistration of the perm it program should be added.

We supp ort th at portion of the Ha rt Amendment which exempts from 

perm it requirements the m aintenan ce of existing structure s, etc. (Section 404, 

para graph 2).

State of Nebraska, 

Lincoln, Nebr., Ju ly 23, 1976. Ho n. J ennings R andolph,

U.S. States Senator, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, 4#0O Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: Enclosed is a letter rexpressing my views on the 

matter before your Committe e July 27 and 28.

I would appreciate it if the l ett er could become p art of the official record of th e 

hearing proceedings.

J. J ames Exon, Governor. Enc losure.

State of Nebraska, 

Linc oln, Nebr., Ju ly 23, 1976. Ho n. J enninos R andolph,

U.S. Senator, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, 4200 Dirksen Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am writing to urge favorable consideration of 

S. 2710 when it comes before your Committee on July 27. It contains a num ber 

of important amendments to th e Federal Water Pollution Control Act th at should 

be enacted to aid the sta tes ’ ability to meet our national water qua lity cleanup 

goals. I am fully convinced th at there must be a closer working relationship 

between the states and the Federal Government on the water quality endeavor. 

Enactment of S. 2710 should enhance both the sta tes’ and the Federal capa bility 

for this necessary cooperation.

I have a very specific inte rest in Section 16 of the bill which specifically relates to 

amendments to Section 404 of Public Law 92-500. I will address that in considerable detail. My comments address two major points. One, th e p resent definition of 

“navigable waters” is an obvious overreach of Federal autho rity . Secondly, the 

sta tes have, on the whole, the capa bility to handle water qua lity enhancement 

programs.

I have been involved through the Natio nal Governors’ Conference and through 

activities within my own Sta te of Nebraska with the Corps Perm it Program for 

qui te some time. My actual involvement came long before the March, 1975, 

District Court decision to direct the Corps to broaden the ir enforcement procedure s of Section 404. My involvement with this a ctivity originally centered around 

an attempt by the Corps of Engineers to declare the Pla tte River in Nebraska a 

navigable river under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

This seemed to be an absu rd approach, and I objected strenuously to such 

activities by the Corps of Army Engineers. As of this date, the Platte River has 

no t been declared a navigable strea m under Section 10.

It is Nebraska’s position th at implementation of Section 404 as suggested by the 

rules and regulations of July 25, 1975 would be an overreach of Federal author ity. 

The amendments contained in S. 2710 are a first step to remedy this situation.

The more specific definition of navigable waters for Section 404 perm its is 

necessary; providing the autho rity for mutual agreement between the Governors 

and the Corps to designate any additional wetlands for Federal perm it control 

appe ars reasonable; and the exemption of the regulation of dredge and fill discharges resulting from normal farming, silviculture, ranching, certain mainte nanc e 

activities, or regulation of farm stock ponds or irrigation ditches is essential.

Furthermore, I am keenly interested in the provision to authorize the Corps 

to delegate any functions of the 404 P ermit Program to interested states to avoid 

duplicative programs. Nebraska has been quite involved and has closely monitored 

the results of an extensive questionnaire provided for s tate response by the In tersta te Conference on Water Problems. This organizatio n representing sta tes’
619

water Intciests circulated tne questionnaire under contract with the Corps. The purpose of the survey was to provide the Corps of Engineers information on th e capability of the states to provide assistance in implementing Section 404 of P. L. 92-500. I have been informed tha t the Interstate Conference on Water Problems has presented several preliminary reports to the Corps of Engineers and that the Corps of Engineers has made this information available to the Congress 

and the interested Federal agencies. One of my staff members, directly involved in the study, has provided me with periodic reports on the ICWP study progress, based on information which has been released by the Corps of Engineers. It is my understanding tha t the states have many programs which are being duplicated in whole or in part by the Corps of Engineers Section 404 program. This is an unwise use of our scarce state and federal funds and a luxury tha t we cannot afford in our efforts to clean up our nation’s waters. This duplication is also inconsistent with Section 101(f) of P.L. 92-500 which provides for minimization of bureaucratic red tape. It is also my understanding that many of the states have indicated their willingness to seek duplication of Section 404 programs if Congress amends P.L. 92-500 to permit such delegation. This would be an excellent opportunity for Congress to further implement Section 101(b) of the Act which provides for 

maximization of state participation. I have been told that some Federal agencies and environmental groups may oppose delegation because the states “do not have the capability to carry out the program.” I would suggest to the committee tha t the states, if permitted to seek delegation will develop that capability very quickly, if it truly does not exist at the present time. They have developed capability before when it w:is needed (the NPDES program, for instance), and they can develop capability for 

the Section 404 program. In reviewing the preliminary of the ICWP states’ survey, a number of state comments appear. Some of the more pertinent comments are as follows:

“Intrusion into and usurpation of state s’ rights.” “Authority is being extended to waters well beyond the limits of what could be considered in the national interests. Jurisdiction over privately owned artificial canals and reservoirs and over minor tributary streams is unreasonable.” “Cannot survive under the present programs which have complete and u nalter­ able federal dominance. The scope of Section 404 as redefined following judicial interpretation is now too broad and infringes unnecessarily on states’ prerogratives. The definition of “navigable waters” needs redefinition and clarification?’ “The 404 program is far too broad and greatly exceeds the necessary level of involvement for federal interests. Its red tape is almost certain to create either total nonenforcement or bolster the environmental red tape backlash movement 

to the detriment of the legitimate goals of the movement.” “Apparently, a central purpose of this questionnaire relates to the probability of state duplication and/or acceptance of Section 404 permit jurisdiction. It is our opinion tha t the scope of Section 404 is excessive, whether or not states choose to accept a delegation of this authority. The resources and manpower the state or the federal government has to expand in environmental, fields is limited and would much more wisely be spent on productive programs. In summary, I urge your Committee to take affirmative action on S. 2710 and ask for Senate approval as rapidly as possible. The sixty-day phase II implemen­ tation delay granted by President Ford has provided time to enact appropriate 

legislation that will be reasonable.

Sincere ly, J. J a m e s E x o n , G ov er no r.

C om m onw ea lt h o f P en n sy lv a n ia ,

P en n sy lv a n ia F is h C o m m is sio n ,

Harrisburg, Pa., Ju ly H , 1976.

Ho n. J en n in g s R a n d o lph,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works,

Washington, D.C.

Dewr Senator R andolph: We have been made aware of the hearings scheduled 

for July 27 and 28 on the Wright-Breaux amendment of Section 17, H.R. 9560, which although somewhat more palatable than the original Breaux amendment to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act still presents serious danger to the wetlands of the United States. We are opposed to this amendment as being deleterious to the protection presently provided to the majority of this

76-161—76------40
620

nation’s important marshes, wetlands and recreational lakes. We were extremely 

disappointed to learn that the Wright-Breaux amendment was not sub ject to 

public hearings, and with a m atter as complex as this has become, and considering 

the ramifications of its provisions, we would respectfully urge th at the leas t that 

be done is to hold public hearings on this amendment. Concurrent with this, we 

would urge that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be permitted to implement 

Phases I and II of Section 404 a ppa rently in force.

In summary, the Penn sylvania Fish Commission opposes the Wright-Breaux 

typ e of language in am ending the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act, and urges its 

defeat—th us saving the Corps of Engineers’ perm it program presently in force. 

Respectfully,

R alph W. Abele, Executive Director.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

Pennsylvania Game Commission,

Office of Executive Director,

Harrisburg, Pa., July IS, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator J ennings: Your Public Works Com mittee will soon hold 

hearings on the Wright-Breaux amendment to Section 404 of the Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972.

We are unalterably opposed to the language of th e Wright-Breaux amendment 

or any similar language. Our invaluable wetlands must be protected and preserved. 

We respectfully urge the Committee to consider language to guarantee protection 

and preservation of these priceless and irreplaceable lands.

Please bring our plea to the attention of the Committee. Tha nk you.

Sincerely,

Glenn L. Bowers. Executive Director.

South Carolina State Ports Authority,

Charleston, S.C., July 23, 1976.

Re section 404 hearings.

Hon. J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Rando lph: Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act contains a little noted provision which may cause this State agency, 

and many other applicants for dredge and fill permits, needless cost and uncertainty. Section 404(c) provides th at the Adm inistrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency may “pro hib it” the specification of any disposal site if he 

“determines, after notice and opp ortunity for public hearings, th at the discharge 

of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on 

municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawing and 

breeding areas, wildlife, or recr eational area s).”

Pu rsu ant to this Section, the EPA is authorized to conduct a detailed and 

lengthlv procedure when it invokes its jurisdiction.

The Corps of Engineers cond ucts a lengthy procedure in its dete rmination s on 

dredge and fill permit applications pur sua nt to Section 404(a), the National 

Environmen tal Policy Act, the Intergovernmenta l Cooperatio n Act and oth er 

sta tut es. In the case of a permit application which involves the prepa ration of an 

environm enta l imp act sta tem ent and the conduct of public hearings by the 

Corps of Engineers, these Corps procedures t ake a very long time to be completed.

Section 404(c), as it is presently written, allows the EPA to invoke its jurisdiction, and to begin and conduct its procedures, after the Corps of Engineers’ 

procedures have been completed and after the Corps has determined th at a dredge 

and fill permit should issue.

Because EPA is involved in the Corps of Engineers Section 404(a) procedure 

thro ugh comments and coordination on both the permit application and the 

draft environmental impact statem ent, the EPA is fully advised of the pendency 

of a pa rticular permit application while it is pending before the Corps of Engineers.
621

It seems only reasonable, therefore, th at the EPA should be required to exercise 

its jurisdiction under Section 404(c), if a t all, at the same time as the Corps of 

Engineers is considering the permit application, utilizing the same procedures 

wherever possible. Duplicate public hearings and intergovernmental coordination 

fcould thus be avoided. If the EPA has acted prior to final Corps action, the Corps 

of Engineers’ decision, should it be in favor of issuing the permit, could then be 

relied upon by permit applicants as being a final administrative determination.

The South Carolina State Ports Authority has recently testified before your 

Subcommittee on Water Resources on topics related to this point. A copy of 

tha t testimony is enclosed. In that testimony we recommended to the Committee 

an amendment to Section 404(c) which would not change EPA’s jurisdiction 

with regard to dredge and fill permits b ut which would eliminate duplication and 

uncertainty from the dredge and fill permit application process.

We have set forth this proposed amendment as a separate enclosure to this

letter.

We respectfully request your attention to this unclear, burdensome, costly and 

unnecessary provision of Section 404(c) and urge remedial action.

Your inclusion of this letter as pa rt of the record and your consideration of this

issue is appreciated. 

Sincerely, W. Don Welch.

Enclosure.

Testimony of W. Don Welch, Executive Director of the South Carolina

State Ports Authority

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is W. Don Welch. I am 

executive director of the South Carolina State Ports Authority. Appearing with 

me today are W. W. Johnson, chairman of the Authority Board, and Martin S. 

Baker, our environmental counsel.

The State Ports Authority serves South Carolina as the agency with general 

jurisdiction over all port and harbor activities within the state. Its legislative 

mandate directs it to work toward the development and improvement of the 

harbors and seaports of the state and toward the increase of waterborne commerce. 

Since its establishment in 1942, the State Ports Authority has developed a modern 

and highly-effective ocean terminal system with a major port in Charleston and 

two important subsidiary ports in Georgetown and Port Royal. South Carolina 

now has port facilities valued at $220 million; planned expansion will increase 

this value to about $300 million by 1980. Charleston, now the nation’s twelfth 

largest port in value of trade, is a dynamic p ort with a steadily growing level of 

activity.

This subcommittee has recognized the importance to the national economy of 

the adequate maintenance of harbor channels to required depths. The vast 

majority of our nation’s international trade moves in ships. This tra.de moving 

in oceangoing vessels nowr

 totals well over $124 billion. A partnership between 

federal and local interests provides the infrastructure to support this trade. 

Local interests provide the ocean terminal facilities with direct land and water 

access. The Federal Government carries the main responsibility in supplying the 

major channels and waterways. The South Carolina State Ports Authority shares 

with ports throughout the nation the continuing concern for adequate harbor 

maintenance in the face of growing economic and environmental challenges. The 

challenge has brought forward important new issues regarding dredging practices, 

technological innovation, permit procedures and the roles played between local 

and federal interest in navigation projects.

In South Carolina, as in many other areas, development of a harbor system 

has blazed the trail for industrial progress. Access to world markets has become 

the key factor in the success of commerce, manufacturing and agriculture. Within 

our state, this positive economic impact benefits not only those seaboard counties 

where harbor facilities are located, but also major inland manufacturing counties. 

There is a substantial use of and dependence on our harbors by agricultural and 

manufacturing interests. A recent study by the University of South Carolina 

shows tha t the impact of the port on the state income is more than half a billion 

dollars. Some 1,500 firms in all of the state’s 46 counties use the State Ports 

system regularly. The direct and indirect employment is 30,000. Also, South 

Carolina exports 29 percent of its agricultural production, the highest percentage 

in the nation.
622

South Carolina ports serve the federal inte rest in several significant ways. Most importantly, the Port of Charleston has become a favorable balance of trade port with more than 60 percent of its cargoes being exported. The export/ 

imp ort balance shifted favorably toward exports in 1973, and has stead ily increased since then. Our ports serve as a door to world markets for American-made goods, 

especially machinery, newsprint and paper products, and forest products. In 

addition, the port system has helped to make South Carolina a natio nal leader 

in foreign investment in man ufac turing plants. Firms from more tha n a dozen 

nations have invested $1.5 billion in more tha n 85 major manufac turing plants 

and service organizations. In effect, this makes the port system a majo r imp orte r of jobs and capital into the nation.

In grappling w ith some unique problems in Charleston Harbor, we have developed specialized inform ation on issues t ha t reflect the national concerns. For this 

reason, we wish to review some specific issues related to Charleston Harbor and 

to place them within the context of national policy on dredging, harbor main ­ tenance and the federal permit procedures.

SANTEE-COOPE R REDIVERSIO N

The present authorized channel depth at the Port of Charleston is 35 feet. 

While neighboring ports received approval for deeper channels, Charleston has been 

held to this depth for many years because of excessive silting and shoaling. Deeper 

channels would be virtually impossible to maintain without substantial relief of the silting and shoaling. The cause of the silting has been clearly att rib uted to 

the diversion of the Santee River water into the headwaters of the Cooper River 

in 1942. Before then, the Cooper River was more a marine estuary tha n a river. 

Fresh water flow was at a gentle rate of less than 100 cubic feet per second. The 

magnificent harbor into which the Cooper River flowed was clean and clear. Na tural water depths in the harbor ranged up to 84 feet.

With the diversion of the Santee River, the hand of m an changed the natural 

order of things. The drainage a rea of the Cooper River was increased more tha n 12 

times to 15,000 square miles. F resh water input increased to more than 156 times 

the natura l condition. Some ten billion gallons of additional fresh water come 

into the harbor each day, carrying millions of tons of silt. This overwhelming 

increase of silt-laden fresh water completely disrupted the natural flushing action of the tides turning th e harbo r into a giant silt trap .

It is now' necessary to dredge up to 10 million cubic yards of materials each year 

to maintain navigation channels at even the inadequate 35-foot depth. The Corps 

of Engineers needs more than $5 million annually to keep the channels, reaches and 

anchorages a t project dimensions. At the same time, large tra cts in the harbor area 

must be set aside as disposal areas. Because of the environmental and fiscal costs, such practices cannot continue indefinitely.

The solution to this drastic problem will be provided in the Santee-Cooper 

Rediversion Project, a federally-funded project to retu rn the Cooper River more 

closely to its natural character and hydrology, substan tially reducing the volumes 

of silt and the cost of dredging. This project has been authorized by this committee 

and by Congress and construction funding has been provided. Continued funding 

must be provided to make certain th at construction proceeds on a timely basis. As 

construction is expected to take several years, the port must meanwhile continue to cope with massive loads of silt.

AUTH ORIZED HARBOR DEPTH

Associated with the Cooper River Rediversion Project is the Charleston Harbor 

Deepening Project, the harbor improvement project. This project will correct some of the long-term damage of th e yenrs of silting, eliminate some channel limitations and enable th e p ort to continue to serve th e growing demand for access to the harbor and the w'orld.

The basic facts are simple. The ocean shipping industry is currently going 

thro ugh a major technological revolution. New specialized ships are unlike any 

ships ever seen before in the history of ocean navigation. They are faster, w ider, 

deeper—and they require wider and deeper channels within Which to navigate.

To keep pace with this technological revolution in shipping, the im peratives for 

Charleston Harbor as recommended by the Corps of Engineers are these: A 

minimum channel dep th of 40 feet in existing channels with 42 feet at the harbor 

mouth; expansion and deepening of the main anchorage; and enlarging and 

deepening of the tu rnin g basins to assure safety while maneuvering ships.
623

The need and value of this project has been clearly demonstrated. After thoro ugh 

review and approval by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the 

Charleston Harbor Deepening Project has been presented to Congress for auth orization this year. Its implementation, togethe r with the annu al channel mainte ­

nance within the harbor, has focused our agency’s atten tion on the dredging issue 

and has highlighted what we believe to be a growing n ational concern.

DIS PO SA L OF DR ED GE D M AT ER IA LS

The current method of disposal of dredged materials calls for the use of disposal 

areas located eith er in marshland, wetland or upland sites. The responsibility for 

providing the disposal sites falls upon our agency, and the cost is borne by the 

State of South Carolina. The routine practice now is the use of diked marshlands 

for the reception and detention of materials from the channels. This method 

causes tin* destruction of existing life in the marshes. Studies also indicate that 

the runoff from the disposal areas involves several environmental issues. In addition to the environmental consequences, the procedural and economic burdens 

imposed by the requ irem ent to make disposal areas available are enormous. In 

view of this, it is likely th at the establishment of additional dredge material 

disposal sites will be extrem ely difficult.

In Charleston Harbor the annual amount of dredged material is so great tha t a 

disposal alternativ e which would allow disposal of gre ater portions of the material 

at sea is worth consideratio n. The Corps of Engineers has investigated the use of 

a special dredge and barge combination which might make transp ortation to sea 

an economically favorable alte rnative . There is an urgent need to have such 

combination barges and dredge equipment constructed and put into operation 

thro ugh out the United States.

The effects on the ocean environment and marin e ecosystems of dumping 

harbor spoils at sea are no t quantita tively known. The issue of ocean dumping 

regulation also rem ains in question. A recent report for the National Ocean Policy 

Study of the Congress for the comm ittee chaired by Senator Ern est Hollings of 

South Carolina notes a fundam ental disagreement on what the ultimate goals of 

the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act on ocean dumping really 

are. One viewpoint holds th at the Act manda tes a banning of ocean dum ping 

while th e other contends th at the Act calls for s trict regulation and the choice of 

ocean dumping when it is the environmentally best disposal method. The study 

notes that the Environmental Protection Agency has taken a somewhat ambivalent approach toward ocean dumping and th at it is not possible to evaluate 

properly the direction of EPA ocean dumping control strategy.

On this ma tter, appraisal from the National Ocean Policy Study suggests th at 

the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act may need amendment to 

clarify the Congressional intent. Practical limitations and the regulatory uncertainty make the pursuit of ocean disposal for current and near-term dredging 

projects problematic. This situatio n combined with the severe constraints on 

developing new disposal areas forces an intensified light on current disposal 

practices and the use of existing disposal areas.

A timely determ ination of the federal policy on ocean dumping is essential for 

any long-range disposal planning. Apparently, existing scientific knowledge will 

not allow a precise d etermination on the env ironmen tal soundness of ocean dum ping. Additional research and development programs on ocean dumping and its 

alternatives should be u nde rtaken without delay.

In a ddition, federal policy should seek to simplify and, where possible, eliminate 

duplicative bureaucratic procedures on dredge and fill perm it matters. As it 

stands today, it is possible for the duplicate procedures embodied in Section 

404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to occur one after the other 

rather tha n being conducted concurrently. Surely, the federal review process on 

the dredge and fill perm its th at are typically sought by public port agencies are 

so long and so complex th at it should be possible for all federal review’s to be 

conducted in unison.

For example, Section 404(c) can be inte rpreted to allow the Enviro nmental 

Protection Agency to invoke its jurisdiction at the end of a lengthy review process 

by the Corps of Engineers, convoke a public hearing, deliberate and issue a finding 

on the basis of issues which could easily have been identified and addressed long 

before, while the Corps was conducting its deliberations.

This cumbersome and non-productive process with its long potential delays 

can produce significant public costs when it involves a public project proposed 

by a public agency.
D EED G IN G IS SU E S

The South Carolina State Por ts Auth ority is now in the final stages of a 

federally-funded study on dredging. In investigating both the projected dredging 

demand thro ughout South Carolina and the disposal alternative s available, this 

stu dy has developed information with broad significance. Data from the Natio nal 

Dredging Study and the Dredged Materials Research Program of the Corps 

of Engineers at Vicksburg, Miss., have been applied to Charleston Harbo r’s 

disposal problems. This study has concluded th at the solution to our disposal 

crisis lies in the judicious selection and application of the most modern disposal 

technology and the development of innovative managem ent for disposal areas. 

Such plans and techniques could conceivably postpone for years th e need for major 

new disposal areas thereby avoiding the substan tial environm enta l and practical 

problems associated with disposal area development.

The technology th at could extend the useful life of disposal areas for years has 

been examined in the Dredged Materials Research Project. These include 

mechanically-assisted dewatering of dredged materials and rigorous engineering 

and main tenance of dikes. However, the Dredged Material Research Project 

stopped short of developing specific strategies for applying these technologies. Nor 

were the questions of funding management costs addressed.

Clearly, natio nal policy as sta ted in the Natio nal Environmental Policy Act 

supports efforts to avoid or postpone development of new disposal areas through 

extending the life of existing areas. It should be federal policy to support strategies 

of managem ent th at recognize the value of existing disposal areas and maximize 

the ir worth.

For this reason, the South Carolina State Ports Authority believes the development of sound disposal area man agem ent plans and practices should be a federal 

objective. Technology considered in the Dredged Materials Disposal Project 

should receive practical application in conjunction with federally-supported 

maintenance or construction projects.

F E D E R A L IN V O LV EM EN T

The procedural complexities associated with harb or m aintenan ce have increased 

in each recent year. For the most par t, this can be attributed to increased environmental concern. These complexities have had corresponding costs. As a result, 

ann ual federal appropriations for harb or maintenance have increased each year 

while in many areas, the effectiveness of the projects has declined. It should be 

remembered, however, th at harbor and channel maintenance represents the single 

major federal public works commitmen t to ocean shipping. Extensive non-federal 

public and private investm ent shares with the federal government both in the 

cost of channel main tenance and through the massive capital investme nt by state 

and local agencies in port construction.

If the federal-local partnership is to remain viable, the long established principal 

of participation by local inte rests obviously must remain. However, port officials 

throug hou t the natio n have observed an app are nt tren d to place on th e shoulders 

of the local interests the burden of the new complexities involved in navigation 

projects. At the 1975 meeting of the American Association of Port Authorities, a 

resolution on this topic cited a tren d toward excessive rigidity by the federal intere sts in interpretin g the conditions of local cooperation. This threatens to 

create an unreasonably rigid policy which is not in keeping with the historic 

federal-local partnership. Our own experience with the Charleston Harbor Deepening Project and repo rts from ports thro ugh out the natio n have produced examples of the policies. Such examples include the new local burdens for providing 

disposal areas th at meet str ict current environmental criteria, and for assuming 

the responsibility for water pollution control measures. Federal legislation and 

policy on environmental ma tters have to a grea t extent created these burdens; 

therefore, federal procedures for implementing them should be reasonable. They 

should not be an unreasonable burden involving procedural complexities which 

have no substantive purpose.

We believe the im portant federal role in harb or and channel maintenance 

should be emphasized and fully supp orted in lieu of federal involvement in other 

port development areas. With this in mind, the South Carolina State Por ts Autho rity has joined with o ther port agencies in opposing federal government financial assistance for p ort capita l improvem ent projects. Most port officials sha re the 

position adopted last year by the American Association of Port Authorities. This 

position supports the right of the public ports of the United State s to self-development in a climate of free competition. It opposes federal involvement in the direction and control of port and term inal development.
625

CONCLUSION

The federal mandate to sup port development of navigation channels in the nation’s harbors has a long and clear legislation history. For many years, the federal 

involvem ent has proved its importance in serving the commercial and military 

shipping needs of the natio n. In considering the Water Resources Deve lopment 

Act of 1976, this subc omm ittee has the opp ortunity to resolve some important 

issues on dredging and perm it matters. To summarize our concerns in a national 

policy conte xt, we wish to propose a number if positions for consideration b y this 

committee:

First, to extend the useful life of existing disposal areas, federal legislation 

should authorize the practical applications of disposal area management practices 

in conjunction with federally-supported maintenance and construction projects. 

We are submitting suggested draft legislation with this testimony to accomplish 

this objective.

Second, simplification of the permit process for dredging and dispoasl projects 

should be encouraged We are suggesting a legislative change which would help to 

accomplish this by coordinating the Corps of Engineers and Environmental 

Protection Agency review and hearing procedures on dredge and fill permits 

soug ht by public agencies.

Third, federal policy on open water and ocean disposal should be clarified to 

permit such disposal when it is the environmentally sound alternative . To suppor t 

this, additional research and development programs on ocean disposal and its 

alternative s should be authorized in conjunction with ongoing dredging and 

disposal projects.

And fourth, a federal s tud y should be begun to establish reasonable and workable guidelines for local cooperation on navigatio n projects. This study should 

specifically address those new burdens which have been ceated by technological 

change and environm ental concerns.

Please accept my thanks for the opp ortunity to sta te these concerns and to 

review our agency’s activ ities on dredging and perm it matters. I wouldfgladly 

respond to any questions you may have.

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks,

Pierre, S. Dak., July 29, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. R andolph: The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 

Parks requests th is lett er to be entered as p art of th e hearing record on the W rightBreaux Amendment II.R. 9560, to Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 (the 1972, Water 

Pollution Control Act).

We believe th at this ame ndm ent seriously weakens Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 

and jeopardizes many of our cou ntry’s im portant wetlands to uncontrolled 

exploitation and degradation.

We also believe th at Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 currently provides many of 

the environmental controls necessary to maintain stream and marsh integrity 

and a suitable method of reviewing and commenting on proposed projects. 

Sincerely,

J ohn Popowski, Secretary.

Office of the Governor,

State Capitol,

Austin, Tex., July 23, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Seriate Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I respectfully request th at the Senate Com mittee on 

Public Works take careful cognizance of and give thorough consideration to the 

views set out in th is correspondence in connection w ith you r oversight hearings on 

Section 404 dredge and fill permit legislation scheduled for July 27 and 28, 1976, 

and th at it be made a p art of your hearing record.

Congressional hearings and rela ted in depth consideratio n of this vital subject 

point to the clear conclusion th at the traditiona l and historic definition of “Navi-
626

gable Waters” serves the present and future best inte rest of our nation and my 

state. Further, the role of primary responsibility vested in the state s to “prevent, 

reduce and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including 

restoration, preservation, enhancement) of land and water resources” must be 

maintained if a meaningful partnership between sta te and federal government 

remains a reality. Senate Concurrent Resolution 82 adop ted by the Texas Legislature sets out succinctly these concerns and viewpoint and is included for your 

consideration and hearing record.

I strongly feel th at the “ Wright Amendment”, Section 16, of S. 2710 as it 

pertains to Section 404 of PL 92-500, contains numerous positive and remedial 

provisions worthy of sup port and favorable consideration by the Senate.

Additionally, further clarification of the intent of Congress to retain and protect 

the sta tes ’ role and responsibility in otherwise exempt federal projects might be 

considered in your oversight deliberations.

Mr. Chairman, I apprecia te th is opportunity to offer our views and recommendations on this far-reaching m atter for your consideration and t ha t of the members of 

the Senate Committee on Public Works. I tru st I may reserve the privilege to 

file additional material for the record as circumstances dictate.

Sincerely,

D o lph B r is c o e, 

Governor of Texas .

SE NA TE CO NC UR RE NT RE SO LU TION

Whereas, The Congress of the United States has historically affirmed th at the 

prim ary responsibility for water resource management resides in the states ; and

Whereas, In enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 

of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), the congress reaffirmed its intent by stating its policy “to 

recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities of States to prevent, 

reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including 

resto ration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources” ; and

Whereas, This historic recognition of the autho rity and responsibility of the 

states in developing and using land and water resources is placed in serious 

jeopardy by an interpretation of the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 by the United States District Court in the case of N atural Resources 

Defense Council v. Calloway; and

Whereas, Regulations drafted b y the United States Corps of Engineers responsive to this district court action, if carried to conclusion would sub stan tially 

expand the federal autho rity over the lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands of th e 

United States to the detrim ent of the exercise by the several states of their 

traditiona l responsibilities; and

Whereas, The effect of implementing, the regulations published by the Depar tment of Defense Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency 

in the Federal Register, Volume 49, Number 68, Tuesday, May 6, 1975, would 

be to deprive the State of Texas of its autho rity to carry out its responsibility for 

land and water resource conservation and preservation in the following regards:

(a) sound cultural and conservation practices th at have brought produc tivity 

through change to millions of acres of land would be restrained, and federal 

permitting a uth ority extended to all natural and artificial lakes (including stockponds), rivers, streams, and wetlands;

(b) dredge and fill operatio ns in the thousa nds of square miles of land protected 

by levees would be unnecessarily regulated, and Texas farmers could be required 

to obtain a federal perm it before plowing or land levelling operations;

(c) orderly processes of state w ater rights adm inistration would be in terrup ted;

(d) agreements for operation of interstate streams under compact between 

states, with the consent of the Congress of th e United States, would be infringed 

upon: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, Th at the Senate of the 64th Legislature of the State of Texas, the 

House of Representatives concurring, meeting in Regular Session in the Capital 

of Texas at Austin, here by memorialize the Congress of the United States, 

requesting th at the congress amen d and revise the Federal Wate r Pollution 

Control Act Amendments of 1972 as may be required to insure tha t the Env iron ­

mental Protection Agency and the U nited States Corps of Engineers comply with 

the inten t of congress th at the y are to recognize and rely upon the sta tes in the 

exercise of prim ary respon sibility for development, use, resto ration, preserva tion, 

and enhancem ent of land and water resources; and, be it further
627

Resolved, Th at the 64th Legislature auth orize and request t ha t Dolph Brancoe, 

Governor of the Sta te of Texas, tak e all actions prop er and necessary to assure 

the adm inistrative and judicial protectio n of the equitab le and reasonable authority of the Sta te of Texas in exercising its prim ary responsibility for its land 

and water resources; and, be it further

Resolved, That the State of Texas, its Governor, Lieutenan t Governor, Speaker 

of the House of Representatives, and the 64th Legislature assembled in Regular 

Session, are mutually and unalte rably opposed to the expansion of federal au tho rity 

over land and water resource man agem ent as would follow from implementation 

of the proposed rules as published

President of the Senate. Speaker of the House.

I hereby certify that S.C .R. No. 82 was adopted by th e Senate on May 19, 1975.

[seal] ,

Secretary of the Senate.

I hereby certify th at S .C.R . No. 82 was ad opted by the house on May 27, 1975.

Chief Clerk of the llouse.

Dolph Briscoe,

State of Utah,

Office of the Governor,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Muskie: The Sta te of Utah wishes to make the following 

sta tem ent for inclusion into the record of the hearings to be conducted on J uly 27 

and 28, 1976 to consider among other things the amendment to P.L. 92-500 as 

proposed by House Bill No. 11.R. 9460 which included the Wright amen dment. 

It is my understanding th at the Senate version of this same bill is covered by 

Senate Bill No. 2710. Utah is in supp ort of the House passed bill, including the 

Wright amendment for the following reasons.

The State of Utah is apprecia tive of efforts of Congress and the Federal Government in attem pting to correct past problems with dredge and till operations 

in the waterways of the United State s. We recognize the immensity of the problems and certainly wan t to work cooperatively in finding the proper solution. In 

this regard the Sta te already has control program s in effect, and feels that if th e 

Federal Government were to be involved in this area, it would be a duplication 

of the efforts already being carried out by the Sta te Engineer and his staff and 

would, therefore, vigorously oppose the impleme ntation of Phases II and II I of 

the July 25, 1975, Rules and Regulations.

Utah would encourage a favorable comm ittee report on S. 2710, which if 

passed by the full Senate and signed by the President would eliminate the unnecessary and duplicative adm inistrative control.

Thank you for your consideration of Utah’s position.

Sincerely,

Calvin L. R ampton, Governor.

State of Washington,

Office of the Governor, 

Olympia, Wash., August 6, 1976.

Re House amendments to section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works, ft

SQ0 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I wish to tak e this oppor tun ity to express my 

views in relation to the hearing which was conducted by your committe e with 

rega rd to the subject matter on July 27 and 28, 1976, in Washington, D.C. This 

is to requ est th at you inco rporate my views into the record of t ha t hearing.

Section 404 has always trou bled me. During the hearings and other discussions 

with the House and Senate Public Works Com mittees’ members and staff in
628

1971-1972 relating to the development of Public Law 92-500, I opposed the 

inclusion of section 404 as pa rt of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

My reasons for opposition were basically thre e: (1) there should be only one 

federal agency involved in the regulation of the discharge of pollutants and rela ted 

activities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, namely the Environmental Protection Agency, (2) the coverage of section 404 was ambiguous in term s 

of both geographic coverage an d activities s ubject to its provisions, and (3) section 

404 appeared to provide an unneeded and duplicative planning and regulatory 

program for shorelines and wetlands for state s, like Washington, which have 

recently embarked upon comprehensive shoreline (and water) managem ent 

programs (see Ch apter 90.58 RCW, the State of Washington’s “Shorelines Man ­

agem ent Act of 1971”).

1 continue to have serious concerns a bout section 404. In this regard, I generally 

sup por t the approach of section 16 of H.R. 9560. The approac h of the House Bill 

to reduce the geographical coverage is sound. Likewise, the spirit of exemptions 

involving “no rmal” farming and silviculture practices is meritorious. Most 

imp orta ntly, I support the concept of “ delegating” to states the responsibility of 

carrying out “404” type programs as embodied in section 16(j) of II.R. 9560. 

Likewise, I support the “ag reem ent” approach to regulation contained in section 

16(f). The State of Washington is willing and able to ac cep t th e invitation of these 

sections. (Indeed, you should be aware that the United States Department of 

Commerce approved the Sta te of Wash ington’s shoreline managem ent approach 

und er the Coastal Zone Manage ment Act of 1972 on Jun e 14, 1976. This is the 

first and only approval ever made by the Secretary of Commerce of a sta te 

program.)

I note th at the words of H.R. 9560 may need further refinement to set aside 

ambiguities which now appear to exist. For example, the definition of “ wetland ” 

and related wording of section 16 may need clarification. The same is tr ue of the 

“normal” activities contained in the sub-section. Likewise, the standa rds for 

delegation of a 404 program to a state might well be expanded beyond the very 

general wording now contained therein.

In summary, I urge that serious consideration be given to the passage of the 

“ Wright” approach contained in section 16 of H.R . 9560. Section 404 is now a 

subject of great confusion. The Corps of Engineers appears confused about how 

to implement the section. The Corps’ confusion has, in turn, caused not only 

confusion but frustration and anger among the public. Further, the section, 

withou t effective imple mentation, is not an effective force for protection of the 

environment.

Thank you for the opp ortunity to provide my views. I would, of course, be 

glad to explain my views at you r request.

Sincerely,

Daniel J. Evans, Governor.

St a te m e n t o f E d H e r sc h l e r, G o v er n o r o f W yom in g

Mr. Chairman, on July 25, 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued 

regulations pursua nt to a court order, providing for fur the r implementation of 

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The State of Wyoming 

has subsequently filed suit against the Corps, challenging the legality of the 

regulations. Among our contentio ns is th at the definition of “navigable waters” 

in the regulations is above and beyond the autho rity of the Corps of Engineers 

as provided for by Congress.

Since passage by Congress of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, the Corps 

has been charged with the protectio n of navigable wate rs of the United State s. 

This jurisdiction has trad itionally been limited to waters which are susceptible of 

use for the transp ort of inte rstate or foreign commerce in their prese nt condition 

or with reasonable improvement. A review of the legislative history of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act indicates that Congress did not inten d to expand 

this traditional jurisdiction through Section 404. To the contrary, Congress 

intended to maintain the Corps’ trad itional autho rity separate from other provisions of the Act. Section 404 was to add water qua lity considerations to the 

existing permit system used by the Corps under the 1899 Act. Contrary to other 

portions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, no provision was made for 

tran sfer of administration of th at program to the states or to involve states or 

local governments in consulta tion or planning.

However, in the case of NR DC vs. Calloway (392 F. Supp. 687, 1976), the 

Corps was ordered to publish revised regulations interpreting the phrase “navi-
629

gable waters.” My understanding is th at the purpose of the lawsuit was to protect 

■wetlands, mud flats, swamps, and marshes. Unfortunately, under the new regulations, the Section 404 program would reach such activities as irrigation projects, 

stock watering ponds, small forestry activities, small intra state lakes, and other 

bodies of water which could not conceivably be used at any time for interstate 

commerce. Many of these activities have been traditionally regulated by state 

law. I contend that continued state regulation in this area is more appropriate 

and effective than intervention by a federal agency.

Complying with the regulations will be a great hardship upon farmers and 

ranchers in areas such ns Wyoming. Nor will there be any resulting benefits to the 

environment and particularly not to any areas which could be considered as 

wetlands. Destruction of wetland areas is simply not a significant problem in 

Wyoming. Yet our citizens will be forced to undergo great expense and inconvenience to comply with these regulations.

State highway and transportation officials are also very much concerned about 

the impact of the regulations. Phase II of the regulations could preclude construction of a proposed bridge to be constructed by the Wyoming Highway Department across the P latte River in Casper, Wyoming. After July 1, 1977, there will be 

approximately 40 stream crossings contemplated by the VVyoming Highway 

Department which would require a Corps permit.

It is my belief th at the Wyoming Highway Department has had an exemplary 

record regarding environmental practices. Local landowners have long harvested 

our highway rights-of-way due to the success of our revegetation practices. The 

Department has a cooperative agreement with the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission allowing them to work together for environmental protection. The 

Department has constructed bridges and experimented with fences to facilitate 

antelope migration. The Department has also constructed channel modifications 

to sustain fisheries, has rebuilt a fishery on the Laramie River, and is presently 

designing an automatic deer pass for installation near Laramie, Wyoming.

Therefore, I believe tha t we are perfectly capable of handling any environmental 

matters concerning dredge and fill operations in Wyoming streams through our 

present state programs.

Assessment of the Corps permit program by our state agencies indicates that 

it not only will expend vast resources in processing unnecessary paperwork but 

will divert the Corps from protecting those coastal wetlands th at truly require 

immediate attention. It is estimated by the Corps that the permit applications 

for Section 404 will increase to at least 20,000 next year and at least 30,000 the 

year after. This will require an increase in personnel of 600 employees. This does 

not include enforcement activities.

There has been discussion of simplifying this process by having the Corps issue 

general permits, instead of individual permits for each operation. However, the 

general permit program has not yet been successfully implemented and there is 

doubt as to whether the Corps is truly committed to it. Also, there is a good 

chance that such general permits might be declared invalid following a legal 

challenge.

I support efforts to protect the nation’s water quality and wetlands. However, 

such protection can more effectively be undertaken through the Corps exercising 

its traditional protection of wetlands adjacent to navigable waters as that term 

had previously been defined. Furthermore, the Coastal Zone Management Act 

permits federal, state and local governments to exercise authority over environmental problems arising with regard to wetlands.

Accordingly, I support the resolution of the National Governors’ Conference 

urging Congress to enact legislation which would limit the criteria of navigability 

to waterways having present capabilities for transporting commerce.

Spring Valley, Calif., Ju ly 17, 1976.

SEC TIO N 404— C LEA N W A TE R AC T

Having followed the Clean Water-antipollution legislation for many years, 

and having observed both good and bad Corps of Engineer projects, I must 

respectfully request tha t Sec. 404 be sustained in its present form until all phases 

have been completed. Amendments proposed on guess work may have to be 

amended and amended . . . a costly and timely and emotional method of dealing 

with ill-advised protests.
630

Wetlands deserve the most careful planning and long range consideration that 

is possible for our grea t Congress to propose. They are irreplaceable in many 

instances.

Thank you.

Harriet Allen.

Mountain View, Calif., July S3, 1976. lio n. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Worts,

Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C.

We m ust retain at maximum strength section 404 of the New National Water 

Pollution and Control Act . . . The Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction to provide 

federal protection to estuary systems and wetlands is absolutely mandatory and 

critical to the very welfare of our country . . . withou t this protection, the 

New Fishery Conservation and Management Act, to be implem ented over a 

ten year period will be an empty piece of legislation . . . without this type of 

protection for our anadrom ous fishes—salmon, steelhead tr out, striped bass, etc.— 

it is meaningless.

Fresh water wetlands and estu ary systems are an important sanctuary for the 

fishes th at provide our huge inland angling and commercial catch. The Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service estimates th at 30 million 

salt water recreational fishermen annually spend 1.25 billion dollars angling for 

a catch of edible finfish th at equals the U.S. commercial catch . . . more than 

25 of the most important commercial species of finfish, crustaceans and mollusks 

are depe ndent on estuaries at some stage in the ir development.

Why regulate commercial fishing out to 200 miles, while not regulating and 

destroying the fragile habitat and nursery areas th at provide a huge portion of 

commercial and recreational food resources?

Section 404 must remain as it was originally conceived.

I would appreciate it if this letter would be made a perm anent pa rt of the 

hearing record. Thank you.

Ed Henke,

Board of Directors, American League of Anglers.

American National Cattlemen’s Association,

Washington, D.C., July 27, 1976. Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairmari, Senate Committee on Public Worts, 4^04 Dirksen Building, Washington,

Dear Senator R andolph: Tha nk you for your lette r of July 19, 1976 advising 

me as to the procedure the Committe e will follow in receiving oral testimony 

rela tive to implementation of Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act of 

1972.

ANCA regrets th at time precludes the consideration of all witnesses to appe ar 

and present testimony. Respective of the Com mittee’s decision, we submit the 

enclosed document, Effects and Concerns of Section 404 (P.L. 92-500) on th e U.S. 

Beef Cattle Industry, for the hearing record. This document was prep ared by 

ANCA’s Environm ental Sciences Committee under the direction of Dr. B. P. 

Cardon, Chairman.

The American National Cattle men’s Association is th e national spokesman for 

the n ation’s beef cattle industry. It is the only organizatio n serving all segments of 

the beef cattle industry—including cattle producers, feeders, and breeders. We 

are a 79-year-old, non-profit trade association which represents approximately 

250,000 professional cattlemen across the United States. Membership includes 

individual members, 45 affiliated s tate cattle associations, and 14 affiliated n ational 

breed associations.

)\e are pleased to provide this inform ation as source inpu t to the Committee 

for consideration of this im porta nt issue. Assuredly, we appreciate having been 

offered the opp ortu nity to comment on behalf of America’s largest segment of 

agriculture.

Cordially,

C. W. McMillan, Executive Vice President.
631

S umm ary, E ff ect s an d C on ce rn s of S ec tion 40 4, P ub i,ic Law 9 2 -5 0 0 on

th e U .S . Beef Cat tl e I nd us tr y

SOCIAL CONCERNS

Cattlemen are citizens engaged in an industry which provides food and fiber 

for a consuming nation. Actions such as the Corps’ 404 authority affect their 

social well-being just as other Federal regulations affect other segments of American society. What then are cattlemen’s social concerns?

1. Cattlemen feel strongly tha t Congress has an inherent right to define “ navigable waters” and “waters of the U.S.” Expansion beyond the historical definition 

intrudes on their right to own and manage private property in a manner commensurate with their needs and for the well-being of their fellow man. Those 

rights are vested in fee title property and in water rights where, in many states, 

they are deemed property rights.

2. Cattlemen feel the Corps’ authority tends to discount the historical and 

proven benefits of self regulated, sound conservation practices.

3. Cattlemen feel that allowing a Federal agency to promulgate regulations 

predicated upon such terminology as “normal farming” and “ ranching activities” 

constitutes an action of grave Federal oversight. Further, this shows a lack of 

understanding for American agriculture of which the beef cattle industry is the 

largest segment. Such uncertainty of definitions raises havoc with a cattleman’s 

ability to make sound management decisions in an industry tha t is economically 

viable, volatile, and which requires long range planning.

4. Cattlemen feci strongly tha t Congress has allowed a Federal agency to effectuate public law’ through administrative fiat. This concern rests with the Corps’ 

questionable authority to issue “general permits.” If this precedence is allowed to 

stand, it will fly in the face of the Congressional in tent of PL 92-500. Congress 

recognized a distinction between point and non-point sources of water pollution. 

Permits under the Act were necessary for the control of point source discharges 

which required end of pipe treatm ent. In accepting the “general permits” concept, 

Congress sanctioned the Corps’ right to control all non-point sources of pollution 

by end of pipe treatment subject to NPDES permit requirements. This concept, 

in effect became a “new source.” 1

5. Cattlemen are concerned that their livelihoods are being threatened by a 

continual barrage of new Federal regulatory expansion of authority and power. 

Such actions play heavily on the minds of men and women who work long and 

arduous hours producing food and fiber, hopefully, for a profit for the purpose of 

maintaining their economic viability and improving their standard of living.

EFFECT S ON THE ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY OF BE EF PROD UCTION

Prices received for cattle by farmers and ranchers are a function of supply and 

demand at the time of marketing cattle. The cattle business is not a margin added 

business where margins are added to costs of materials like conventional manufacturing or merchandising businesses. Cattle prices are, in effect, a “residual” 

after the costs of production are absorbed. In essence, costs cannot be passed 

through in the short term economic cycle.

Currently, the industry is struggling to recover from one of its worst downward 

economic cycles. Permit costs, which are required under Section 404 for farmers 

and ranchers, must then be absorbed as a cost of production which lowers profitability. Under current marke t conditions, these losses are being sustained; this 

means compounding losses thereby minimizing recovery.

CATTLE PROD UCTION COSTS AND PRICES

The beef cattle industry has three major phases: (1) farmers or ranchers who 

own basic herds and produce feeder or breeding cattle ; (2) stocker operators whose 

pastures put additional w’eight on feeder cattle prior to the cattle entering a 

feedlot; and (3) cattle feeders who finish cattle in feedlots for marketing. Most 

retail cuts of beef come from grain-fed cattle.

The USDA average price for Choice beef for the first six months of 1976 was 

$1.42 per pound. This reflected back to these averages in returns to the different 

segments of the cattle industry.

1

 Procedure for complying with proposed regulations on preparation of Environm ental 

Impact Statements for New Source Permits— 40 CFR Pa rt 5 Federal Register, Oct. 9, 1975 

(also see attach ment).
632

Price per Total price Total cost Profit (or Los s)

hundredweight per head per head per head

400 lb calf i ............................................................... $43.04 $172.16 $200.00 $(27 .84 )

600 lb feeder animal i ............................................. 40.5 0 243. 00 >228.16 14.84

1,000 lb fed a nim al«................................................ 40.6 8 406.0 8 > 443.00 (3 6.20 )

For industry as a whole _______________________________________________________________ (4 9.20 )

i Cattle-Fax statistics.

> Costs include feeder calf plus cost of a ddin g 200 lbs of gra in.

> Costs include yearling animal plus cost of adding 400 lbs of grain.

Under the circum stances shown above, the stocker ope rato r made a profit on 

each animal based on average prices for the first six mon ths of 1976. However, 

the basic producer lost a sub stantial amount per head as did the cattle feeder. 

Situations for the various segments of the industry vary from year to year, or 

even from mon th to month. In some situations, no segment may show a profit, 

or perhaps only will have a retu rn. There are no extended periods when a 

cattlem an will show a profit every year. His hope is th at profits in good years 

will be more than enough to offset losses in adverse years.

Against th at economic background, add the Corps’ permit costs of $100— 

a minor cost in term s of one permit. However, one must consider the cost of 

additional permits which are required, i.e., Section 402 for feedlots and irrigation 

return flows and sta te and local permits for odor control, pesticide application, 

weed control, transporta tion , etc. It adds up to a healthy sum.

E N V IR O N M E N T A L C O N C E R N S

Cattlemen recognize their role in helping this nation to achieve a natio nal 

goal of clean water. The beef c attle industry accepts this challenge and is moving 

toward achieving the goal of clean water. However, t ha t goal m ust be realistically 

achievable and must be equ ated prop ortionately with all economic, social and 

environmental considerations affecting the industry.

C O N C L U S IO N

The beef cattle industry firmly believes th at legislative remedies do exist. 

It is for these reasons we sup port th e House adopted language to the bill HR 9560 

(now S. 2710) or comparable language as embodied in the so-called Wright/ 

Breaux provisions of S. 2710 which could be adopted in other legislative measures 

currently pending before the U.S. Senate.

Am er ic a n N a tio na l C a ttl em en ’s Asso c ia tio n,

Washington, D.C., December 9, 1975.

Re 40 CF R PA RT 6, New sources NPDES permits environmental impact 

state ments.

O f f ic e o f F ed er a l Ac t iv it ie s

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C.

G e n t l e m e n : The American Natio nal Cattlem en’s Association, (ANCA), the 

national spokesman for the beef cattlu industry, is appreciative of the Agency’s 

desire to grant an extension of comment time in regards to the prep aration of 

environm ental impact stat ements for new point source NPDES permits.

The review of this m atter was conducted by the ANCA Environmental Sciences 

Committe e under the direction of Dr. B. P. Cardon, Chairman. Specific references 

and technical language review and comment were developed and reflected herein 

by Dr. John M. Sweeten, techn ical advisor to the Committe e and currently 

Agricultural Engineer, Animal Waste Management, Texas A & M University.

ANCA recognizes th at EPA feels compelled to meet the requirements of developing final regulations for the October 9, 1975 Federal Register notice as mandated 

by Section 511(c)(1) of PL 92-500. We do feel remiss th at the Agency did not 

recognize the “conflict of law”, technical complications and economic ramifications inherent within the framework of such a proposed promulgation of rulemaking procedure.

This procedure we feel is con trary to sound and responsible rulem aking since 

the feedlots category for animal agricu lture is still in itself in a rulemaking process 

as a result of the NR DC vs. Train decision.
633

ANCA strongly recomm ends th at this procedure be withdrawn until such time 

as 40 CF R Pa rt 125, NP DE S concentrated animal feeding operations is complete 

(scheduled for promulgation on March 10, 1976).

ANCA feels th at this process is unnecessary and only duplicates the provisions 

which are necessary prior to application for an NPDES permit, which essentially 

covers all environmental considerations.

It only follows th at such actions will prec ipitate additional and unw arra nted 

time delays and severe economic burdens.

The application of the Environm ental Impac t Sta tem ent procedure to agriculture is contrary to Section 101(f) of PL 92-500.

ANCA recommends the following revisions to 40 CF R 6 insofar as they represent the beef cattle ind ustry ’s “sp irit of willingness” to be cooperative in this 

matter . We do not, how’ever, hesitate to point oiit th at such recom mendations 

appear nonproductive in light of the aforementioned discussion. We invite you 

to refer to the attach ed enum eration of the 14 steps described in Section 6.906 

to 6.918.

Section 6.906(c) requires potentia l new source applicants to return the completed New Source Environ men tal Questionnaire at leas t 9 mon ths prior to 

commencement of construction of the facility (see step 3 of the attach ment). 

We feel this 9 mon th lead time is unnecessary. The EPA Region VI office in 

Dallas has already gone thro ugh a facsimile of the proposed 14 step EIS procedure prior to processing NPDES permits for two livestock feeding operations: 

a dairy in Louisiana and a feedlot in Texas. In both cases EPA was able to issue 

“neg ative declarations” (i.e. reached step 8(b)) within only two months. The 

extra 7 months would have been needlessly wasted in both cases. Therefore, 

we suggest reducing this 9 month minimum lead time to 60 days. This w ill reduce 

the vulnerability of the applicant to reversals in economic an d market conditions.

Section 6.906(g)(4) requires the applicant to sub mit “an adequa te environmental assessm ent unless the responsible official determines th at the new source 

and environmental questionnaire is an adequa te environmental assessment.” To 

lessen the need for expensive (contracted ) environm ental studies and report 

writing, we suggest th at the questionnaires for agriculture be sufficiently simple 

to inte rpret yet comprehensive as to avoid the need for the voluminous environmental assessm ent reports. This alone wall cut many thousands of dollars and 

months of time off the EIS procedure. The app lica nt and the government will 

benefit equally. If the proposed operation has shortcomings, the app lica nt can 

spend the time and money finding a new location or altering the design instead 

of fruitlessly developing environm ental assessments for a project th at will later 

prove unacceptable.

A paragraph (e) should be added to Section 6.912 “ Draft Environmental 

Impact Statem ents” to explicitly empower EPA’s “responsible official” to overrule irrational or frivolous objections th at may be brought by persons (a) neither 

direc tly nor indirectly affected by the proposed action, (b) who are clearly misinformed concerning the environmental consequences of the proposed operations, 

(c) whose concerns are hyp othetical rathe r tha n real, and/or (d) who express 

opposition as a form of blackmail, seeking for example a “payoff” from the 

applicant in exchange for retr action of opposition.

Finally, we suggest you amend th e definition of “ new source” in Section 6.902(c). 

The earliest date from which to define “new source” should be the date of promulgation of the final version of these October 9th regulations. To make these 

regulations retroac tive as proposed to the d ate of publication of proposed “standards of performance” (September 7, 1973 for the livestock feeding indu stry) is 

contrary , we feel, the Congressional inten t as set forth in the Congressional 

Record, October 4, 1972, pp. S16869-79. Reference is made to the final report of 

the Senate-House Conference Committee on PL 92-500 which discussed Section 

511(c)(1) in detail. Two quotes from page S16878 are expecially pertinent in 

setting an effective date, and are as follows:

“The purpose of this bill is to se t rapidly in motion an effective water pollution 

control program. The Act sets tig ht time limits within which the Adm inistrator 

must take a multitu de of actions, each heavily dependent upon the other, that 

will, in the aggregate produce a meaningful, effective, and truly workable program as quickly as possible. Should the Adm inistrator find himself confronted 

with substan tive or procedural requirements extraneou s to this Act, the very 

program that the Act seeks to establish w’ould be impe riled.”

“The Conferees believe th at the owner or operator of what is to be a new source 

has a degree of flexibility in planning, design, construction, and location that 

is not available to the owner or operator of an existing source.”
634

The requirement th at the October 9th proposed regulations be applied retroactively to operations built as much as two years ago is clearly counter to Congress’ intent. It would be a frustrating exercise in “busywork” both for the applican t and for EPA th at the Act sought to avoid. These operations have already 

been built, and flexibility in location, planning, design, and construction no 

longer exists. The only way to change them is to physically tear them down.

These EIS regulations should have been enacted at the same time the new 

source performance stan dar ds were established.

In conclusion, ANCA supports the position that: (1) The proposed regulations 

be withdrawn from the Federal Register; (2) full public hearings be conducted to 

inform, enlighten, and advise all parties affected of the economic and social im pact 

of the proposed rulem aking; and (3) request th at this matt er be remanded back 

to the Congress of the United States for review and corrective legislation.

Your consideration in this matt er is appre ciated.

Sincerely,

C. W. McMillan, Executive Vice-President.

Enclosure.

P ro ced ure fo r C o m ply in g W it h P ropo se d R eg u la tio n s on P r epa r a t io n o f

E n v ir o n m e n t a l I mpa ct Sta te m e n t s fo r

ACTION 8TEPS

1. Applicant notifies the EPA responsible official.

2. Responsible official provides potential new source applica nt with New Source 

Environmental Questio nnaire (NS/EQ).

3. Applicant returns completed NS/EQ at least 9 m onths prior to construction.

4 (a) Responsible official makes Initial Determination of whether the facility

is a “new source”, or (b) solicits additional inform ation, then makes Initial 

Determ ination.

5. Responsible official notifies applicant th at he m ust submit an Environmental 

Assessment: (a) Applicant or other interested person requests adjudicato ry hearing.

6. Applicant submits Environmental Assessment and any p ertinent data.

7. Responsible official conducts Environm ental Review to determine if Environmental Impac t Sta tem ent is needed (i.e. action will have significant effect on 

human environment): (a) If “yes”, skip to Item No. 9; and (b) if “ no” , see Item 

no. 8.

8. EIS Not Needed: fa) Responsible official prepares Environmental Impact 

Appraisal; (b) responsible official issues Negative Declaratioa; (c) responsible 

official receives a nd evaluates Comments on Negative Declaratio n; (d) if decision 

is changed, go to Item No. 9; and (e) if decision is upheld, process N PD ES Permit 

Application (Go to Item No. 14.)

9. Needs EIS : Responsible official prepares and issues Notice of In tent to issue 

EIS.

10. Responsible official prepares and issues Dr aft Environmental Im pact 

Statem ent (EIS).

11. Review of Draft EIS : (a) Responsible official receives comments (45 day 

minimum comm ent period); and (b) If “significant intere st” develops, a public 

hearing is convened.

12. Responsible official prepares Final Environmental Impac t Statement.

13. Responsible official issues final Env iron men tal Impac t Sta tem ent: (a) 

Issues news releases; and (b) distributes copies of final EIS to inte rested persons.

14. Administrative Action taken on NPDE S Permit (Note: No such uction can 

be taken until 90 days after release of dr aft EIS a nd 30 days after release of final 

EIS.)

American P aper Institute, Inc.,

Washington, D.C., July 15, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 4^04,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We und erstand th at you have announced your intention 

to conduct hearings July 27 an d 28 concerning a mendments to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act.
635

I am writing to inform you of the American Paper Institu te’s keen intere st in 

this ma tter and to request th at we l>e given time to testify. Our industry is seriously affected by the regulatory program th at was to be implemented this month 

by the Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredge or till materials under 

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We do not believe the 

Congress intended for this provision of the Act, ostensibly covering disposal of 

spoil material, to have such sweeping effect on normal and accepted silvicultural 

activities.

This is bu t one of several aspects of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

which we hope the Committe e will review as it considers “mid-course correctio ns” 

recommended by the National Commission on Wate r Quality. While there are 

oth er provisions of the Act which we will suggest to be reviewed by your Committee next year, we feel th at the ma tte r described above deserves the Committe e’s im mediate attention and prompt resolution. We sincerely hope th at we 

will be able to appear in person to help your comm ittee deal with this pressing 

need this year. If th at should be impractical, we request th at we be permitted to 

sub mit written testimony.

We look forw ard to hearing from you at an early date as to when this mig ht be 

possible.

Respectfully,

Stanley W. Hulett,

Vice President, Government A ffa irs .

Association of American R ailroads,

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 30, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairma n, Public Works Committee, United States Senate, 5121 Dirksen Senate

Office fiu ild iny , Washington, D.C.

Dear M r. Chairman: T he Association of American Railroads, whose members 

operate over 97 percent of th e rail track mileage in the United States, urgently 

requests th at you and members of your Committee give favo rable consideration 

to the amendments to Section 404 of the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act 

(33 USC 1344), contained in Section 16 of S. 2710 as passed by the House of 

Representativ es.

The jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers has been unnecessarily expanded 

throug h recently adopted regulations governing the issuance of perm its for the 

discharge of dredged and fill materials under Section 404 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. We believe tha t the amendme nts to Section 404 contained 

in Section 16 of S. 2710 as passed by the House of Rep rese ntatives would realistic ­

ally limit the requ ired perm its to th ose instances in which there is a potential for 

significant im pact on water quality, and would preclude th e serious and expensive 

delays in the completion of ra ilroad improvements and construction pro jects which 

would otherwise resu lt und er the existing regu lations of the Corps of Engineers.

Sincerely yours,

Stepe hn Ailes.

Anne Arundel Community College,

Arnold, Md ., Ju ly 20, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Pub lic Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am writin g to express my opinions concerning the 

planned revision of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I 

would like my statem ents to be included for th e record of the Hearing of July 27-28, 

1976, on Section 404 of the Clean W ater Act.

Since Section 404 is a three phase program, and only Phase I has been implemented, it is premature to hold hearings and consider amendments until the full 

program has gone in to effect.

If amendments must be made, then the Hart-Cle aveland Amendment is preferable to the Wright-Breaux House Amendm ent because it specifically addresses 

and clarifies thos e issues m istakenly raised by those who oppose furt her regulation 

under Section 404. I t would write exemptions into law and provide for the General 

Permit Program already planned in Phases II and III. It would also provide a 

progress report to be reviewed by Congress at the end of the next year.

76 -161—76 ----- 41
036

The Wright-Breaux House Amendment would leave virtually unp rote cted vast 

areas of valuable wetlands which do not happen to fall within a narrow definition 

of “navigable waters” . Many of these areas are used for drink ing water supplies 

and Section 404, under the House Amendments restrictions, would no longer be 

used to stop the discharge of polluted dredge materials into these valuable 

tributaries.

Our wetlands are valuable for many things other than navigation and waste 

disposal. The impo rtance of these complex and prod uctive ecosystems has been 

demonstrated time and time again and it would be red und ant for me to reitera te 

in detail here. The important thin g is th at they are a natural resource and belong 

to the people of this country . They need adequate protection to insure the continu ed survival of a healthy, high-quality environment for our nation’s citizens. 

Indeed, the very quality of life itself may be dependent on them. What happens 

when the marshes are all drained and filled and the streams are all channelized 

and the bay fron ts are all bulkheaded? What does i t mean to say goodbye to the 

marsh grass and to obliterate the mussel beds? This will m ark the end of living 

and the beginning of survival.

Sincerely yours,

David H. Williams, 

Assis tan t Professor of Biology.

American R oad Builders’ Association,

W ashinyton, D.C., Ju ly 26, 1676.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

United States Senate,

Washinyton, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We all agree th at a stro ng effort should be made to 

reduce the pollution of w aterw ays. The Section 404 water perm it program, as it 

applies to the highway construction indu stry, presents a classic example of a well 

inten ded Federal action which is unnecessary. It is extremely difficult and highly 

undesirable to admin ister, wasteful of time, effort and money.

The problem, as i t applies to highway construction, is th at of applying reasonable pollution controls to highway construction activ ities as they impinge on 

lakes, streams and wetlands. The great m ajority of these controls apply to routine 

construction activ ities incidental to the building of bridges and the installation of 

culverts. These activities include the disturbance of stre am beds and the placement of soil or other materials in the water. The simp lest and best way is to 

include within the construction specifications the precise procedures which are 

to be followed.

Only a very few cases involve unu sual activities of an enviro nmentally sensitive 

nature, for example, the constructio n of a highway across wetlands. In this case, a 

careful assessment of the environmental disturbances is obviously required. This 

assessment, by means of t he environmental impact statem ent, is reviewed by all 

appropriate agencies. Thus, there are two very effective procedures available. 

One to cover impacts of a routine and repetitive natur e and one for more unusual 

cases.

The Wate r Pollution Control Act of 1972 directed the Corps of Engineers to 

require permits for dredge and fill operations in navigable waters. There appears 

to be sound justification for this requirement in view of the long-standing special 

responsibilities of the Corps with respect to navigable waters. Congress ap par ently 

had this in mind in enacting Section 404. Our concern is not with the 1972 Act, as 

enacted, bu t with the decision of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia interpre ting “navigable wate rs” to mean “all waters of the U nite d S tates.”

The economic costs of the Court-ordered process will soon become app are nt. 

The Corps of Engineers established a three-phase implementation program. 

Phase I, effective July 25, 1975, limited the perm it program to coastal waters, 

inlan d navigable waters an d nearb y wetlands. Phase II, which was to have become 

effective Ju ly 1, 1976, extends coverage to lakes with more tha n five surface acres, 

prim ary trib utaries of inland navigable waters, and nearby wetlands. Phase III, 

scheduled to be effective Jul y 1, 1977, essentially will cover “all waters of the 

United States.” The principal delaying effects of the program therefore have 

really yet to be felt.

If the permit program is to have any value whatever, the Corps must un der take 

a careful examination of the merits of each application. Consider the mere volume 

of permit applications expected, up to 50,000 annually . It seems reasonable to 

anticipate a time period of at least 60 to 90 days for the processing of such ap-
637

plications. The Corps itself is suggesting th at applicants make timely submissions 

and to allow for delays in the processing of paper. This requires an otherwise 

unnecessary time "freeze” in the plans and specifications.

This in itself is a serious cost consideration. Highway agencies normally hold 

prebid conferences with prospective bidders to discuss any special procedures and 

precautions which contractors should take into account in preparing their bids. 

Frequently a post-award conference is held with the successful bidder to further 

discuss scheduling and procedures. These discussions often result in finding a 

"better way” to expedite the work. Such “better ways,” of course, could not be 

employed if they resulted in any departure from the procedures submitted earlier 

to the Corps of Engineers.

The great tragedy of the Clean Water program is that it is failing to measure up 

to the expectations of Congress. This is in spite of the fact tha t its overall objectives 

have great public support. One very serious problem, unquestionably, is the vast 

amount of red tape and delay which surrounds and stifles the program.

The Wright Amendment, approved by the House of Representatives, embodies 

a reasonable and desirable solution to the Section 404 problem. It defines navigable 

waters to include the associated wetlands, and provides authority to the States to 

develop and administer programs in conformance with the intent of this Section. 

We strongly support this approach and urge tha t the Senate concur.

Respectfully submitted.

Daniel J. Hanson, Sr., Executive Vice President.

Arkansas F orestry Association,

Little Rock, Ark., Jul y 16, 1976.

Senator J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: The Arkansas Forestry Association requests tha t 

this letter be entered into the record of the public hearings scheduled on July 27 

and 28, 1976, before the Senate Public Works Committee regarding Amendments 

to Section 404 of P.L. 92-500.

The Arkansas Forestry Association, a private, non-profit organization composed 

of 600 members representing forest industries, private forest landowners, logging 

contractors and other individuals interested in the forests and the practice of 

forestry in Arkansas, believes that it would be to the detriment of good forestry 

in this State to implement Phases II and III of the Corps of Engineers regulations 

regarding the disposal of dredge and fill material into waters of the United States.

Therefore, we as a group support the Amendment to H.R. 9560 (S. 2710 as 

amended by the House) offered by Rep. Jim Wright of Texas, which more adequately defines “navigable waters”, allows the states some discretion in dealing 

with the regulation of dredge and fill materials in additional waters, authorizes 

general permits with exemptions for normal farming and forestry operations, 

exempts federally financed projects with approved impact statements, and allows 

delegation of permitting authority to the states under special circumstances.

We strongly urge the adoption of this amendment and hope th at you and the 

members of yoqr committee will lend it your full support.

Sincerely,

Wm. F. Chestnutt, Executive Director.

The Associated General Contractors of America,

Washington, D.C., July 16, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman R andolph: The Associated General Contractors of America 

respectfully submits the enclosed statem ent for the record in connection with 

your Committee’s hearings on July 27, 28 on the interpretation and implementation of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Sincerely,

J. M. Sprouse, Executive Vice President.
638

S ta tem en t o f t h e Ass o cia ted G en er a l C ontractors of Am er ic a to t h e

S e n a te C o m m it tee on P ubli c W orks

The Associated General Contractors of America, the nation’s leading spokesman 

for the contract construction industry, is a n ational trade association representing 

approximately 8,400 construction firms.

Our statem ent will be brief; all pertinent arguments, all necessary facts, concerning the grave flaws in the judicially man dated definition of “navigable w aters ” 

in Section 404 have already been well voiced, and consistently so, since th at 

March 1975 distric t court decision. This Committee is well versed in the arguments 

and the facts, and this sta tem ent will not belabor those points or attempt to 

overlap that knowledge.

Our interest is a simple one, and adm ittedly a self-interest one—we are a 

construction association and the judicially manda ted expansion of perm it autho rity will, at the very least, delay construction activity. However, our selfinte rest is also in the public interest. We believe th at the nation can ill afford 

delays, at best, and deferrals, at worst, of vitally needed flood control works, 

navigation projects, soil conservation projects, waste trea tm en t facilities, highway 

construction ; in fact, almost all construction, and its comm ensurate employment, 

done near virtually every natural and artificial body of water and wetland in 

the United States. Yet, this is precisely w hat will happen, in fact which hits already 

begun to happen, because of the Federal perm it-writing bureaucracy mandated 

by the court order expanding the definition of “navigable waters.”

It does not tak e an expert to realize th at the c ourt ordered definition has, and 

will continue to have, serious economic and social implications. We do not believe 

th at questions as imp ortant and as basic to our liberties as intrusion into th e lives 

and activities of private citizens, and Federal control of stat e and local land use 

should be allowed to be decided in the name of water q uality only. Neither courts 

nor litigants should be called upon to interpret, or misinterpret, the intent of 

'Congress on an issue which has such potentially dev astatin g economic and social 

implications; nor, should tacit approval of Congress be allowed to be inferred 

on such imp ortant issues.

The Associated General Contractors strongly sup ports a return to the tradition al 

definition of “navigable waters” in Section 404, amended to provide, if deemed 

necessary, for Federal or sta te control of dredge or fill activities in the wetlands 

adjacent to such waters. If there is then, after full and expert analysis of the 

coverage of th at definition, any genuine concern th at the protection afforded by 

the definition is insufficient, it would be a relatively easy ma tter to prepare 

specific am endatory language without extending the permit authority needlessly. 

In this way Congress can address the problem directly and specifically, provide 

for equitable considerations, and thus plan to achieve the priority objectives of 

water quality without compromising social and economic goals.

Carolinas Branch,

T he Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.,

Charlotte, N.C ., Ju ly 26, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Pub lic Works,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman R andolph: The Carolinas Branch, Associated General 

Contractors of America, Inc. respectfully subm its the enclosed s tate ment, for the 

record of the hearings of your Committee, on July 27, 28, 1976, regarding the 

provisions of Section 404, P.L. 92-500, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Pierc e, Executive Vice President.

Enclosure.

S ta te m e n t o f t h e C a rolin a s B ranch, Asso cia ted G e n er a l C ontractors o f

Am er ic a to t h e S e n a te P ubli c W o r k s C o m m it tee

The Carolinas Branch, Associated General Contractors of America has a 

membership of over 2,500 firms engaged in the constructio n industry in North and 

South Carolina.

In the interests of the construction industry and as gravely concerned citizens, 

we urge th at you su pport amendments to P.L. 92-500 which will restore the tra ditiona l definition “ Navigable waters” in Section 404.
639

We seriously doubt th at the average citizen is aware th at Federal regulations 

already exist which will require, by July 1, 1977 (Phase 2), a Federal perm it for 

any excavation or tilling, which m ight affect the water qua lity of any stream with 

an average flow of 5 cubic feet por second or any pond of 5 acres or more.

As these regulations arc progressively implem ented, the individual citizen will 

see essential public and priv ate construction projects, of all types, stop ped or 

delayed, even projects in his own back yard . He surely will become aware of the 

increased costs to him and of the Federal intru sion on his long-cherished priva te 

rights.

Further, he will l earn th at he is supporting, by taxes, the operations of two 

Federal agencies in this process: (1) the Corps of Engineers, winch issues the 

perm it and (2) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ), which reviews 

the Corps’ permit and which has overriding auth ority.

As the imp act on individual citizens accumulates, public reaction is bound to. 

be severe and be heard in the Congress.

Further, there are a num ber of questions which need serious consideration :

1. Given the seve rity of the regulations and EPA’s zeal in implementing 

them, how many additional permits will be required annually?

2. If the regulations are not, or cannot be, fully implemented, how ma ny 

new court cases will be generated?

3. Will the Congress provide the additional funds and auth orize theadditional personnel needed by the Corps and EPA to impleme nt theseregulations? Alternatively can these agencies afford to div ert available 

resources from oth er essential tasks?

In our judgment the Section 404 program as now Ix-ing implemented is impractical and virtually impossible to implement. We believe th at only the Congress can correct the situatio n.

We ma inta in th at state a nd local au thoritie s are seriously concerned alx>ut th ei r 

local waters and wetlands, and are capable of protecting them withou t costly 

Federal interference.

Lastly, we seriously question whether the Section 404 program as now being 

implemented reflects the real inte nt of th e Congress and the public. The stringent 

Federal requirements were generated and prom oted by EPA, based on a decision 

of a single U.S. Distric t Court. This decision ruled in favor of the views of zealous 

environmen talist groups, which fran kly profess little inte rest in the economic and 

social impacts of environm enta l measures.

Florida Audubon Society,

Ju ly 19, 1976. Senator Howard II. Baker, Jr .,

Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Baker: The Florida Audubon Society is an organization of 

35,000 members in th e sta te of Florida. We are vitally concerned about the protection of our stat e’s water resourci-s and wetlands, which are important both 

to the na tur al environ men t and our st at e’s tour ist industry and recreation oriented 

economy. We are writing to urge you to stand firm against proposals to weaken 

the provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Wa ter Quality Act amendments of 

1972.

The “W right Amendment,” included by the U.S. House of R epresentatives in 

II.It. 9560 (S. 2710) and its predecessor, the “ Breaux Amendment,” inflict grievous 

damage not only on t he ability of the Corps of Engineers to prev ent the destruction of wetlands through the placement of dredged spoil, b ut also on some of the 

most basic principles of the Federal Wa ter Pollution Control Program.

From the outset, one of the most vital underpinnings of Public Law 92-500' 

has been the principle of controlling pollution wherever it occurs at the source.. 

H.R. 9560 (S. 2710) as passed by the House with the inclusion of t he “Wright 

Amendment” would chang e this approach radic ally by directing the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Program tow ard only those bodies of water utilized fo r 

commercial navigation. This sharp change in direction would almost certainlyprevent the achievem ent of protection for “the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of our natio n’s waters,” which is in fact the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act’s most basic purpose.

H.R . 9560 (S. 2710) as passed has the effect of declaring the majority of America’s 

lakes, streams, and rivers off limits to federal protection without even establishing 

a mechanism of enc ouragement to the states to facilita te the protection of these 

resources.
640

While the “W right Amendment” appears on the surface to pro tec t wetlands 

adjace nt to navigable waters, the manner in which the provision was included 

in H. R. 9560 (S. 2710) virtually erased any real advanta ge over the “Breaux 

Amendment” originally adopted by the House Public Works Committee. A 

review of the Congressional Reco rd will reveal th at the Wright Amendment 

incorporates legislative inten t th at wate rs utilized for recr eational navigatio n 

not be considered navigable wate rs for the purposes of the Act. Fur ther, while 

the language of the Wright Amendment appears on its face to only exempt 

normal farming and silvicultural operations from perm it requirem ents (such as 

plowing, planting, terracing, cultivating, seeding and harv esting), the Congressional Record will reveal a vas tly broader legislative int ent which would allow 

the con struction of dikes, canals, drain age of wetlands or filling of wetlands in the 

name of agricultu re or silviculture with no perm it requ irem ent whatsoever. 

The inequity in this situatio n should be obvious—agricultural inte rest would be 

allowed to fill wetlands with out permits, while other landowners desiring to use 

etland s for purposes not related to agriculture would be required to obtain 

permits for the ir projects. We strongly fear th at this kind of arb itrary inequity 

would quickly lead to an invalida tion of the 404 perm it program by the courts.

In conclusion, we stro ngly urge vou to work for the protection of Section 404. 

The experience of the states of Florida and California (which have expressed 

vigorous official support for the main tenance of a strong 404 program) should 

be revealing with regard to the unfounded fears abo ut the program expressed 

unknowledgably by many. Because of their extremely long coastlines, numerous 

rivers and lakes, and vast areas of wetlands, Florida and California have been 

exposed to the 404 program to a degree much greater tha n most other states. 

The fac t th at these states sup port Section 404 fully in its present form should 

be a convincing argument th at the program is indeed reasonable and workable.

Should it be the belief of the Senate Public Works Committe e t ha t some clarification of th e intent and objectives of Section 404 is necessary in response to the 

concerns of the agriculture and forestry industries, we urge you to ado pt the 

provisions suggested by Senator Gary Hart of Colorado. Senator Hart, as we are 

sure you are aware, has introduce d legislation (S. 3663) which would have the 

effect of providing assurance th at normal farming and silvicultural operations 

(and normal operations only) are exempt from perm it requirements under Section 

404.

Senator Har t’s amendatory language would also exem pt normal main tenance 

work on currently serviceable stru ctures, such as dams, levees, groins, bridge 

approaches, etc., from perm it requ irem ents and authorize the Corps of Engineers 

to issue “ general permits” for work consistent w ith guidelines established pu rsuant 

to Section 404 (B).

We trus t th at you will carefully weight these considerations in determining 

your position on this urgently im portant matter.

Sincerely,

Charles Lee, Vice President, Conservation.

F ort Worth Audubon Society, I nc.,

Fort Worth, Tex., Ju ly Id, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. R andolph: This lette r is “for the record of hearing of July 27-28, 

1076, on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.”

There are four main points th at our organization would like recorded in these 

hearings into Section 404.

1. It is prem ature to amend Section 404; no hearings should be held nor ame ndments considered until after the full three-phase program has gone into effect.

2. Theproposed Senate Hart-Cleve land Amendment is preferable to th e W rightBreaux House Amendment because it would address those issues mistakenly 

raised by those who oppose furth er regulation under the section; it would write 

into law the exemptions and general perm it program alre ady set for Phases II 

and II I in the regulations, and it would provide a progress report for the Congress 

to review at the end of th e next year.

3. Wetland areas are valuable for the ir capabilities to break down and remove 

qua ntities of pollutants such as nutrients and organic wastes from the ir tri bu ­

tarie s, to store flood waters and to feed an d n urture the lower end of the food chain.
4. The House ame ndm ent would stop the Section 404 program from controlling 

the discharge of polluted dredged materials into tributaries of drinking water 

supplies th at do not happen to fall with in the House’s narrowed definition of 

“navigable waters.”

We certainly hope th at our views on this most im portant su bjec t will be recorded 

and th at the Committee will t ake actio n to uphold Section 404 as it is now constituted. Thank you for your attention to this m att er.

Sincerely,

Lynda A. Gearheart, Conservation Chairman.

Mrs. Norman Baetjer, Jr ., 

Garrison, Md., Ju ly SI , 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairm an, Senate Public Bor is Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I would like to express my support of the Har t 

amendment to the Clean Water Act, presently numbered S. 2710. I strongly virge 

th at the private witnesses to be heard, be increased so t ha t those for and against 

this ame ndment will be equal. Of th e seven presently to testify, only two are in 

favor of th e amend ment while five are aga inst; this is hardly democracy.

1 would apprecia te th at this letter be included in the record of the hearings to 

take place Jul y 27 an d July 28, 1976, in rega rd to the Clean Water Act.

Sincerely yours,

Mrs. H. Norman Baetjer, J r.

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 20, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Pub lic Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I was shocked to hear of the efforts currently 

underway to weaken the Clean Wate r Act, particu larly efforts to exclude most 

wetlands from protection u nder Section 404. It is premature to amend Section 404 

when the full three -phase program has not even gone into effect. The proposed 

Senate Hart-Cleveland Amendment is preferable to the Wright-Breaux House 

Amendment in th at it would address those issues m istak enly raised by those who 

oppose furth er regulation un der the section; it would write into law the exemptions 

and general permit program already set in Phases II and II I in the regulations, 

and it would provide a progress report for the Congress to review a t the end of the 

next year.

Having served two years in Nepal as a fisheries biologist for Peace Corps, I am 

acute ly aware of the importance of the wetlands both as a natural water purifier 

and as a key element in the food chain which provides fish for sp ort and industry. 

Of importance to all Americans is th at the House ame ndm ent would stop the 

Section 404 program from controlling the discharge of polluted dredged materials 

into trib utaries of drinking waters th at do not happen to fall within the House’s 

narrowed definition of navigable waters.

It is time to stop the unbridled exploitation of our coastal regions by developers 

and entrepreneurs who would see our nation’s ruin for their personal gain. We 

must balance the profit of such development with the catastrophic price tha t future 

generations will have to pay.

Please consider this note as te stim ony to be included for the record of the hear ­

ing of July 27-28, 1976, on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and please balan ce 

the witnesses scheduled to appear at these hearin gs with more advo cates of the 

Section 404 provisions.

Sincerely yours,

David Bodycombe.

Brazos River Authority,

Waco, Tex., Ju ly 23, 1976.

Hon. Edmund S. Musk ie,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, Committee on Pub lic Works,

1^5 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is respectfully requ ested th at this let ter, expressing

the Brazos Riv er Au tho rity ’s sup port of the “Wright amend ment” to Section
404 of P.L. 92-500, be given consideration by your Subcommittee in connection 

with its hearings on July 27-28, 1976.

The Brazos River Authority is a governmental agency of the Sta te of Texas 

charged with responsibility for conservation and development of the water 

resources of the Brazos River Basin (an area of 42,000 square miles) a nd puttin g 

these water resources to beneficial use in the best interest of the people of Texas. 

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Authority is self-supporting, utilizing 

operating revenues to pay the costs of its projects and activities. The only tax 

money available to the Authority is th at which may be provided occasionally 

under grants for specific studies or projects.

The Brazos River Authority, since its creation by the State Legislature in 

1929, has made grea t progress in accomplishing its statutory mission. The Autho rity now has in operation a basin-wide system of wa ter supply lakes, including 

the conservation storage space in five Corps of Engineers multi-purpose projects 

on tributaries of the Brazos River and two lakes of its own on the main stem of 

the Brazos River. Essentially all of the long-range dependable water supply 

yield of the existing projec ts in the basin-wide water supp ly system is committed 

under firm contracts to meeting existing and projected water needs, and additional 

needs developing in the fut ure must be met from projects not yet in operation. 

These include thre e multipurpose projects now under construction by the Corps 

of Engineers and one water conservation and water supp ly project under construction by the Authority.

The project now under construction by the Authority is Lake Limestone, 

which was placed under construction a year ago in the upper Nava sota Riv er 

watershed 125 river-miles up stream of the Navasota’s confluence with the Brazos. 

This project is urgently needed to provide dependable water supplies for 

industrial, municipal and agric ultural use. The most urgent immediate need for 

water is to permit the utilization of extensive lignite deposits in the u pper N ava sota 

watershed as a heretofore unexploited source of fuel to help alleviate the country’s 

pressing energy shortage.

The Brazos River Authority is experiencing serious problems in completing 

construction of this urgently-needed water resource project as a resu lt of the 

court-ordered interp retation of Section 404 of PL 92-500.

Prior to being placed und er construction in July 1975, Lake Limestone had 

received all the Sta te and Federal licenses, perm its and approvals at that time 

required. However, on Jul y 25, 1975, after Lake Limestone was placed under 

construction, the Corps of Engineers published its new regulations in response to 

the Federal Cou rt order expanding the Corp s’ permit program for discharge of 

dredged and fill material in navigable waters under Section 404, so tha t this program was exten ded to cover virtually every stream, pond and lake in the country . 

Under these new regulations it was determ ined th at a Section 404 pe rmit would 

be required for Lake Limestone as of Ju ly 1, 1976, the date th at the regulations 

would become applicable to the Nav asota River und er Phase II of the expansion 

of the perm it program. The Authority submitted its application for a perm it in 

October 1975, and the Corps or Engineers published and distribu ted public 

notices of our application in December 1975. In March 1976, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service recommended th at the perm it be denied unless the Authority 

buys 15,800 additional acres of privately-ow ned farm and ranch land for use as 

wildlife management areas to mitigate the loss of wildlife habit at on the 15,000 

acres of privately-ow ned farm and ranch land th at will be occupied by the lake. 

Even if it could be dem onstrated to be in the best public inte rest to take an 

additional 15,800 acres of farm and ranch land o ut of priv ate ownership and out of 

production for use as wildlife management areas, it would be impossible for the 

Authority to comply with such a requirem ent, because it has no source of funds to 

provide the $8 to $12 million th at would be required, and it does no t have the 

legal right or power necessary to buy land for such purposes. The Authority 

explained this to represen tatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, bu t the y 

replied th at their job is to make recom mendations based solely on fish and wildlife 

considerations with out regard for oth er factors; they said it is up to the regulating 

agency (in this Ciise the Corps of Engineers) to consider all the facto rs involved 

and arrive at a decision. Under an agreement between the Departme nt of the 

Army and the Department of the Interior, where recommendations made by an 

agency of the Interior Depar tment can not be accepted by the applica nt for a 

Section 404 permit, the matter must be forwarded to Washington for resolution. 

Since the Autho rity ’s a pplicatio n for a Section 404 permit falls in this category, 

it cannot be determined at this time when, if ever, a Section 404 perm it may be 

issued for Lake Limestone.
643

This is a very brief and simplified summary of the experience of one State 

agency in trying to obtain a Federal Section 404 p ermit as of July 1, 1976, for a 

project th at has been und er construction for a year after having received all the 

State and Federal government approvals required. The Brazos River Authority 

now faces the possibility t hat construction of this project, which is urgently needed 

as a source of w ater supp ly to perm it use of lignite deposits to help allev iate the 

cou ntry’s energy shortage, mav be delayed or inte rrupted or completely halted 

und er provisions of a Federal Water Pollution Control Act for reasons th at have 

nothing to do with w ater pollution control.

This is just one example of the type of problems that can be encountered under 

the massive expansion of Federal bureaucratic control tha t is jus t beginning to be 

implem ented und er the court-ordered interpretation of Section 404 of PL 92-500.

The W right amendment would eliminate such problems by restoring the original 

intent of Congress with rega rd to Section 404. It would go further with respect to 

wetlands, because it would make the provisions of Section 404 specifically applicable to wetlands adjace nt to navigable waters.

From the point of view of those responsible for trying to meet water needs at 

the S tate and local level, it is critically important th at reasonable limits be placed 

on the extent to which Section 404 may be used by Federal officials to impede 

or block the efforts of Sta te and local governments to go forward ith urgentlyneeded water resource projects.

The Brazos River Authority respectfully requests th at the Subcommittee on 

Environmental Pollution of the Committee on Public Works give favorable 

consideration to the Wright ame ndment so th at it may be presented for consideration by the full Senate withou t delay.

Respectfully submitted.

Walter J. Wells, General Mana ger.

Calcasieu Ron and Gun Club,

Lake Charles, La., July 21, 1976.

Re the record of the hearing of July 27-28, 1976 on section 404 of the Clean

Water Act.

lion. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee, on Public Worts,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: Our membership consists of approxim ately 500 

are a sportsmen. Our coas tal area of Southwest Louisiana is one of the most 

productive areas found in our nation toda y, containing a large percentage of the 

total wetland acreage in the country. Unfortunately, we have no sta te or local 

laws to protect these wetlands in existence today. To protect these wetlands, we 

mu st rely on federal law and the federal agencies.

The Public Works Committee is considering this day the Wright-Breaux 

Amendment to Section 404. We have followed this Amendment from its inception 

by our Representative, Congressman Breaux. Unfortu nate ly, we completely 

disagree with his position. No o ppo rtun ity was presen ted for rational discourse on 

the House side. We are appreciative for the hearing afforded this day, bu t feel it 

is premature as no one can really tell the full affect of the Corps regulations until 

they are fully implemented.

In addition, planning und er the Coastal Zone M anag ement Act in Louisiana is 

in its infancy. If no federal supervision is maintain ed, the entire ball could be 

dropped and no p rotection for our wetlands could be the outcome. Until a comprehensive coastal resources man agem ent program is adopted by the Louisiana S tate 

Legislature, we feel th at consideration of changes in Section 404 is prem ature.

We disagree with the limited definition of “navigable waters” and “adjacen t 

wetlands” in the Wright-Breaux Amendment. We also feel strongly th at more 

string ent guidelines should be established by Congress if they are to allow the 

turning over of the permitting process to the Sta te Government. In the case of 

Louisiana, it might well be the case of allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.

If a choice m ust be ma de a t this advance stage, we urge consideration of Senator 

H ar t’s Amendments to the Section which basically coincide with the Clevelandlla rsha Amendment proposed on the House side.

Tha nk you for this opp ortunity to comment.

Sincerely yours,

Leonard K. Knapp, Jr ., Pr esident.
644

California Alpine Club,

Sa n Francisco, Calif., Ju ly 19, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Sena te Public U’ori.s Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The members of the California Alpine Club, an 

organization of 800 members residing in the Bay Area, h ave consistently gone on 

record in support of a strong Federal Water Pollution Control Act and, in particular, Section “404” of the 1972 Act. We express our concern th at the proposed 

amendments to the 1972 Act will prevent any Federal regulation of polluting 

discharges of dredged or fill material on abo ut 80% of the natio n’s ecologically 

important wetlands. We strongly believe that the treasures of our coastal lands 

be protected, for these lands are places where nature cleanses water and air, 

where food is furnished for countless migratory birds a nd for many marine animals. 

The California Alpine Club respectfully requests th at these amendments be 

defeated and th at this letter become pa rt of the Senatorial Public Works Committee record.

Very truly yours,

Henry Hillman, Conservation Chairman.

California Committee of Two Million,

Sa n Francisco, Calif., Ju ly 15, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Pub lic Works,

Washington, D.C.

Sir : This organization on several occasions over the past few weeks has expressed its strong objection to the so-called Wright-Breaux ame ndm ent to S.2710 

the public works bill the S enate now has under consideration.

Our objection is two-fold and we wish herewith to reiterate our opinion for 

you r benefit.

First we object to any amendmen t of Section 404 of the FWPCA of 1972 

witho ut full and complete public hearings. We understand your comm ittee will 

hear testim ony from selected witnesses on July 27 and 28. Any allegation th at 

the foregoing setup constitutes a public hearing will be promptly labeled by us 

as a sham and a deceit.

Secondly, we object to the language of the amendment as proposed, for it will 

clearly weaken an important element of one of this natio n’s foremost ha bitat 

protectio n laws. Our cou ntry’s wetlands would suffer severely if Wright-Breaux 

is accepted; therefore it should be stricken from S. 2710.

We ask th at this letter be made part of the record of your proceedings on July 27 and 28. F

Sincerely,

Richard II. May, Chairman.

217 Edgeworth Lane, 

Sewickley, Pa., Ju ly 25, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : Please support the Hart amendment to the Clear Water Act now 

S. 2710. It is im perative th at we save as many of our wetlands as possible since 

the y are fast vanishing through housing developments and oth er filling operations. 

They are vital to our food chains.

Please use this statem ent as testimony at the hearings next week on Section 

404 of the Clear Water Act.

Also please get all the te stim ony you can from interested groups.

Most sincerely,

Elizabeth L. Childs,

National A ffairs and Legislative Committee,

The Garden Club of Am erica.
645

Citizens Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 28, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Pub lic Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The Citizens Com mittee on Na tur al Resources 

urges you and your Comm ittee to ac t in defense of Section 404 of the Federal \ \ a ter Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. We are deeply concerned with the action of the House in adopting the ill-considered Wright Amendment, which emasculates a major section of the program and leaves a majority of the Na tion’s wetlands unprotected . We believe tha t it is now up to the Senate to preserve this 

key element of the land mark 1972 legislation. In passing Public Law 92-500 in 1972, Congress recognized the need to pro tec t all the wate rs of the United S tates from pollution. Section 404 not only regu lates two key classes of polluta nts, it also helps preserve a natural purification system which can only be partially duplicated with expensive technology. As you know, wetlands are essential to the life cycles of numerious fish, birds, and mammals, 

with impor tant economic and asthetic values. The present controversy over Section 404 has been fanned by several un for tun ate 

factors. First, there is considerable d oubt abo ut the court inte rpretation of the law under which the present Corps program is being im plemented. Second, a good deal of hysteria has been generated—particularly in the farm community—b y a misleading attack on the program conducted by several major agricultural 

organizations. It is possible th at Congress should reconsider the manner in which spoil and fill are to be regulate d under the law. While we believe th at the Corps has acted responsibly in implementing this program, Congress may wish some of the juris­ diction to be tran sferred elsewhere. However, this would raise complex points of 

law which there is little time to consider adequate ly in this Congress, particu larly under the gun of the Wright Amendment. Indeed, the serious difficulties which have been discovered in the Wright approac h dem onstrate the need for careful 

and full consideration of all the issues involved. While we would be re luc tan t to see any change in th e present im plem enta tion of Section 404, it is possible th at the most satisfac tory approach to compromise at this time would be a delay in the beginning of Phase II of the program untill Congress has had an adequate opp ortunity for full review of the law’. Such a

review is scheduled for next year. Another approach which we would endorse is th at embodied by S. 3663, introduced by Senator Har t of Colorado. This bill essentially codifies the Corps* announced inte ntio n of excluding ordinary farming and silvicultural practices from regulation, and of issuing general permits to cover numerous o ther activities. However, we cannot su ppo rt a t this time any basic changes in the structu re of the program. We believe th at Congress mu st insure th at all water resources rema in 

protecte d under the law. We respectfully req ues t th at this lette r be made part of the record of vour hearings on this legislation. Tha nk you for your consideration of these views.

Very truly yours,

John M. Burdick, Executive Director.

Citizens Committee on Natural R esources,

Was hington, D.C., Ju ly 19, 1976.

The President,

The Wh ite House,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Pres ide nt: On 3 J une 1976, the House of Rep rese ntatives passed 

by voice vote and sen t to the Senate the Wright Amendment to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500). This action, if confirmed by the Senate and the President, would strip federal protection from millions of acres of non tida l w’etla nds of vital impo rtance to our economy as well as to the cultura l, recreational, and aesthetic enjoyment of the American 

people.
64G

We consider the House action, taken in response to ill-founded fears, to be 

hasty and ill-advised. No consideration was given to environmental or economic 

impacts, nor was any public hearings conducted on this or the earlier and similar 

Breaux Amendment. Scientific and conservation interests and the general publio 

were given no scheduled opp ortunity to comment.

The Wright Amendment is sweeping and complex in its implications. It contains many ramifications bearing on the future of the Nation’s critical aqu atic 

areas and the related natural resources and public values depe ndent upon them . 

By nurrowly redefining navigable waters, it would exem pt virtually all bu t salt 

and brackish water marshes from the dredge-and-fill perm it system now administered by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

We are deeply concerned th at the Wright Amendment, if enacted, will undermine 

impor tant interrelated laws and regulations, especially the long-standing Refuse 

Act of 1899. The important and priceless aquatic areas of our cou ntry require 

continuing protection.

W etlands in their natural sta te have many irreplaceable public values th at 

should be maintaine d. Because of their water-holding capacities, they have been 

proven to act as storage basins th at help reduce floods th at might otherwise 

threaten human life and property downstream. By doing so, they curtail th e need 

for flood control dams and levees and thereby help reduce public costs and burdens on taxpayers, including paym ents made for emergency relief. Scientists 

have estim ated th at a G-inch rise in w ater level over a 10-acre wetland accounts 

for the storage and gradual release of more tha n 1.5 million gallons of water.

Wetlands play a significant role in ground-water recharge, assuring reliable 

and continuous supplies of water for many municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

complexes whose growth, and even existence, depends upon them.

Of equal importance is the value of wetlands in serving as water-filtration 

systems th at remove large quantities of silt and water-borne polluta nts from 

streams vital to municipalities, industry, and agric ulture. By reducing the 

nu trient load in flowing water, they help minimize algal blooms and ran k aquatic 

plan t growth th at lower the effectiveness and shorten the lives of downstream 

reservoirs. Most of these reservoirs were bulit and are maintain ed with ta xpa yer s’ 

funds. Intensive study of a stream in Georgia by the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Administration showed th at a heavily contaminated stream purified 

itself to highly potable standa rds after passing throug h less tha n ten miles of 

upland swamp. The cost of artificially removing these contaminants would have 

involved s ubstan tial capital investments by indu stry and government.

Of equal importance to the natio nal economy is the contribution of wetlands 

to the well-being of the nation’s hard-pressed fishing industry. The importance 

of small headwa ter streams, which would be classified as non-navigable und er 

the W right Amendment, to the maintenance of anadromous fishes, such as salmon, 

steelhead trout, shad, and alewives, which depend upon such streams for spawning, is obvious. W hat is less widely recognized is the value of interior wetlands 

in nourishing and replenishing coastal and lacustrine estuaries into which they 

feed. A high percentage of all shell and finfish of commercial and spo rt value 

spend all or part of their lives in such areas and need them to survive. As with 

municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supplies, upland wetlands eliminate 

the influx of con tam inants th at frequently cause the closure of fisheries of great 

importance to local industry. The current Kepone disaster involving the James 

River in Virginia and Chesapeake Bay has serious implications for local watermen, 

and might not have occurred if the contributing factory had been located farther 

upstream and the river’s waters subjected to the cleansing action of ripa rian 

wetlands.

Similarly, by regulating flows of feeder streams, upstream w’etlands help 

mainta in the precise degrees of salin ity required by oysters, shrimp, clams, and 

■other commerically imp ort ant estuarine species.

These im portant functions assume greater importance in the light of th e recently 

adopted 200-mile fishery jurisdiction. Th at authority, as you know', calls for 

improving managem ent of the United State s’, as well as the rest of t he world’s, 

fishery resources. The Wright Amendment threatens to perm it destruction of the 

aqu atic ha bitats required to assure p erpetuatio n of those resources. Permit th at to 

happen and the economy will be shortchanged forever.

These are only a few of the significant values, im portant both economically and 

ecologically, that are thre atened by adoption of the Wright Amendment.
i 647

In view of these facts, we urge you and the Executive Branch to auth orize the 

Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to proceed with 

implementing the guidelines for handling dr<*dged and till materials under Phase II 

of the Corps permit program under Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control 

Act of 1972 as published in the Federal Register of 25 Ju ly 1975.

We believe that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps, and 

possibly Congress as well, should hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing 

the experience accum ulated since 25 July 1975 in handling permits under the 404 

program. These hearings should identify if and how the program and procedures 

should be refined. The results of the hearing or hearings would be used to mold a 

well-designed program th at is acceptable and in the long-term public inte rest for 

main taining th e chemical, physical, and biological integ rity of the nation’s waters. 

This is the follow-up procedure established previously and announced in the 

Federal Register on 25 July 1975.

It is not our position to support a program to curtail all development of aquatic 

and associated areas. Rathe r, we seek prac tical guidelines th at insure orderly 

planning and assure maintenance of important aqu atic areas as pa rt of a total 

development plan.

We respectfully appeal to your stron g belief in fairness in government, enlist 

your support in helping assure public participation in the decision-making process, 

and urge th at the powers of your high office be used to forge an effective joint 

federal-state program to maintain, not degrade and destroy, the important water 

and other aquatic resources of our nation.

Respectfully yours,

American Fisheries Society, Carl R. Sullivan, Executive Director; 

American Littora l Society, John Clark, Washington Director; 

J. N. “D ing” Darling Foundation, Sherry R. Fisher, Chairm an; 

Intern ational Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, John E. 

Phelps, Presiden t; National Audubon Society, Joseph P. L induska, 

Vice Presid ent; No rth Americau Wildlife Foundation, Laurence R. 

Jahn, Secretary ; The Rachel Carson Trust, Shirley A Briggs, 

Executive Director; Sport Fishing Ins titu te, Richard H. Stroud, 

Executive Vice Preside nt; The Wildlife Society, Fred G. Evenden, 

Executive Directo r; World Wildlife Fund, Godfrey A. Rockefeller, 

Executive Director; American Institut e of Biological Sciences, 

Richard Trumbull, Executive Director; Citizens Committee on 

Natural Resources, John Burdick, Executive Director; Friends 

of th e Earth, David R. Brower, President; Izaak Walton League 

of America, Jack Lorenz, Executive Director; National Coalition 

for Marine Conservation, Fra nk E. Carlton; Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Environmental Lobby, Ronald B. Outen; 

Sierra Club, Rhea Cohen, Washington Represe ntative; The 

Wilderness Society, George D. Davis, Executive Director; an a 

Wildlife Managem ent Institut e, Daniel A. Poole, President.

3201 Beech Street, NW., 

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 28, 1976.

Public Works Committee,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Gentl emen: We strong ly urge t ha t you do not recommend that any changes be 

made in Section 404 of t he Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This legislation 

is the only instrument we have to ensure th at the needless destructio n of our 

wetlands and waterw ays is stopped. Since its passage, it has served the public 

inte rest well. Surely the same urgent reasons th at caused us to create this section 

are still valid. Wetlands are now' no less vital. We know’ th at the developers, the 

roadbuilders, the miners, and a host of other special interests never w’anted this 

legislation and are putting pressure on you now’ to abolish it. Which one of them 

understands the importance of w etlands and waterways to our lives and theirs? 

Which one of them cares? We urge you to be guided by those who understand 

these complex living systems and whose only interest is in preserving those systems 

on w’hich all life depends. Please do not tak e Section 404 from us or weaken it in 

any way.

Sincerely yours,

Mildred and J ames Clark.
648

Coalition for Natural Stream Valleys, I nc.,

Ju ly 24, 1976.

Re the record of the hearing of July 27-28, 1976, on section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The Coalition for Na tur al Stream Valleys, Inc. 

urges you to give Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act a reaso nable trial period before making major amendments. The value of our delicate a nd 

irreplaceable wetlands, which these regulations were designed to protect, is welldocumented.

One might argue th at the states should handle the responsibility of wetland 

protection, bu t in fact many do not now have regulations. Others th at do often 

are rendered ineffective by local political pressure applied to adm inistrators by 

would-be exploiters. Even in some major highway construction, federal scrutin y 

under the National Environmen tal Policy Act is eliminated by financing environmentally destructive projects with sta te funds only. A requirement of federal 

review of activity in the wetlands would ensure an objective evaluatio n. Such an 

evaluatio n does not seem unreasonable when one considers th at a prod uctive 

stre am or wetland, thousands of years in the making, can be destroyed in a day.

In Delaware we are currently experiencing the maneu vering to by-pass the 

environm ental accounting of a highway bridge, to be built with sta te funds only, 

over the East Branch of the Christina River, a prim ary tributary. Political pressures to expedite project construction have resulted in hasty perm it approvals at 

the local and sta te levels for a bridge design which would require channelization of 

the strea m and thousand s of cubic yards of fill on the floodplain. The consideratio n of an alternativ e viaduc t design, which would eliminate both of these environmental shortcomings, by an uninvolved agency is desirable. Section 404 

provides for this process; th e Wright-Breaux amendment would exclude it.

Total review of potentia l environmentally destructive projects in our Nation’s 

wetlands is absolutely essential in a democratic process, therefore the Coalition 

for Natural Stream Valleys, Inc. urges the Senate n ot to a dop t th e Wright-Breaux 

amendment to Section 404.

Respectfully,

Dorothy P. Mille r, 

Corresponding Secretary.

Colorado P ublic I nterest R esearch Group,

Fort Collins, Colo., July 20, 1976.

ITon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee

Hon. Edmund Muskie,

Chairman, Environmental Pollution Subcommittee

Dear Chairman R andolph and Subcommittee Chairman Mus kie: The 

House of Representatives has weakened the Clean Water Act with undue haste. 

We believe th at this act is vital to the well-being of this nation, and feel th at it is 

premature to amend the very su bstance of this act. At this point all three phases 

of the original act have not gone into effect and therefore, it is difficult to correctly 

determine jus t what revisions, if any, are necessary. All phases of this act should 

be allowed to go into effect and if i t is found th at revisions are necessary, the y 

should be made only after full public hearings before both chambers of Congress.

We prefer the Hart-Cleveland amendment to the Wright-Breaux amendment. 

The Hart-Cleveland amendmen t recognizes th at our waterways and wetla nds 

are pa rt of a complex, interwoven system. It would be foolhardy to perm it Section 404 to apply only to navigable waterways and their adjacent wetlands, as 

the Wright-Breaux ame ndm ent does. To place only navigable waterways and 

their adja cent wetlands und er 404 would leave unprote cted many bodies of water 

which: supply drinking water, are used in commercial fishing, and are used by 

inte rstate trave lers for recreation purposes. It would leave unprotec ted many 

bodies of water which are used for indu strial purposes by industries engaging in 

Interstate commerce. This narrow definition would endan ger waterfowl which 

use our wetlands, many of which would go unpro tected. It would open the door 

to the destructio n of many wetlands th at actually clean up our polluted water.
649

We feel th at it is vitally imp ortant t ha t Section 404 apply to the total “waters 

of the United States” and not just navigable waterways and their adjacent 

wetlands.

Sincerely,

K ris N ewcom, 

Research Associate,

B il l Sp e r r y ,

Board of Directors.

Sta te m e n t of t h e C o m m it t ee to P r e s e r v e Assa tea g u e I sl and, P r epa r ed

by J u d it h C olt J o h n so n , C hair m an

The Committee to Preserve Assateague Island represents approxim ately 

1,400 individuals and organizatio ns spread throughout all sections of Maryland, 

Virginia and Delaware, plus others from states across the country. We are a non-profit organizatio n and our object is to “p rote ct the ecological health of 

Assateague Island and all other endangered areas where land meets water along 

the Atlantic Coast of the United State s, so t ha t their natural wonders and recreational advanta ges may be enjoyed now and by future generations.” We were 

formed in 1970 and our area of inte rest has grown with our size due to other 

groups and individuals requestin g our aid.

Recognizing the exceptional value of these critical areas, we feel it is essential 

th at strong p rotection be given our salt a nd fresh water marshes, for th e c ontribution they make in flood control, providing wildlife habitat and breeding grounds, 

as natur e’s septic tank, in their contribution to the food chain, and the pure 

aesthetic pleasure they bring to countless people. Hunting, trap ping and fishing 

(commercial and recreational) are very important industries in our economic 

system. Their success is dependent on protecting our marshes, and the qua lity 

of water, which, in turn , determ ines the amoun t and type of aqu atic grasses 

which are necessary for a continuance of shellfish, finfish and waterfowl. An 

example of this is th e documented evidence we have th at swans are deserting the 

Chesapeake Bay because of deteriora tion of the supp ly of aquatic vege tation. 

They are going to the fields in Maryland and the population at Lake Ma ttamuskeet in North Carolina, where the aquatic vegetation has increased, has grown 

from 8,000 in 1972 to 22,000 in December 1975. In migration they are always 

observed to take aquatic vegetation in preference to feeding in fields where there 

is a choice.

Maryland has a wetlands law, and it is a prett y good one. However it only 

gives adeq uate control over state-owned wetlands, which lie below the mean 

low water line. It does no t protect fresh water wetlands or prevent building on 

flood plains. While on the whole Maryland has a fairly good record, we also run 

into the problem where the st ate has a documented history of political favoritism, 

and the administration of the wetlands law is no exception to this. Staff members 

of the Department of Na tur al Resources have frankly told me th at sometimes 

it is politically e xpedient for them to agree to permits which they know are bad, 

bu t they count on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calling for denial and takin g 

the blame for th e upset ap plic ant. The Seafarer's Union and school at St. George’s 

Creek in St. Ma ry’s County, the sewage tre atm ent pla nt on the flood plain at 

Mattawoman Creek, Mystic Harbor in Worcester Cou nty are a few of the more 

famous examples, bu t the list can go on; the sta te should have denied the permit.

Furth ermore, an even more frightenin g concern in Maryland is th at a group 

of developers and agricultural interests in Dorcheste r County wish to weaken 

and amend the Maryland Wetlands Law to exem pt agricultural lands and make 

other exceptions, and a stu dy is being made this summer which could resu lt in 

serious weakening of th e law when the Legislature next meets.

Virginia is supposed to have a fairly good w etlands law, bu t it has not stopped 

draining and filling of valuable wetlands and permits for dead-end canals. Other 

states have weaker laws and some none at all. There is no way we can stop such 

developments as Mystic Harbor and Ca ptain’s Cove, which could kill life in 

Chincoteague Bay, withou t the counter balance of the EPA, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Corps of Engineers. 

Th at is a strong statem ent, bu t it has been subst antiated by such scientists as 

Dr. L. Eugene Cronin and Dr. Rich ard Anderson, who have done extensive 

research in Chincoteagure Bay. Virginia has given perm its for altera tions of 

w’etlan ds on Chincoteague Island and as a result an area north of the Oyster
Bay community there has had to be closed to shellfishing. Septic tank s on the 

Island cann ot take care of the influx of people in the peak summer months, and 

samplings of the w ater around the island show pre tty gruesome conditions. Work 

permitted around Ocean City and Ocean Pines along Assowoman Bay, perm its 

for which were g ranted by the state, have caused the closing of additional shellfish 

beds, and the list could go on. The evidence is there. Are we going to continue 

the desecration of our wetlands and waters so th at their productive qualities 

are gone?

For far too long we hav e exploited this good land of ours, and if there is to be 

anythin g left for the next generation, we must rededicate ourselves in this year of 

our 200th Anniversary and pu t the good of our country and the preservation of 

our irreplaceable natural resources for future generations ahead of the lust for 

making a quick dollar by exploiting th e land. There are too m any people occupying 

the e arth to continue the old policies of believing man has the right to do anything 

he wishes to the land and water. Controls are essential for survival.

We are fast reaching the point of no return, and it alarm s us th at the Senate 

Public Works Comm ittee, in whom we place our tru st and on whom our future 

depends—tha t this responsible committee could consider taking action on S. 2710 

by including the controversial Wright-Breaux ame ndment which would set us 

back decades. To approve this measure will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, for 

while it will fatten the coffers of the selfish interests of developers, dredging, and 

oth er interests, it will end in forcing a decline in all the industrie s dependent on 

what is produced by a healthy marsh, which in turn leads to life in the sea and 

all th at is around us. Where would the farmers be without chicken feed and fertilizers made from products of the sea? Life is interrelated and we must cease from 

destroying the cradle and web of life.

In many areas the aquifers are being drawn from faster tha n they are n aturally 

replenished, and this is particula rly true of the Delm arva Peninsula. If S. 2710 is 

adopted as it now stands, there is a real t hreat of pollutants not only contaminating 

rivers and bays bu t entering the underground water system .

In the heat of this election year, we urge you to withstand the tem ptation of 

acceeding to the wishes of selfish interests, of listening to the arguments which 

the State of Maryland will make to have sole control over these areas given to 

the states. Look toward what is best for the nation and its citizens, and postpone 

any action for another year. States are too subject to political pressures and we 

need the balance of other federal agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, th e 

KPA and the National Marine Fisheries. We recognize th at modifications may 

need to be made in th e 404 regulations, but they have not been given a sufficiently 

fair tria l to make judgment at this time. It is not fair to your constitu ents to 

adopt hasty and ill-conceived amendments in an election year. We urge th at 

actio n be deferred until a comm ittee of the various agencies, citizens and government members can make an in-depth study of the situ atio n and regulations and 

return to Congress with recomm endations by, say, December 1977.

A PPE N D IX I

Committee to Preserve Assateague I sland,

October 14, 1975.

To: Friends concerned with the coastal area— Letters needed.

From: Jud y Johnson.

Subject: Public hearing to be held by Corps of Engineers to consider application 

by Mystic Harbor Development Company to dredge dead-end canal, 

construct bulkheads, 2 groins, 4 gazebos, 52 piers, placing dredged material 

on uplands.

Da te: Wednesday, October 22, 1975, in the Stephen Decatur High School 

Auditorium, 5 miles west of Ocean City, Md., at intersection of routes 50 and 

452. Time: 7:30 p.m.

This is th e m ost controversial p ermit application in the Maryland section of the

Sinepuxent-Chn cote ague Bay area, and the outcome will have far-reaching 

effects on the entire bay area. We are fortunate to have Colonel Rob ert S. McGarry in charge of the Baltim ore District of the Corps for he is genuinely concerned over the cumulative effects of dredging, filling and the destructio n of our 

diminishing and invaluable sa lt marshes. Serious objections to the Mystic Harbor 

application have been raised by the EPA, Natio nal Marine Fisheries, and U.S.
651

Fish and Wildlife Service on the Mystic Harbor Application. In Virginia, theNorfolk District has been struggling over an even worse situation, th at of Cap ­

tain’s Cove development. Other developers are pursuing plans for fur the r encroachments on the wetlands, channelization, vacation homes with park ing for 

boats on water and cars on land.

The coastal bays between the barrier islands and mainland from Cape Charles, 

Va., to Lewes, Dela., are recognized as exceptionally imp ortant for their commercial and recreational catc h of shell fish and fin fish, and for providing the 

nursery grounds which eventually help produce the larger catches found along the 

coast. Mystic Harbor plans include a dead-end canal 5,000 feet long, 70 feet wide and 

4.5 feet below mean low w ater. There is very little tida l flushing in the bay, and 

the canal would be so long th at it would become very stagna nt in spite of plans 

to provide mechanical meth ods of aeration and flushing (purely experimental and 

untried ). It would be subject to storm water run-off, oil from outboards, pesticides, organic material and trash, and any waters from it entering Sinepuxent 

Bay would be of poor quality, deteriorating more and more over a period of time. 

Bulkheading on both sides of the canal would interfere with inte rtid al organisms 

and the biota.

Among th e worst featu res are the 120 feet groins to be placed where the canal 

opens into the bay. This would affect the flow of water in and out of the canal 

and would hasten erosion on the down drift side of the bank . Ninety percent of 

the wetlands are dominate d by salt marsh cord grass (spartina alterniflora) and 

are of the highest, most productive quality. The area supp orts highly diverse 

and productive fish an d inverte brate fauna, and the site provides abundant feeding grounds for birds—it is noted for the numerous shore and wading birds, the 

migrating ducks and other waterfowl, and the many songbirds.

These are among the few remaining pristine wetla nds along the coast and are 

imp ortant in the whole food chain—n ot just the fish we eat bu t those used in 

making leather supple, ink, feed for poultry and in fertilizer.

This project is closely related to the proposed D elmarva Intr a-c oas tal Waterw ay 

and is indicative of the development pressures the Waterway would bring. The 

Baltimore and Norfolk Districts of the Corps recognize the unique and irreplaceable value of these Bays, and the charge which has been pu t on them to protect 

such resources under the new EPA guidelines and the new 404 section of the 

F. W.P.C.A. They have engaged the Mitre Corporation to undertake a study of the 

whole Sinepuxent-Chincoteague Bay Area. One purpose of this hearing is to 

determine: (1) The amoun t of concern which the public has in saving these 

irreplaceable resources; and (2) receiving inp ut into what the study should encompass, what needs protectio n, what developm ent could take place withou t 

harming the resource.

Wh at you can do

(1) Attend the hearing if you can; otherwise write the Corps.

(2) Urge denial of the Mystic Harbor Perm it for the canal. An alternative way 

to accommodate boats would be to build a bridge across a portion of the marsh 

(not a causeway as originally suggested) to a high hummock of ground on the edge 

of the bay, where a few piers could be placed.

(3) Express opposition to dredging the bays for an enlarged Waterway or for 

channels to additional marinas and developments. Existing public boat launching 

sites should be used.

Brief notes or comprehensive comments sould be sent to:

Colonel Rober t S. McG arry, Dis trict Engineer,

U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers,

P.O. Box 1715,

Baltimore, Md. 21203

The hearing record will remain open for one month following the hearings, or 

until November 22. Please help on this as it is critical.

You may hear from us again soon as we hope hearings on the Assateague 

amendments will be held by the House Interior Committee during this session of 

Congress (they were scheduled for September 19 and then canceled). Also, the 

Philadelphia office of the Corps repo rtedly will issue the long-delayed E.I.S. on 

the Delm arva Waterwa y (they have been issuing news releases appealing for 

support from boatowners for the new ports of call they will provide).

76 -1 61 — 76 2
652

APPENDIX II

C o m m it tee T o P r e se r v e A ssa tea g u e I sla n d,

January 2, 1976. Re Captain’s Cove Development.

Urgent alert to friends of Assateague, Chincoteague National Wildlife 

Refuge and Chincoteague Bay . . . individuals, scientists, and organizations: Your quick response to this appeal is crucial.

At our request, the Norfolk District of the Corps of Engineers will hold a hearing 

on the Ca ptain’s Cove Development, Greenbackville, Accomack County, Va., 

(bordering on Worcester County, Md., and Chincoteague Bay).

Date: Wednesday, 7 Ja nuary 1976, at 7:30 P.M.

Place: Atlantic High School Auditorium, Rou te 13, south of Oak Hall, Accomack Co., Va. (i.e., south of the intersection where you tur n east off of Rou te 13 to reach Chincoteague Island).

Some highlj’ professional people have agreed to travel to Virginia to testify for 

us, but we must have the Virginia, Maryland and national conservation organizations speaking up and as many individuals as possible. We really need a good 

response to this appeal. Make every effort to attend the hearing and testify, 

please. Otherwise write this developer, by selling lots on filled wetlands, 

digging canals and doing extensive work prior to securing permits, hopes to force 

approval of his project, regardless of the consequences.

Copies of the Environmental Impac t S tate ment are available a t the Accomack, 

Pocomoke City and Snow Hill public libraries, USFW S Annapolis office, Norfolk 

and Baltimore Districts of the Corps, and I have two copies.

D epa r tm en t o f t h e Arm y,

N o r fo lk D is t r ic t, C o r ps o f E n g in e e r s

NOTICE OF PUB LIC HEARING

The application of First Charter Land Corporation for a Department of the 

Army permit to authorize certain work in navigable waters (Chincoteague Bay 

and Swans Gut Creek) at Captain’s Cove, Accomack County, Virginia will be 

the subject of a PUBLIC HE AR ING TO BE HE LD AT ATL ANT IC HIGH 

SCHOOL AU DITO RIUM ON U.S. RO UTE 13 SOUT H OF OAK HALL 

ACCOMACK COU NTY , VIRG INIA, AT 7:30 P.M., EST, ON WEDNE SDAY, 

7 JAN UA RY 1976. All interested parties, including representatives of Federal 

agencies and Sta te and local governments, are invited to be present or to be 

represented, and will be given an opportu nity to express their views and furnish 

specific d ata on all aspects of the proposed work, including technical, economic, 

social, and ecological and environmental material. Oral statem ents will be heard, 

bu t for accuracy of the record, all imp ortant facts and argum ents should be 

presented in writing. Written stateme nts may be eith er mailed to the District 

Engineer prior to the hearing or handed to him at the hearing.

PROPOSED WORK

Cap tain ’s Cove is a 1,865-acre recreational second-home development currently 

under construction. The portion of the project for which a Dep artm ent of the 

Army permit is required, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of th e Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act (P.L. 92-500, 86 S tat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1344), includes the following:

(а) Five navigational channels in Chincoteague Bay will be dredged to a d epth 

of —3.0 to —4.5 feet below mean low water to facilitate boat access to and from 

upland canals. Three of the channels included in the proposed work are new and 

two are enlargements of channels previously dredged with out a Departme nt of 

the Army Permit. Approximately 9,590 cubic yards of sand and silt will be dredged 

from these channels.

(б) The excavation (abo ut 45,370 cubic yards) of two new upland canals, 

Barracuda Inlet and Drum Inlet, to be connected to navigable waters.

(c) Completion of the excavation (about 14,443 cubic yards) of an existing 

upland canal, Flying Fish Canal, and connecting it to navigable waters.

(d) Excavation or a flow-through relief canal adjacent to Swans Gu t Creek 

between the development and a natural marsh. This canal was recommended by
653

the Department of the Interior as a protective measure to prevent fur the r migration of a mud-wave from upland development into the adjacent marsh. The 

canal will be 40 feet wide, approximately 2,800 feet in length and —3 to —4 feet 

below mean low water. The dredged material, approxim ately 14,519 cubic yards 

of sand, silt and clay, will be deposited on upland areas adjacent to the canal. 

The relief canal will not be used for navigation purposes and will not be maintaine d.

(e) The construction of marina facilities at the junction of two existing canals, 

Hammerhead Passage and Mackeral Bay. This will involve the excavation of 

abo ut 26,666 cubic y ards of material to a depth of —6 feet below mean low water 

and the construction of approximately 1,110 linear feet of open-pile timber piers, 

560 linear feet of tim ber sheet-pile bulk head, and 95 mooring piles. These facilities 

are to accommodate the mooring of abou t 100 pleasure craft.

(/) The construction of approximately 9,000 linear feet of shell-filled gabions 

along the eastern and southern perimeters of the project fill areas as a shoreline 

protection measure. The applicant has been direc ted by the District Engineer to 

install the gabion as an interim protection measure against erosion.

(g) The deposition of approximately 141,550 cubic yards of dredged and excavated material on 35 acres of wetland (about 18 acres of which have been severely 

disturbed by previous construction). The purpose of filling these areas is to raise 

the elevation of low lying lots. It is estimated th at approximately 108 acres of 

wetlands (mostly high marsh) have already been filled a t the project site.

Earthen levees surrounding spoil sites and canal banks will be stabilized by 

planting Spa rtin a altern iflora and Spa rtin a pate ns where appropriate. A mechanical aeration system is to be installed within the canals, the prim ary objective of 

which is to elevate dissolved oxygen levels during the summ er mon ths to biologically acceptable levels. Approximately 240 acres of wetlands within the 

project perimeters will be preserved as natural areas.

Due to the magnitude of the proposed project, an environmental imp act 

statem ent (EIS) was prepared by the Norfolk District in accordance with the 

National Environ men tal Policy Act of 1969.

What you can do

Write Colonel Newman A. Howard, Jr., Chief, Norfolk Distric t—or, bette r 

still, read a statem ent at the hearing: 1. Recommend denial of the application. Res toration of as much marsh as 

possible. Filling of the canals which have been dug and no new work. No building 

on flood plains. 2. The proposed septic tanks for the majority of lots should not be per mitted 

and only an adva nced central sewage system is a safe method of taking care 

of waste. 3. Septic tan ks and dead-end canals can have very deleterious effects on 

Chincoteague Bay and the fish and wildlife depen den t on the area. Water quality 

and preserving the ecological health of Chincoteague Bay are more important 

tha n providing canals and individual bo at park ing facilities for vacation homes.

4. If the developm ent is perm itted, not only may the commercial fishing industry face serious losses, bu t Accomack County may be faced in future years 

with having to provide adequate sewage disposal and other services which could 

be a grea t financial burden.

5. Experts will be testifying in sup port of our stand bu t we need a real public 

outcry from people in Virginia and Maryland. If this development goes th rough, 

other promoters will be encouraged to follow suit.

6. We sorely need to preserve th e marshes, aqu atic vegetation and hea lth of th e 

Bay for the fin fish, shellfish, waterfowl and oth er forms of life whose existence 

depends on them. Problems which would be caused by project and excerpts from environmental impact

statement.—Chincoteague Bay is one of the most important fish nursery grounds 

along the mid-Atlan tic coast. I t is a popu lar recreation area for visitors to Assateague 

and the coastal region. There is very little tidal flushing in the Bay, it is highly 

saline and very high in nutrien ts. These stag nant conditions are such tha t it would 

tak e very little to ups et its sensitive balance.

Dead-end canals.—Dead-end canals are noted for their poor flushing character istics and no a eration system has so far solved th e problem. They can cause considerable damage to the environment, become sedim ent traps for dead and decaying 

material, dissolved oxygen is depleted and anaerobic conditions occur. These can 

result in problems of odor, floating sludge, killing of fish and aqu atic life. S torm ­

water run-off from torr ential rains into the canals can bring abo ut stirring of 

anaerobic bottom sedim ents and the rain caused circulation could wash into the
654

bay in sufficient concentrations to cause fish kills and other damage. Shellfish beds could be condemned from pollution.

Septic tank system.—With the ground water table as high as it is in this area and 

the elevation of the lots being so low (the highest according to the E.I.S. is + 8 

m.s.l. with most less th an that) , the septic tank effluent should find its way into 

the ground water and in time this would thoroughly pollute the subsurface environmen t, find its way into streams, the canals and eventually the bav. Septic tan k 

utilization is planned for approxim ately 57%, or 2,882, of'th e hom'esites at Capta in ’s Cove.

A central sewage collection system for use by all lots near the water and those 

interior lots with poor percolation is proposed. The E.I.S. vaguely states “nearly 

all the interior homesites not planne d for the central sewage collection system appear 

to be inland of the 100-year flood plain limit.” On the o ther hand, the E.I.S. states 

“th e consensus among experts . . . is t ha t a substan tial proportion of th e pollution reaching canal waters can be a ttribu ted to septic tan k installation.”

4,877 lots are planned on 1128.5 acres, with the rema inder of the 1,865 acres 

being used for roads (234 acres), sewage treatm ent area (14.8 acres) for the lots 

bordering the canals and bay ; golf courses and recreational areas (238.7 acres); 

undisturbed wetlands (240 acres).

148 acres of subdivided lots arc within the flood plain.— Lots on filled marsh areas average 4.7' above m.s.l. Flooding occurs in Chincoteague Bay whenever strong 

offshore winds cause rise in the water level of the ocean and estuaries along the 

coast. These can reach 9'- 13 ' above m.s.l.

In 1970 First Cha rter Land Corporation obtained an independent dredging 

con tract and commenced dredging canals and filling of wetlands without permits 

from the Department of the Army. Criminal charges were filed an d guilty pleas 

were entered to four violations of 33 U.S.C.A. section 403 and one violation of 33 

U.S.C.A. section 407, and a fine was imposed. The most significant ecological 

imp act at the site has resulted from the filling and dredging of wetlands. About 108 

acres of coastal sa lt meadow and several acres of regularly flooded salt marsh were 

destroyed or modified to create wate rfront prop erty and raise the level of low lying 

lots. In order to obtain as much fill material as possible, some of th e canals were 

dredged 9'- 20 ' deep. Access from the canals to the bays has not been dug and is 

included in the present application.

The E.I.S. points out tha t due to long shore currents frequent maintenance dredging is anticipated. This would cause frequent turbulence and distu rb aquatic 

vegetation and shellfish beds.

The corporation’s plea seems to be that since it went ahead and did the work 

without permits and has sold a majority of the lots, it would be a great hardship 

on those who have bought lots and expect to be on canals if perm it applications 

are not now granted.

The E.I.S. points out:

2.23 tha t marshlands such as those found at Captain’s Cove “serve a complex 

and unique role in providing productive fish and wildlife hab ita t.”

2.24 “Wildlife resources on the project site prior to the present construction 

were extremely abu ndant as the result of the diversified ha bitat created by inte rspersion of upland and wetland types.”

4.01 “I t is certain that dredging and filling activity at the project site has 

resulted in the loss of numerous marsh and aquatic organisms . . . about 108 

acres of nesting and feeding h abitats for birds and mammals, depe ndent upon the 

prod uctive salt m arsh and salt meadow', have been destroyed or modified.”

4.02 “about 13,800 linear feet of finger canals have been cut through wetlands 

and uplands at Captain’s Cove and another 4,400 are p lann ed.”

4.33 “a minimal amount of water quality degradation and pollution usually 

associated with increased boa t traffic and mooring facilities will likely occur, for 

example oil spills, discarded syn thetic debris and noise, and in addition, turbulence 

created by increased boat traffic could have some erosive effects on the unprotec ted shores.”

4.43 “Saline ground water could move into fresh water par ts of the aquifer if 

withdrawals from the Manokin in these areas were significantly increased.” There 

is no guarantee th at septic tank systems would not also affect the aquifer.

4.44 “completion of the work is considered to have significant impact on fish 

and wildlife resources. The fac t th at a portion of the project with its intended 

environmental impact has been completed does not lessen the significance of the 

total environmental impact of the project as a result of the completion of the remaining work.”
655

The Virginia Council on the Environ men t states th at in all probability shellfish 

areas will have to be condemned and th at a buffer zone around the project site 

will be a likely result. It predicts th at despite safeguards a shellfish condemnation 

will probably be necessary due to the mere presence of large populations in the 

area. This would indicate that the Captain’s Cove type of development is not suitable

for this area, we think.

It should also be noted th at once the F irst Charter Land Corporation has completed the work it wants to do, it plans to turn over the main tenance of the 

development to an association of tne landowners, leaving them to cope with 

flooding and pollution and all the problem s likely to arise.

This hearing is on the “proposed” final environmental impact statem ent and 

therefore stat ements mu st be received by the corps immediately if they are to be 

made part of the final d ocum ent. We have a sickening feeling th at this can be a 

real disaster area if a sufficient outcry’ is not made to cause denial of the application—Please help.

Good news for canoeing enthusiasts: Assateague Islan d National Seashore hopes 

to have facilities available for canoeists in the sprin g whereby they can launch 

their canoes at the bay-side North Beach area and take canoe trips along the 

bay-side of the Island, with two primitive campsites available where they can 

spend the night.

The weather at Assateague over Thanksgiving weekend this year was ideal— 

magnificent for hiking and the waterfowl at Chincoteague Natiomd Wildlife 

Refuge were a trea t.

The last report we had the swamp fever which has affected some of the Chincoteagu e ponies does not seem to be spreading. The ponies th at are afflicted are 

isolated from the rest of the herd.

Happy New Year—and you will be hearing from us again when the E.I.S. on 

the Intra-C oastal Waterwa y is issued and when hearings are scheduled on the 

Assateague amendments.

J udith C. Johnson, Chairman.

Note.—Appallingly, Virginia has issued all necessary permits to Ca ptain’s 

Cove. This Is our only’ chance to h alt the project. The E.P.A., F. W.S., and National 

Marine Fisheries are worried. Citizen inp ut is our only hope. Please—p ut this 

ahead of everything else!

Committee to Preserve Assateague I sland,

July 18, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: May I tell y’ou how really concerned and upse t all 

the conservation organizations are in Marylan d th at you have scheduled such a 

limited number of people to testify concerning S. 2710 on July’ 28th—five against 

and only two in favo r of the bill!

The Clean Water Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be 

considered by Congress because the future of so many’ of our irreplaceable resources are depe ndent upon strong legislation along this line. The environmental 

movem ent in Maryland began over involvement in the e nac tme nt of Maryla nd’s 

Wetlands Law. Those who have been involved over the years have witnessed 

how inadequate it is in many ways and how political pressures influence the state 

to make unwise exceptions to the terms of the law over and over again. The 

Virginia Wetlands Law is even weaker.

I have worked closely with the Maryland Depar tment of Natura l Resources 

and the Departme nt of State Planning, both with the secretaries and with the 

staff. Many is the time the staff ask me to do what I can to ave rt the decisionmaking people from bending to pressures—and how helpless we are unless we can 

fall back on or count on opposition from the E.P.A., the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service and/or the Corps. In my capacity' as Chairman of the Committe e to 

Preserve Assateague and as a member of the M aryland Wetlands Committee, I 

have been involved with wetland issues in Maryland, Virginia, and the entire 

Delm arva area.

The Chairman of the Maryla nd Wetlands Com mittee has been in touch with 

you, and before she went to Europe she asked me to give testimony before the 

Senate Public Works Committe e for the Maryla nd Wetlands Committee. I was 

also anxious to address the subject on behalf of the Assateague Committee as we 

have had even broader experience and have worked more closely than other
656

organiz ations not onlv with the states of Maryland and Virginia bu t with the 

U.8.F.W.S., E.P.A ., Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries. The 

national conservation organizations can address certain aspects and an overall 

view, but I think it is unfortun ate if you do not let at least one representativ e 

from a grass roots conservation organization speak. During the past two years 

I have been invited to testify before the Senate and House Interio r Committe es 

regarding amendments to the Assateague legislation, and also before the House 

Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee and the House Ad Hoc Co mittee 

on the OCS regarding the effects of oil drilling off the Atlantic Coast on the 

states.

Most recently we acted as the coordinator and liaison for the fifty conservation 

organizations which opposed the proposed Delmarva Intra-coastal Wate rway, 

and we represent and have on our mailing list 1,400 individuals and sta te and 

national conservation organizations. We are members of both the Maryla nd 

and Virginia Conservation Councils. I hope you may let us testify at the hearings' 

but, in a ny event, I shall prepare a formal statem ent which I will send lat er this 

week to be included in the record for the hearing on S. 2710.

In advance of sending the statem ent, I will say th at we think it is most unfortun ate t ha t Congress is considering unwise amendments at this time. To ena ct 

the Wright-Breaux amen dment would be a disaster, and if anythin g is done to th e 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, then no more than the amendment introduced by Gary H art should b e adopted, which would allow tim e for a stu dy of the 

present regulations with a firm report to be made by December 1977. This would 

be far better tha n hastily making mistakes in the heat of an election year, removing th e little protection we have had in recent years. The sta tes are not doing 

the job and few have wetlands laws, and the laws th at are on the books are inadequate.

Sincerely yours,

J udith C. Johnson, Chairman.

Conservation Council of Virginia, I nc.,

May 17, 1976.

Hon. Howard Baker,

Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator B aker: T he Conservation Council of Virginia urges you to vote 

against ll .l t. 9560, which drastically weakens the Water Pollution Control Act 

through amen dments excluding 85% of the wetlands from federal protection, 

removing needed safeguards from grants for municipal sewage tre atm ent facilities, and lowering penalties for hazardous spills.

The Council supp orts instead legislation to extend the funding for the Water 

Pollution Control Act in order th at its implementation m ay continue in an orderly 

fashion and in order tha t ongoing pollution a batement efforts may be encouraged 

and assisted according to the provisions of the law which have stim ulated these 

efforts.

The Council will continue to support the 1972 amendments of PL 92-500 and 

the goals of the law as a necessary and atta inable commitment to clean water in 

Virginia as well as in the rest of th e nation.

Sincerely yours,

George Hagerman, President.

(From the Forum, Fe brua ry 197 6)

Position Paper of CCVa on Federal Water Pollution Act

(By Newton Ancarrow)

The Water Pollution Control Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation, complicate d with many facets and implications. This document addresses only three of 

the more imp orta nt, and at this time, more pressing issues. They are:

1. 1977 DEADLINE

Section 301 of PL 92-500 requires the a ttainm ent of defined “secondary tre atme nt” for all publicly owned treatm ent works and “th e best practicable control 

techn ology” by indu stry. As the Natio nal Commission on Water Quality points 

out in its Staff Draft Report of November 1975, universal secondary t rea tm en t by
657

publicly owned tre atm ent works cann ot be achieved by July 1, 1977, and a large 

number, if not a majority, of in dustrial discharges will meet the standar ds while 

some, for varied reasons, will not.

It is the position of CCVa. th at the 1977 Deadline should, under no circumstances, be postponed. Furthermore, it is the position of CCVa. th at under no 

circumstances should HR 9560, Section 9, be passed. This legislation would 

authorize the Adm inistrator of th e Environmen tal Protection Agency to exercise 

his discretion in extending the ’77 Deadline on a case by case basis. This, in the 

first place, would make PL 92-500 unenforceable. In the second place, there has 

been no evidence tha t the administra tor either has the will or the ability to exercise 

his discretion in compliance with PL 92-500. In fact, it is probably the imp roper 

exercise of his discretion th at principally gives rise to the question of extending 

the deadline. In the third place, the process of determining whether or not to 

delay the deadline on a case by case basis is already in place through th e provisions 

of PL 92-500 in the courts.

With regard to the question of postponing the Deadline, it is exceedingly hard 

to know’ how to assess culpab ility since the fault lies all the way down the governmental line: federal, sta te, and local. Since the passage of Public Law 92-500, there 

has been no commitm ent of the Adm inistrative agencies to meet the deadlines, 

mandates, and goals of the law. In fact, there has been atrocious adm inistration 

of the act since its passage. There is considerable evidence to indicate th at from 

its passage on October 18, 1972, this law has been administered in antic ipation of 

not meeting the 1977 Deadline and withou t other set goals and objectives.

To delay the 1977 Deadline is to breach faith with those industries and municipalities who will meet the Deadline voluntarily. They have take n the law seriously 

and have committed goods and effort only to find th at their faith in the law misplaced; only those who ignored the law are app are ntly the winners. To delay the 

Deadline would destroy public confidence in the effectiveness of th e law and further 

erode confidence in the government to enforce its mandates received from the 

public.

Quite aside from legal and ethical aspects, Public Law 92-500 is a series of 

inte rrelated studies and manda tes with the ultimate purpose of clean water in a 

reasonably a ttainable time frame. If the 1977 Deadline is postponed, it will up set 

the whole schedule and will, in all probability, thro ugh future similar delays, 

frustrate the deadlines of 1983 and 1985.

2. FINANCIN G

It is the position of CCVa. th at pollution is an ove rt act, the responsibility for 

which may not be transferred. This simply means th at it is th e responsibility of 

each household, industry, municipality, or political subdivision to aba te, control, 

or eliminate the ir own water pollution. This responsibility extends to each individual engaged in an act ivity th at causes pollution, nor may the burden be shifted 

for any reason. Specifically, there must be a definite legislative sepa ration of the 

responsibility to abate water pollution and the availab ility of federal funds.

Since there seems to be considerable confusion, rightly or wrongly, as to 

W’hether or not a mun icipality is required by law to abate its pollution unless it 

receives its full share of federal assistance, i t is a ppare nt th at the legislation should 

be made am ply clear. There are obviously two courses t hat can be taken in a social 

legislation decision. Eithe r it m ust be clear th at :

A. It is the responsibility of each political subdivision to control its own pollution 

and tha t any federal financing is assistance, and simply that. However, to make it 

equitable, it should be s tat ed th at if a political subdivision uses its own resources 

for its own pollution abate me nt program th at any funds in excess of 25 perc ent 

used will be rebatab le with inte rest (at the cur ren t bond rate) out of a ny future 

federal appropriation in an equitable manner. This procedure to be implemented 

under Section 12 of PL 92-500 and is recommended by CCVa. to rein state the 

concept of self-reliance. Or:

B. The federal government must accept the financial burden and provide sufficient funds, in a timely m anner, to insure th at funds will be available, up to the 75 

perce nt, so as not to delay th e program. In this event the federal government m ust 

make certain tha t: 1) there are sufficient funds available for tim ely compliance with 

PL 92-500; 2) there is capable, accountable adm inis tration; 3) the pollution is 

abate d; 4) the money for this goal is n ot diverte d into projects which will w aste 

money or expand the size or autho rity of th e bureaucracy.
658

3. PU BL IC PA RT IC IP ATI ON

PL 92-500 presently manda tes public participation ; this must be implemented. 

Presently little op portunity exists for meaningful public participation, particu larly 

in the N .P.D .B.8. Permit program, the functional cen ter of PL 92-500. Any effort 

to participate ultim ately results in an adversary confrontation in a formal, highly 

structured, and inhibiting procedure. Obstacles for the average concerned citizen 

are interm inable, unreasonable delays and restrictions. The burden is for the 

citizen to provide detailed, technical engineering solutions remote from average 

resources. Bureaucracy intim idate s th e citizen; where is the Forum to say, “ I want 

clean water? ” To his demand comes assurances th at he is getting clean water, when 

in fact, he is not. The public is purposely being excluded from th e decision process. 

Citizens are not losing concern for water quality; any declining ac tivity stems from 

frustration, no t apa thy.

Citizen participa tion is too complicated. Bureaus, agencies, and commissions, b y 

being too defensive, are institutionaliz ing pollution so th at it will be perm anent. 

They have become a fourth branch of government.

An equitable system mu st be found to reestablish public confidence th at : 1) 

the w ater will be clean; 2) on schedule; 3) their input will be heard and accommodated if possible; 4) some method will m onitor the job’s completion; 5) there is 

some method to assign culpability and accountability; 6) breaches of confidences, 

violations of law, will be penalized. Otherwise, the public may withdraw from the 

water quality scene entirely .

This responsibility withou t acco untability dissolves public faith. The veil of 

sovereign imm unity must be shed to make the government accountable to citizen 

mandates. In water quality we m ust stop operating under the doctrine of “ Itex 

non potest picare:” “T he king can do no wrong.”

The bureaucracy has developed into a complete government, in and of itself, 

commanding 1) legislation : regulations which have the force of law ; 2) adm inistration exercise of discretion protected by sovereign i mm unity; and 3) justice: public 

and adjudica tory hearings. Yet there is no acco untability. This could quickly 

develop into government withou t representation.

T h e C o n ser v a tio n F o u n d a t io n ,

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 27, 1976.

S e n a to r J e n n in g s R a n d o l p h ,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r S en a to r R a n d o l p h : In response to the Committee’s request, The Conservation Foundation is subm ittin g this statem ent to the Senate Public Works 

Committee in support of the dredge and fill permit program, as developed and 

implemented by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protectio n 

Agency pursua nt to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 (FWPCAA) (P.L. 92-500). Among the reasons for our 

support of the program are the three discussed below.

I* irst, the present 404 program has no t been abused, bu t rat her has been effective 

in protectin g our water resources. By denying permit applications for 404 ac tivities 

which would have had a significant adverse impact on the aquatic environm ent, 

the Corps of Engineers has saved many acres or valuable wetlands which, except 

for the program, would prob ably have been irreparably destroyed. Areas within 

the Section 404 program jurisdiction, such as tribu tary wate rways and the ir 

associated wetlands, have a water cleansing capability. These areas may also 

serve as spawning and nursery areas for commercial and sports fish; as recharge 

areas of groundwater for water supplies; as natur al protection from floods and 

storm s; and as essential nesting and wintering areas for waterfowl.

The COE has d emonstrated th at it is capable of administering the program in a 

responsible and evenhand ed manner. The excessive administrative burd en (and 

thus the financial burden to taxpayers) th at many feared would be brough t about 

by increased numbers of Section 404 perm it applications appears to have been 

overestimated. Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Victor V. Veysey, in a let ter 

to Representative James L. Oberstar dated June 3, 1976, sta ted th at one reason 

for this is the Corp s’ expa nding use of the general perm it to authorize similar 

types of work in an area having minimal adverse e nvironmental impact. The use 

of the general permit will lessen the burden of the increase in the workload resulting 

from implementation of Phases II and II I of the 404 program.
659

Second, neither the Congress nor the public has taken the opportunity to 

consider carefully all possible ramifications of amendments to the 404 program 

nor has the existing program been given a chance to show th at it can be workable 

and reasonable. The Wright amendment passed the House without a hearing, 

and should this amendment be enacted into law, the present program would be 

changed drastically. One basic change, for example, would be the creation of a 

different definition of “navigable waters,” -one which is far more restrictive in 

scope th an the pre-1972 definition and the definition in the 1972 Act (“waters of 

the United States, including the territorial seas” (Section 502(7)). Many such 

changes have not received public attentio n or debate.

In the Veysey lette r mentioned above, the Assistant Secretary expressed his 

belief th at Phase II of the present program should be given a chance to work by 

seeing how the actual permit workload develops, lie recommended, as does The 

Conservation Foundation, resistance to legislative action based on huge projections of permit applications.

The public has not had the opportunity to find out what effects the implementation of Phase II of th e present program might have on their activities which 

would become subject to regulation under Phase II jurisdiction. There may also 

be questions about precisely which geographic areas do come within the Phase II 

jurisdiction. The Congress should consider giving the Corps enough time to hold 

a series of public meetings to allow public debate of 404 program issues and to 

clarify any misunderstanding which members of the public may have concerning 

activities regulated and jurisdictional coverage.

Wre cannot overemphasize the importance of the duty of Congress to itself and 

to the citizens to make certain tha t every issue has been raised and discussed. 

Congress will have fulfilled this duty only when it has examined the specific 

problems associated with regulation of the deposition of dredged and fill material 

within the context of the regulation of all activities causing water pollution. Without such a thorough examination, any amendment Congress passes would be 

premature.

A third reason we support the present 404 program is tha t it cannot be replaced 

by any other program. It is highly unlikely tnat any 404 program which reflects a 

compromise in jurisdictional coverage can regulate dredge and fill activities as 

effectively as the present program. The Corps has not overregulated; rather it has 

changed its approach to environmental problems and has shown commendable 

ability to consider both environmental and economic factors in deciding whether 

issuance of a particular permit would be in the public interest.

We would find acceptable amendments proposed to Section 404 which would 

explicitly authorize the use of general permits for regulation of dredge and fill 

activities. Also acceptable would be explicit exemption from regulation of normal 

farming, silviculture and ranching activities, such as plowing, cultivating, and 

harvesting; as well as exemption from regulation of the construction and maintenance of farm ponds, stock ponds, and irrigation ditches and the maintenance 

of drainage ditches.

The Conservation Foundation strongly believes that the present 404 program 

is the common-sense approach for regulation of dredge and fill activities in the 

waters of the United States. The program provides an extremely important means 

for enabling us to restore and maintain the integrity of our Nation’s waters, while 

insuring tha t this and future generations can enjoy the benefits resulting from 

having protected our wetlands.

Thank you for allowing us to have the opportunity to submit our comments to 

you and the Con mittee on this program.

Sincerely,

William K. Reilly, President.

Conservation Society

of Southern Vermont,

July 26, 1976.

Senator R obert T. Stafford,

6219 Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Stafford: Thank you for the invitation to submit a statement 

of our organization’s views on Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act to the Senate Public Works Committee for its consideration during the oversight hearings this week. Enclosed is a copy of our statem ent; I appreciate your 

submitting it to the Committee for inclusion in the hearing record.
660

I hope tha t you will be able to tak e a stron g position in opposition to a ny weakening amendments to Section 404 during the Com mittee’s deliberations. Thank 

you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

M ic h e l e F r o m e, Assistant Director. Enclosure.

Sta t e m e n t o f C o n ser v a tio n S o c ie ty o f So u t h e r n V er m ont

The Conservation Society of Southern Vermont is a private, non-profit organizatio n of nearly a thousand members, founded in 1966 in response to the growing 

need to p rotect the n atural resources of Vermont. The Society’s programs include 

land acquisition and management, legal advocacy, public information and education. These programs are devoted to the wise use of land, forest, and water. 

The Society is particularly concerned with laud use programs in Vermont, including wetlands protection.

At the invitation of Senator Stafford of Vermont, the Conservation Society 

welcomes the opp ortunitv to express its views concerning Section 404 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act to the Senate Public Works Committee. We 

are pleased th at the Committe e chose to hold oversight hearings on the m atter of 

proposed am endments to this section. To assist the Committee in its deliberations, 

this statem ent will discuss briefly the importance of the Section 404 program in 

Vermont.

Within the sta te of Vermont, where recreation is one of the majo r economic 

activities, the water resources of the state are among its most valuable assets. 

Wetlands are a critical part of this resource base, as h ab ita t for wildlife, as water 

storage and purification areas, and as an integral and essential part of river and 

stre am systems.

Along w ith other land resources, wetlands have been particu larly th rea tened by 

rapid and haphazard development within the state. In response to this problem, 

Vermont has enacted certain land use and water qua lity regulatory programs. 

Unlike other states, however, Vermont has no comprehensive wetlands protection legislation.

Vermont’s current programs do offer some piecemeal protection for wetlands. 

The sta te does regulate dredge and fill activ ities on lands lying under the mean 

water level of public lakes and ponds, bu t this does not include many other 

wetland areas associated with lakes and ponds. Vermont also has a stream alteratio n regulatory program, bu t this also excludes many adjacent wetland areas. 

Act 250, Vermont’s Land Use and Development Control Law, offers regulatory 

protectio n for wetlands, but applies only to a limited range of eligible projects.

In its 1973 Sta te Comprehensive Outdoor Recreatio n Plan, the Agency of 

Environmental Conservation concluded th at “a program of increased public 

protection of wetlands is deemed necessary.” The present Section 404 Dredge and 

Fill Perm it Program is valuable to Vermont in th at it provides this increased 

protection of wetlands not otherwise covered under existing state regulatory 

programs.

The importance of Section 404 of Vermont, then, lies in t he fact tha t i t provides 

regu latory protection for all waters, including wetlands, streams, and lakes.The 

Wright Amendment to Section 404, as adopted by the House of Representatives, 

would effectively eliminate this protection from the program by restricting the 

scope of the program to “navigable waters” as narrowly defined.

For this reason, the Conservation Society of Southern Vermont opposes the 

Wright Amendment to Section 404, and urges the Senate Public Works Committee 

to act to main tain this section in its current form. Next year will be a more appropriate time for the Congress to consider alterations to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, when the report of the National Commission on Water 

Quality is considered. Altering th e Section 404 Program in such a way as to narrow 

its scope at this time would be unnecessary and unwise.

Tha nk you for your consideratio n of our views.

D ec a tu r, G a., July S3, 1976. Hon. Jennings Rand olph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r H o n o ra ble R a n d o l p h : I am writing in rega rd to the hearing on July 

27-28 about the amen dments to the Clear W ater Act an d would like my comments 

entered in the hearing record.
661

The Wright-Breaux Amendment to H.R. 9560 is unacceptable since it excludes 

wetlands from protectio n und er Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act. It is not time to be amending Section 404 until the whole program 

has gone into effect. The Hart-Cleveland amendm ent is preferable to the \\ rightBreaux Amendment. The wetland areas are vital to our ecosystems and should n ot 

be destroyed. Also there should be control of materials being channeled into 

drink ing water supplies and the House ame ndm ent would stop regulation of this. 

The Hart-Cleveland amendm ent would provide for a progress report to be received a t the end of 1977 and I feel this is a good plan.

Thank you for your attention .

Sincerely,

T heresa Cromeans.

Mill Valley, Calif., July SO, 1976.

Re Strengthen 404 program.

Senate Public Works Committee,

4202 Dirksen Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Committee Memb ers: Please keep our 1972 Water Pollution Control 

Act to prevent pollution of our marshlands th at produce fish for our oceans and 

our people who need more food production.

Control amendments t hat make useless th e 404 program.

It is a cleaner country we need. The year 2000 is less t han 25 away.

Please make this request part of the Public Hearing Record.

A concerned for future citizens taxpayer.

E velyn M. Curtis.

Statement of the Maryland Wildlands Committee

The Maryland Wildlands Committe e has considered in detail the Clean Water 

Act of 1972, and in partic ular its Section 404. While all of th is act is no t entirely 

to our liking, we nevertheless feel th at Section 404 should be left as it is for the 

prese nt, until sufficient tim e has elapsed to see how it works out as a whole.

We feel strongly th at hasty efforts to change it (such as the House of Represen tatives’ Wright-Breaux amendment) are based on incomplete and flawed 

inform ation.

From our long-term investigations covering all of th e Sta te of Maryland, which 

provides a good cross section of the varieties of terrain found in all the contiguous 

United States, and from our conversations with many people directly affected 

by legislation covering water quality, we feel th at overall even-handed planning 

and control is far preferable to allowing individual jurisd ictions to deal piecemeal 

with water q uality. Surely a river or a bay does not know when a state boun dary 

is reached, and to have such bodies of water tre ate d differently bv adja cen t states 

is tem pting providence. T he same holds true for the trib utaries, which need overall 

protectio n just as much as the larger bodies of water.

We are overwhelmingly in fav or of leaving Section 404 as it is for the time being.

Sally II. Diek e,

Deputy Chairman, Maryland Wildlands Committee.

Denham Springs, La., July 28, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph, #

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 4202 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

For the record of the hearing on section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

As an intereste d citizen of Louisiana, the Un ited States, and the Planet E arth, I

should like to go on record in favor of Section 404, W ITH OU T AM ENDM ENTS. 

If it must be amended I prefer the Hart-Cleveland Amendment to the WrightBreaux.

Surely the protectio n of clean water, wh at there is left of it, and clean air, 

what there is left of that, should be the prim ary concern of all of us, and most 

certainly of our elected representatives.
662

If the Wright-Breaux amendment is passed there would be no control of polluted dredged materials into tributaries of drinking water supplies th at do not 

happen to fall within the House’s definition of “navigable waters.” This we 

cann ot allow to happen.

Please consider the future as well as the future of all of us when hearings arc 

held.

Very truly yours,

Ms. Nancy P. Doerr.

[M ai lg ra m ]

_ , Albuquerque, N. Mex., July 29, 1976. Sen at or J ennings Randolph,

2161 Dirksen Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: I feel Public Law 92-500 Section 404 is a good 

law in its present form. Do not allow a ny damaging am endm ents to be added such 

as individual state enforcement of this law. We must save our lakes, streams and 

marshlands to protect our wildlife which has been diminishing as their hab itats 

have been destroyed. I want this telegram to be read into the hearing record.

Sincerely,

Sondra Diep en.

TTHon. J _ Clairemore, Okla.

ennings R andolph,

6121 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C.

Section 404 of Public Law 92-500 is the best wetlands protection ever. I strongly 

oppose amendment that would weaken its effectiveness. Please read into committee record.

Forrest Dowler.

Hon. J „ Arlington, Va., July 22, 1976. ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The following comments are being sent for inclusion 

in the record of the hearings of July 27-28 on section 404 of th e Clean Water Act.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is far too important and valuable portion 

of the act to be subjecte d to ame ndment in the heat of an electoral year and 

when opposition to impleme ntation of the regulations has been fanned by misinformation abo ut the scope of the regulations.

There is no need for me to repeat detail about the importance of the wetlands 

in their help in filtering the water we drink, their value in soaking up and buffering 

flood crests, their necessity for breeding grounds for the lower end of the food chain. 

Remo val of federal controls as spelled out in the Wright-Breaux amendm ent 

would be a national disa ster and of a malignant type th at can’t be remedied 

once the wetlands are destroyed as they would be.

I strongly urge first th at action to amend section 404 be postponed, permitting 

the three phase program to go into effect.

The second choice would be for the Senate Hart-Cleveland amendment which 

would provide a progress report for review by Congress at the end of the next 

yea r and still provide the vita l protection of the regulations.

With hope.

Sincerely,

Thelma C. Duvinage.

Environmental Defense Fund,

„ _r

 _T

 _ _ Washington, D.C., July 26, 1976. Hon. Howard II. Baker, Jr.

United States Senate, Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator B aker: We appreciate your kind invitation to su bmit testimony

on proposed amen dments to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act.

Our testimony is attach ed. Please include it in th e record of the Ju ly 27 and 28„ 

1976, hearings of th e Committee on Public Works.
663

Thank you for your consideration. Do not hesitate to call on us, if we can be of 

furth er assistance.

Very truly yours,

R ob er t II. H ar ris, Ph. D.,

Co-Chairman, Toxic Chemicals Program.

Edward T hompson, Jr.,

Washington Counsel.

T estim on y op th e E nv ir on men ta l D efen se F und, I nc.

The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (“ ED F” ) is a not-for-profit, public 

intere st organization with a nationwide membership of some 41,000 citizens and a 

staff of scientists, lawyers and other professionals d edicated to the im provement of 

environm ental quality and the wise use of n atural resources. ED F has been active 

in efforts b oth to conserve ecologically-valuable wetlands and to halt the dispersion 

of toxic substances through out th e human environment, including public drinking 

water supplies.

We appreciate the invitation of Senator Baker to testify before this Committee 

on amendments proposed to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972. Because we anticip ate that other organizations will 

discuss the importance of w etlands conservation, ED F will r estrict its testimony 

to the implications of the amendments as they relate to toxic substances in our 

waters.

C O NCLUSIO NS

On the basis of the legal and scientific analyses of the amendments outlined 

below, ED F concludes th at the proposed amendments would open an enormous 

loophole in the control scheme of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (“FWPCA ”). This loophole will permit, and may even encourage, the discharge of some of the most hazardous pollutan ts known—toxic and carcinogenic 

substances—into roughly 85% of the Nation’s surface waters and wetlands, in 

cases where these substances are prese nt in “dredged or fill ma terials” of any kind.

Further, under the amendments it will be impossible to determine when or 

where toxic substances are present in dredged or fill materials prior to discharge. 

Absent regulation, no mechanism will be available by which to require the advance 

testing necessary to protect the public health. Both the National Cancer I nstitute 

and the World H ealth Organization have concluded that GO to 90% of all human 

cancers are caused by chemicals in the environment, including some of the very 

substances the discharge of which will be permitted by the amendments.

T H E A M END M EN TS COM PA RED W IT H T H E IN T E N T O F T H E F E D E R A L W A TER P O L LU TIO N 

CONTROL AC T

The amendments now proposed to Section 404 of the FWPCA (the so-called 

Wright amendment) define the scope of Federal jurisdiction very narrowly for 

purposes of controlling discharges of dredged and fill materials and, thus, mark a 

significant departu re from the comprehensive water pollution control scheme 

envisioned by the drafters of the Act, including some members who today sit on 

this Committee.

The legislative history of the FWPCA makes it very clear th at the Act was 

inten ded to remedy a fundam enta l weakness of the Water Quality Act of 19G5, 

P.L. 89-234, 79 Sta t. 903, namely, an exceedingly narrow and thus ineffective 

definition of Federal jurisdiction. According to the Rep ort of the Senate Committee on Public Works, No. 92-414 (October 28, 1971):

“Through a narrow interp retation of the definition of inte rstate waters the 

impleme ntation [of tliej 1965 Act was severely limited. Water moves in hydrologic 

cycles and it is essential th at discharge of pollu tants be controlled at the source.” 

At 77.

The Conference Report on S. 2770, which became the FWPCA, No. 92-1236 

(September 28, 1971), also recognized the need for a tru ly comprehensive jur isdictional approach if the possibility was to be avoided th at some discharges of 

pollutants might slip thro ugh the cracks of a narrowly-framed sta tutory scheme:

“The conferees fully inte nd th at the term navigable waters be given the bro ade st 

possible constitutional inte rpretation unencumbered by agency determinations 

which have been made or may be made for adm inistrative purposes.” At 144.

One of th e “agency determ ination s” which the Conference undoubtedly viewed 

as an encumbrance was the Corps of Engineers’ self-imposed limitation of its
664

jurisdiction under the Refuse Act, 33 U.S.C. 401, et seq., to the ordin ary or mean 

high water line. This line marks the trad itional limit of Federal adm iralty jurisdiction, Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. (46 U.S.) 441, 463 (1847), and was for the Corps 

an administratively convenient approach to defining its jurisdiction for purposes 

of m ainta ining navigation.

However, the ordinary or mean high water line has no relevance to the hydrologic cycles on which—as the Senate Public Works Committee once recognized— 

the control of pollution and the p rotection of the inte grity of th e Nation ’s waters 

mu st be predicated in order to be effective. Thus, the Congress explicitly rejected 

this narrow definition of Federal water pollution control definition in favor of the 

broad, comprehensive definition encompassing all “w aters of the United Sta tes,” 

including portions thereof, trib utaries thereof, the terr itorial seas and the Great 

Lakes. Section 502(7) ; Senate Rep. No. 92-414, supra, at 77.

Although it conta ins numerous ambiguities, the Wright amendment adopts 

essentially the same narrow definition of Federal jurisdiction once rejected by the 

Congress in enacting the FWPCA. However, the amendm ent retreats even farther 

from a comprehensive jurisdictional approach tha n did the Corps of Engineers, 

since the amendment eliminates considerations of historical navigability employed 

by the Corps in regulating dredge-and-fill discharges througho ut the years to the 

present day under the Rive rs and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 401, et seq. For the first time, the terms “ordinar y” and “mean high wa ter” appear in a water 

pollution control sta tut e, thu s codifying the arb itrary jurisdictional limitation 

which the Corps imposed upon itself. Compare, U.S. v. Sexton Cove Estates, 8 ER C 

1657, 1659, F. ?d (5th Cir. 1976).

The am endm ent further seems to provide that, other than under Section 404 as 

amended, the discharge of dredged and fill materials is not subject to regulation 

und er any other provision of the FWPCA or the Rive rs and Harbors Act of 1899, 

supra. And, although th e a mendm ent purp orts to add to the definition of jurisdiction of “adjacent wetlan ds,” it is not clear, because of the ambiguities created in 

the s tatute , th at such regulation will be permissible.

The upshot of th e amendment, thus, seems to be tha t several broad categories of 

pollutan t discharges may occur with impunity and withou t advance testing for 

toxic chemicals:

(1) The discharge of materials dredged from navigable waters into wetlands a nd 

non-navigable waters,

(2) The discharge of dredged materials into wetlands and non-navigable waters, 

incid ental to dredging in non-navigable waters, and

(3) The discharge of any “fill” material into wetlands and non-navigable waters.

CON SEQUEN CES OF THE AMEND MENT IN TERMS OF THE FWPCA AND THE SAFE

DRINK ING WATER ACT

The proposed amendm ent would allow bro ad categories of pollutant discharges 

to fall through a gaping crack in a once-comprehensive FWPCA. The back door 

would be opened to the discharge of toxic substances in “dredged and fill materi als,” thus undercutting t he provisions of Section 307 of the Act under which the 

EPA this week is holding hearings to establish toxic effluent standards. The language of the am endment would not require advance te sting to determine when and 

where toxic substances are indeed present in whatever a person chooses to call 

“dredged material” or “fill material.”

Fur ther, the proposed amendmen t would w’ork at cross purposes with the recently-enacted Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93-523, 88 Stat. 1660. The purpose 

of this statute is to reduce hum an exposure to toxic substances by requiring treatment of public drink ing water supplies. Discharges of toxic substances thro ugh 

the “dredged and fill m aterials” loophole created by the amendment could impose 

an added, increm ental cost on tre atm ent facilities in an effort to comply with the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. The a lternative to g reater costs of tre ating w aters contam inated with grea ter concentrations of toxic substances is an increased risk to 

public health.

CASE EXAMPLES OF TOXIC DISCHARG ES WHICH MAY BE PER MIS SIBLE UN DE R THE

AMENDMENT AND THEIR POTE NTIA L PUBLIC HEALTH EFFE CTS

Toxic substances are widely distribu ted thro ughout ou r environm ent, inclu ding 

our waters. Many of these substances eithe r have been shown to cause cancer or 

are suspected carcinogens, and their presence should not be take n lightly. ED F 

has investigated instances where toxic substances eith er have been discharged
665

into wate rs of the United State s, or could be so discharged, in a form which 

constitutes “dredged and fill materials” within the meaning of the FWPCA . 

These instances are outlines below, together with a discussion of the public 

health effects of the substances, by way of demonstrating th at the threat c reate d 

by the Wright ame ndment is not an illusion, bu t is real indeed.

1. Toxaphene in Brunswick, Ga.

In autumn of 1972, sediments from a tida l creek containing toxaphene from a 

manufac turing plant were dredged and disposed of in a diked marsh. This discharge a ppa rently would be subject to regulation and testing regardless of whether 

the proposed ame ndment is enacted. However, similar discharges could occur in 

nearby non-navigable waters or discontiguous wetlands in solid form so as to 

constitu te “dredged or fill materials.” Under these circumstances, the discharge 

would not be subject to Federal regulation under the amendment.

Toxaphene is a chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide which is highly toxic to both 

ver tibrates and invertibrates. It accum ulates in plants and animals and is highly 

persisten t in the environmen t.1 234*6 Studies done for the National Cancer In stitu te 

indic ate th at toxap hene is carcinogenic in both rat s and mice?

2. Heavy metals in Baltim ore Harbor/Swan Point, Md.

A perm it application under Section 404 is now pending before the Baltimore 

Dis trict of the Corps of Engineers requesting permission to discharge chemicallypolluted dredge spoils from Baltim ore Harbor into a non-tidal wetland area at 

Swan Point, Ken t County, Maryland, on the Chesapeake Bay. A sub sta ntial 

question exists as to whether this discharge would be subje ct to regulation under 

the proposed amendment.

An EPA analysis of sediments from Baltimore Harbor and from a "cl ean” 

site in Chesapeake Bay showed the following compara tive profile of chemical 

const ituents:

{Parts per million]

Pollutant

Range of concentrations 

Clean site Baltimore Harb or

Lead _............................................................................................................................ 0. 7 936 -3,2 71

Z in c .. ........................................................................................................................... 27 2,5 89 -4 ,710

C ad m iu m .... ........................... 0.2 3 315

Mercury______________________________ 0. 26 -0 .6 8

Chrom ium............................................................................................................. 2,65 4-9 ,42 5

Copp er___________________________ 320-518

Volatile so lid s............................................................................................................. 5,800 20,0 00 142,200 -217 ,700

Chemical 0:

 dem and.................................................................................................. 2, 390-10, 540 343,280-666,980

Oil and g re as e______ ____________________ ____________________________ 140 460 17,51 0-8 1,220

Total Kjeldahl N’ _....................................................................................................... 140-770 2,7 03 -6 ,220

In this instance, testing of sediments apparen tly occurred only because of 

Federal jurisdiction over the discharge. A discussion of the public health effects 

of the toxic substanc es contained in the dredge spoil follows.

Lead is a toxic meta l which is suspected of producing impaired neurologic and 

motor development and renal damage in children ? Recent studies in England 

have dem onstrated mental retard ation in children at levels of lead in drinking 

water exceeding 800 ppb? Lead has also been shown to be toxic to some fish at 

concentrations as low as 6 p pb? The Chesapeake Bay, of course, is a fishery resource and a source of food.

A cadmium drinking water standard of 10 ppb has been prom ulgated by EPA 

because of the serious toxic potential of this metal. Epidemiological evidence 

demonstrates th at cadmium may be associated with renal arte rial hype rtension 

and with itai-itai disease in Japa n? Because of t he extreme toxicity of c admium 

to fish, EPA has proposed a criterion of 0.4 ppb to protect certain fish species.

1

 Environm ental Protection Agency, Criteria Document, Toxaphene, No. 440/9-76-014.

2

 National Cancer Ins titute , July 1976, “Experimental Design Status Report on End rin 

and Toxaphene.”

3

 Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, “EPA’s Position on the Hea lth Implications 

of Airborne Lead."

4

 Beattie, A. D., et al., “Role of Chronic Low-Level Lead Exposure in the Aetiology of

Mental Retardatio n,” Lan cet, 589-92 (March 15, 1975). 6

 Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. “Quality Criteri a for Water.”

• National Academy of Sciences, 1972, “W ater Quality Criteri a."
C66

Acute mercury toxicity is cha racterized by severe nausea, vomiting, abdom inal 

pain, bloody diarrhea, kidney damage an d death, usually within 10 days. Chronic 

exposure produces inflammation of the mouth and gums, swelling of salivary 

glands, excessive salivation, loosening of teeth, kidney damage, muscle tremors, 

spasms of the extremities, personality changes, depression, irritability and nervousness.7

 Because of its extreme toxicity, a mercury drink ing water standa rd of 2 

ppb has been promulgated by EPA.

Chromium is carcinogenic (cancer-causing) when inhaled, although it is not 

known whether a similar hazard exists when it is ingested. Studies on dogs have 

shown th at low levels of chromium exposure (0.033 mg/kg body weight) increased 

excretory and motor activities of the intestines.8

 For these reasons, EPA has 

prom ulgated a drinking water s tan dard of 50 ppb chromium.

3. Heavy Metals in West Virginia Streams.

In the Coal River Basin, local communities have experienced flood problems 

due to the accumulation of mine runoff in nonnavigable streams and rivers. A 

dredging an d disposal operation app are ntly is planned to relieve the flood problem, 

and is bu t one of many similar dredging projects which have been conducted in 

non-navigable streams downstream from coal mines in West Virginia. Other 

projects of this type include: Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River, Brammw’ell in 

the Bluestone River Basin, Mont Calm on the Blucstone River, Princeton on the 

Bluestone River, Richwood on th e Cherry River, and Griffithsville in th e Guyando tt River Basin. (Personal communication, Mr. Charles Mclntype , Huntingdon 

Corps of Engineers). The sediments in waters which have been exposed to coal 

mine tailings and runoff typically contain toxic substances such as mercury, zinc, 

iron, nickel and arsenic. Dredging an d incidental discharge of these sediments can 

release them into the w ater column. This type of activity would not be subject to 

regulation under th e proposed amendment.

The health effects of mercury have been noted above. Nickel and arsenic have 

been shown to be carcinogenic to man when inhaled and some evidence suggests 

th at arsenic is carcinogenic when ingested.’ Human health effects associated with 

chronic arsenic poisoning include gastrointestinal cata rrh, kidney degeneration, 

tend ency to edema, polyneuritis, liver cirrhosis, bone marrow inju ry and exfoliate 

dermititis.

4. PC B’s in Antietam Creek, Gre at Lakes and the Hudson.

On June 18, 1976, the Was/iinfffon Post reported th at in 1972 the U.S. Geological Survey found PCB concentra tions of 1200 ppb in sediments of Antietam 

Creek, a non-navigable tributar y of the Potomac. High PCB concentrations in the 

Gre at Lakes and the Hudson River have caused grea t concern in recent months 

and have led to a ban on commercial fishing for certain species. A recent U.S.G.S. 

survey showed the following maximum concentrations of PCB in sediment samples 

from representative states:

Sta te :

Alaska_______________________________________________

Colorado____________________________________ ________

Idaho________________________________________________

Iowa_______________________ _____ ___ _______________

Maine__________________________ ____________ _________

New Mexico__________________________________________

New York____________________________________________

North Carolina_____________________ ___________________

N o rt h D a k o ta _________________________________________________

Tennessee____________________________________________

Texas________________________________________________

Vermont______________________________________________

West Virginia___________ * _____________________________

0

2, 000 

0

2, 000 

0

2, 000 

18, 000, 000 

0

0

0

990, 000

Dredging and disposal of PCB in non-navigable waters, wetlands and tribu ­

taries can release these substances into the water colunm, yet in some cases these 

discharges would not be subject to testing and regulation under the proposed 

amendment. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenals) are used in electrical conductors 

which often are disposed of in landfill.

7

 T he Me rck Index of Ch em icals an d Drugs. 19(10.

’ N au mov a. M. K.. Gig. Tr. Prof. Za bo l., 9. 52 -3 5 (196 3)

* Chen. K. P ., and H. Wu, J. Form osa Med. Asso c., « /, 611-618 (196 2),
667

PCBs have caused a severe form of skin disease, neurological disorders and 

hearing loss in hum ans who consumed contam inated rice oil. In experiments on 

monkeys, PCBs fed in concentration s similar to those found in fish from the 

Hudson River caused reduced numbers of pregnancies and smaller offspring. 

PCBs have also been shown to cause liver cancer in rats, increased prod uction of 

certain enzymes in th e livers of laborato ry rats an d humans, inductio n of porphyria 

in several animal species, interference with the imm unity mechanisms in rabbits, 

neurological disorders in rats, and toxic effects in chick embryos.10

5. Dupont Toxic Waste-in-Search-of-a-Dump.

For years, the Du Po nt Chemical Works in Belle, West Virginia, disposed of its 

toxic wastes by barging them down the Mississippi River and dumping them , 

pursua nt to an EPA permit under the Marine Protectio n, Research and Sanctuaries Act, in the Gulf of Mexico. When EPA refused to renew the perm it, DuP ont 

was forced to store 8 million gallons of this waste in Louisiana while t hey searched 

for acceptable dum p sites in Florida, Texas and back in Louisiana. Finally, 

DuPont received permission from the Sta te of Louisiana to solidify the waste and 

dispose of it in a land fill near Sellars Canal which connects with the Barataria 

estuary.

Although DuPon t maintained th at the waste was rendered inert and non-toxic 

by solidification, subs equent tests by a water chemist at a local tre atm ent works 

indicated th at the material would leach heavy metals and potentially toxic 

organic chemicals into th e environment. Beryllium, chromium and alum inum were 

found in high concentrations in the waste, although DuPont did not mention the 

presence of these chemicals in its repo rts to the s tate.

llad the proposed amendmen t been in effect at the time, Du Pont could have 

dumped the solidified toxic substances into the nearest convenient bayou or nonnavigable stream, witho ut testing or regulation.

Beryllium and chromium are known carcinogens, while alum inum is toxic to 

fish in low concentrations.11 Tests by Du Pont scientists indicated th at organic 

chemicals (or chemical oxygen demand) would leach from the “chemfixed” fill 

material at conc entrations 5 to 10 times th at found in domestic sewage.

G. I ICB’s in Louisiana.

In the afterm ath of the discovery of excessive levels of HCB (hexachlorobenzine) 

in adipose (fatty) tissue and milk of cattle in seu thern Louisiana, a field survey 

was conducted to determine the level of HCB in the environm ent. Samples were 

taken of levee soil and bottom sediments in ditches bordering the Mississippi 

River. HCB levels in soil and sediments varied up to 425 and 875 ppb, respectively.

Again, if discharged as “fill material” in wetlands or non-navigable waters, 

IIC B would no t be subject to testing and regulation under the proposed amendment. A question exists as to whether the ame ndm ent would exempt discharges 

such as th at which appar ently occurred in Louisiana.

IICB is a biologically-active chemical which can disrupt normal biochemical 

processes, causing disease or dea th in man and other fauna. Enlarged livers and 

thyroid, blistering of the skin, hyperpigmentation, and excessive hair growth were 

observed in humans who had consumed food con taminated by HCB. Chronic 

exposure to low levels of IICB results in the alte ration of cellular stru ctures in 

the liver, thyroid, adre nals an d bone marrow. HCB h as also been shown to induce 

the formation of abnormally-high levels of enzymes which alte r metabolism by 

the liver of many substanc es.12

7. Tacon ite in Lake Superior.'

For years, the Reserve Mining Company has discharged tons of taconite 

tailings into Lake Superior, the drinking water supp ly for Duluth, Minnesota. 

A Federal cou rt has ordered Reserve to find ano ther method of disposal of its 

solid taconite, in the l ate st round of a case which has become legendary. It takes 

little imagination to posit th at solid taconite “fill material” could be dumped into 

wetalnds or non-navigable waters where t hey could be carried into Lake Superior— 

except, under such circum stances, it would not be prohibited by the FWP CA.

10 Ahmed. A. K.. Environment, 18, 6-11 (1976).

« NAS, 1972. ‘ W ater Quality Criteri a.”

u

 Coniglio, W. A., “Hexachlorobenzine (HCB) : A Man-Made Pollutan t,” EPA, Jul y 1976.

76-161— 76 3
668

Taconite conta ins asbestos, a known carcinogen in man when inhaled and 

suspected of carcinogenicity when ingested.13

8. Kepone in the James River, Va.

Allied Chemical Co. and Life Sciences Corp., the la tte r now defunct, have been 

indicted on over 1000 coun ts of violating Federal water pollution control laws, 

including the FWPCA and the 1899 Rufuse Act, for allegedly discharging kepone 

into Bailey’s Bay and Gravelly Run, both of which are connected to the Janies 

River. Apparently, most of the kepone was discharged through an effluent pipe 

into Gravelly Run, bu t some solid kepone was discharged on lands adjacent to 

marshes that abut Bailey’s Bay in such a manner th at it inevitably was carried 

into the water by rain.

It is questionable whether the discharge of solid kepone at Hopewell would 

be subject to regulation und er the proposed amendment. Ironically, if the amendment had been in effect at the time, the solid kepone “fill material” could have 

been discharged directly into Gravelly Ru n w ithout fear of prosecution.

A National Cancer Institute test has indicated th at kepone produced oncogenic 

effects in both sexes of rat s and mice. Data submitted by Allied Chemical itself 

indicates th at kepone is oncogenic in rats. A notice of cancellation of this pesticide 

was published by EPA on Jun e 17, 1976, indicating concurrence and voluntary 

compliance. First registered in the 1950’s, kepone did not cause immediate harm 

on contact like other chlorinated hydrocarbons. Its long-term effects were first 

discovered in the 60’s when tolerances were sought. These effects include accumulation in mammalian tissue, induction of tremo rs, hyperactivity, muscle 

spasms, and sterility in laboratory animals. All of these effects have also been 

induced in human s—namely, in workers at the Hopewell kepone plant.

Each of the foregoing examples represents an instance where toxic substances, 

in a form which would be considered “dredged and fill material,” have been discharged (or with a slight modification of the facts, could have been or may be 

discharged) into wetlands a nd waters of the United States n ot subject to Federal 

jurisdiction under the proposed amendment to Section 404 of the FWPCA. Th at 

such instances have occurred is evidence enough to dem onstrate th at the loophole 

created by the Wright amendmen t could be used, eith er negligently or deliberate ly, to sub ver t the intent of the Federal water pollution control laws.

Ultimately, this hastily-conceived ame ndment would lead to the absu rd result 

whereby toxic substances, in the form of dredged or fill material, would be regulated if discharged into the navigable, yet highly-polluted Potomac estuary, but 

could occur with impunity if discharged in the non-navigable upper Potomac 

just above the wa ter supply for Washington.

Respectfully,

I)r. R obert II. Harris, Ph. D., 

Co-Chairman, Toxic Chemicals Program.

E dward T hompson, Jr.

Washington Counsel.

Baton R ouge, La., Ju ly 21, 1976.

Preside nt Gerald R. Ford,

The While House, Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : I am very concerned about the delay in implementation of the 

guidelines under Section 404 of Public Law 92-500, the Water Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972. Congressional action aimed at amending Section 404 is 

premature a t this time because the Act contains a provision for full re-evaluation 

nex t year.

I support the objectives of P.L. 92-500, and believe it should be given a fair 

chance to succeed. Your actio n suspending Phase II of the wetlands protection 

program means th at th e objectives of the Act are not being given a fair chance.JI 

strongly urge th at you rescind your action.

Sincerely,

Doris Falkenheiner.

13 IARC Monograph, 1973, “Evaluat ion of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man,” 2, 26; 

Cunningham, II. M. and R. P ontrefact (unpublished), 1974.
669

F ed er a tio n o f F ly F is h e r m e n ,

Davis, Calif., July 22, 1976. Hon. J en n in g s R a n d o lph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

United States Senate,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r S en ato r R a n d o l p h : The Federation of Fly Fishermen is an international confederation of 160 fly fishing clubs and similar organizations, mostly in 

the United S tates where they are formed into nine regions, as well as thousands of 

individual members in several classes.

We are seriously concerned abo ut the need to preserve wetlands as discussed in 

some detail in the atta che d copy of C-72-8, “T he Urg ent Need To Preserve Saltwater Estu arine And Wetland Resources” . While this paper discusses saltwater 

wetlands we are equally concerned about the need to also preserve freshwater 

wetlands.

Wetlands in th eir original natur al state are one of our nation’s most prod uctiv e 

and thus extrem ely valuable resources. The value is in their essentiality to fisheries and other wild as well as domesticated creatures and pla nt life upon which our 

people have great dependence for food and fiber as well as recreation opportu nity.

We are concerned th at you r committee’s proceedings on July 27 and 28 may 

no t con stitute full hearings with opportu nity for all so wishing to be heard. Any 

amendm ent of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 

based on testimony from only a limited and especially selected list of witnesses 

would be objectionable to us. Such ame ndment would obviously be subject to 

fut ure dispute.

Fur ther, we fully share the view th at the existing provisions of Section 404 

should not be weakened by the so-called “ Wright-Breaux Amendment” in section 

16 of S. 2710. We believe th at th is amendment would sub stan tially impair federal 

protection of wetlands and there fore ask th at it be stricken from S. 2710.

We request th at this letter be included as pa rt of the record of your Jul y 27 

and 28 proceedings on this ma tte r. Thank you.

Sincerely,

R ay W. F is h e r,

Conservation Chairman, Federation of Fly Fishermen.

Attachment.

T h e U r g en t N ee d to P r e s e r v e S a ltw ate r E s t u a r in e an d W et la nd

R eso u r c es

The extent to which estuaries and wetlands along all coastlines of the United 

States have been either dam aged or entirely destroyed (by their worst enemy, m an 

himself) is A GR EA T AM ERIC AN EN VIR ONM ENTA L TRA GEDY. The degree of losses of such resources alre ady incurred staggers the imagination when examples 

such as California’s are contemplated—along its 1,100 mile coastline “ab out 67 

perc ent of California’s original saltm arshes and tide-flats have already been filled 

or otherwise destroy ed” (California Department of Fish and Game repo rt “The 

Na tural Resources of Bolinas Lagoon, Their Statu s and F uture”). “About 67 percent of Southern Califo rnia’s wetlands have been lost to dredging, filling and other 

alterations which have removed them as wildlife ha bitat. Of the remaining wetland 

acreage, 42 percent is threatened by existing plans for developm ent and utilization 

of these wetlands” (“The Sta tus of Coastal Wetlands in Southern California” by 

Joh n W'. Speth, Department of Fish and Game to annual meeting of CaliforniaNevada Section of the Wildlife Society). “San Francisco Bay continually faces the 

dilemma of conflicting priv ate and public interests. The Bay is our greatest natu ral 

resource, influencing our climate, sustaining wildlife and vegetation, providing 

bea uty and recreation for those who live near its shores. But, with continuing 

urbanization , industrialization and added population pressures, the Bay is also a 

desirable source of revenue to subdivision developers, freeway planners, garbage 

dumpers and municipal governments seeking ad ded land for industrial sites to add 

to the ir tax rolls. It is alread y too late to correct the mistakes caused by a century 

of greed, shortsightedness and apa thy . BETW EEN TH E DEV IL AND TH E 

DE EP BLUE BAY is a warning and a plea for actio n—now—before the process 

of destruction of San Francisco Bay is irreversible”. (“Between the Devil and the 

Deep Blue Bay, the Struggle to Save San Francisco Bay ” by Harold Gilliam).
670

“Most Americans are only beginning to recognize their close bonds with the 

natur al world. A sign of this is found in changing attitudes toward swamps, 

marshes, and tidal estuaries. Until recently, these wetlands, cherished only by 

sportsm en and natu ralists, generally were considered worthless until drained or 

filled. Unfortunately, too many people still consider th at the ir highest economic 

use is to serve as dumping grounds for the solid and liquid wastes of cities and 

industries. The effects of this negative attitude have been apparen t to sportsmen 

and wildlife scientists for many years. Marshes th at once teemed with songbirds, 

shorebirds, waterfowl and a v ariety of mammals, the ir waters clouded by noxious 

bacteria and algae, now support little bu t starlings and rats. Many wetlands have 

disappeared completely under the avalanche of human expansion. Tod ay’s ou tcries of concern make clear th at people are seeking effective ways to halt the 

accelerating destruction of the ir environment. Unspoiled tida l marshes rank in 

economic prod uctivity above the best prairie croplands. Marsh-rimmed estuaries 

are vita l to the more imp ortant commercial marine fishes and to crabs, shrimps, 

and shellfish. Continued destruction of tid al wetlands threatens a majo r source of 

hum an food and the livelihoods of many people” (from Wildlife, The Environmental Barometer, By Conservation Educatio n Division, California Departme nt 

of Fish and Game).

“The natural environments of our Nation’s bays, estuaries, and other water 

bodies are being destroyed or threatene d with destruction by water pollution, 

altera tion of river course's, land-filling of the shallow and marshland areas, sedimen tation, dredging, construction of piers and bulkheads, and other manmade 

changes. Many Federal agencies participate in, or authorize work and activities 

which contribute to the destruction of these water areas, and some agencies have 

specific responsibilities for prev enting such destructio n and pollution” (House of 

Representatives, Rep ort No. 91-917, March 18, 1970, “ Our Waters and W etland s: 

How The Corps of Engineers Can Help Prev ent Their Destruction and Pollutio n” ). 

The headlines of an article by William E. Barrows, staff reporte r of the Wall 

Street Journal read, "N ATU RE'S NURSE RIE S. Filling, Draining, Polluting, 

Stir Fights In Many Areas; Developers Seek Marshes. Changing The Maine 

Coast”. In this article regarding the town of Wells, Maine, he further comments, 

“This town has abo ut ever ything a resort on the Maine Coast should have: 

Abund ant sunshine, clean beaches, good sport fishing and the clams and lobsters 

th at are among Maine’s most prized assets” . And he describes the concern of 

conservationists who regard salt marshes as “nurseries of the sea (because) the y 

provide spawning and nesting grounds for birds, fish and mollusks that may live 

out most of their lives far away. It is calculated th at two-thirds of the ocean’s 

sport and commercial fish either begin their own lives in wetland areas or feed on 

oth er creatures spawned in wetland s”.

Florida is famed for such saltw ater wetland resources which have been seriously 

diminished by the conversion of estuaries and wetlands into residential marinas 

and kindred developm ents which usually require majo r environmental alteration s. 

Regarding the city of Naples which has resisted such development, Phillip D. 

Carter reported in The Washington Post, “. . . for years, Naples’ most celebrated 

att racti on has been its immediate natural surroundings, particularly the shallow 

bays and mangrove islands t ha t stretch southward along the coast. Within minu tes 

of leaving dock, a sportsfisherman can be contentedly casting for snook along an 

unspoiled coastline th at has changed little since the time of the Indians” . John 

Fogel, in his “ Our Polluted Waterways” article in Preventio n Magazine describing 

his one-man kayak trip from New York City to Miami Beach comments, “Drain , 

dredge, dump, fill and build mu st be the words developers live by in places like 

Avalon, N.J.; Rehoboth Beach, Del.; and Hollywood Beach, Florida” . “The 

Hudson (River) is an integral pa rt of an extensive and productiv e ecological 

system embracing coastal waters of Northern New Jersey, the bays and harbors 

surrounding New York City and the north and south shores of Western Long 

Island. Historically, the Hudson has enriched this whole system and served as 

the prim ary spawning and nursery area for anadromous species—sea fish th at 

breed in rivers” (from affidavit by John Clark in support of petition, Index No. 

9565/71, Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, et al, aga inst Sta te Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, Respondent, and Consolidated Edison 

Company of New York, Inc., et al, Interveno rs, in Suprem e Court of the State 

of New York). The aforementioned suit in the New York Sta te Supreme Cou rt 

relates to Consolidated Edison’s proposed Storm King pumped storage project 

to service an atomic pow'er p lan t they have planned.
671

The num ber of examples of estuarine and wetlands problems is so great it would 

require volumes to ade qua tely com ment on them. There are myriads of reports in 

the various news media—newspapers, magazines, radio, television and oth er 

forms—h ardly a day goes b y in any area bu t what there is some publicity on e stuarine resources problems. These problems should concern all fishermen, because of 

their deleterious effects on the sports fisheries we depen d upon. Based on the 

broader view, our concern should go beyond our selfish inte rest in our spo rt and 

should include concern about adverse effects on th e total environment essential to 

production of the food which sustains our very lives. It is more t han a question of 

sites which afford pleasant and restful recreation. The problems raise the qu estion 

(and challenge, too) of what we should do to help hold the tide against furthe r 

dete riora tion and destruc tion of these precious resources. As indiv iduals and 

thro ugh our local clubs and regional councils we should dem onstrate our serious 

concern by becoming involved in objective efforts to preserve our natio n’s estuarine and wetlands resources. Those of us who live on or near the seacoast have a 

uniq ue opp ortunity to get directly involved while those of us who live in the interior regions can provide back up sup port in various ways.

In general, most of the issues have already been joined by other organizatio ns 

and our involvement can therefore be th at of providing auxiliary support. However, there can yet arise some situations in which the F ederation member, club or 

regional council identifies the problem and can initiate the action in which case 

auxiliary help can be sought from others. Coalitions or “ umbrellas” of join t action 

by a number of interested organizatio ns provide more “ muscle” and are usually th e 

best means of getting officialdom and oth er responsible entities to take required 

actions. The Washington Environmental Council is a prime example of the effectiveness of such an “umb rella” in which their multi-organizatio nal pressure 

resulted in en actment of th e Shoreline Managem ent Act in 1971 and caused alternative Initiative 43 to be placed on th e ballot of the 1972 state general election for 

approval or rejection by the voters. In California, where it now appears t hat the 

two-house coastline preservation bill (SB 100/AB 200) may be defeated in the 

legislature, the California Coastal Alliance coalition is in a petition campaign to 

place a coastal initiative measure on th e November 1972 ballot.

There are many local s ituatio ns which can be supported such as th e Save San 

Francisco Bay Association efforts which include national legislation (II.R. 12143) 

to create the 23,000 acre San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge which, 

incidentally, is endorsed by Nathan iel P. Reed, Assistan t Secretary for Fish, 

Wildlife an d Parks of th e Department of the Inte rior. And the Friends of Upper 

Newport Bay movem ent in Sou thern California. Th ere is nationa l legislation which 

can be supported by you wherever you are in the United States—S. 3507, the 

“ Magnuson Coastal Zone Managem ent Act of 1972” whose aim is to “preserve, 

protect, develop, and where possible to restore, the resources of the Nation’s 

coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.” The opportunities for you to do 

your part, whether they are local, regional or national issues, are many and all i t 

takes is for you to recognize them and to g et into the action. Get into the actio n— 

today, for tomorrow may be too late .

F ield & Stream,

New York, N.Y., July 26, 1976.

ITon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 5121 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I understand th at hearings on amendments to 

Section 404 of the Wa ter Pollution Control Act of 1972 will commence tomorrow 

before your comm ittee. Please know th at while most of the 8 million read ers of 

Field & Stream view the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as litt le be tte r than the 

Plague, we feel that any attempt to weaken their role as p artial administrators of 

the Wa ter Pollution Control Act will destroy the spirit and in ten t of this im portant 

legislation. Our wetlands mu st be saved, even if it also means spending much time 

and money educ ating vandals to become policemen. Keep Section 404 the way 

it is! For more details on our position, please rend and enter on the hearing record 

the Field tfe Stream Conservation Column for May entitle d “Things You Should 

Know About”.

Sincerely yours,

G eo rg e R e ig e r .

Enclosure.
672

T hings You Should Know About

Carroll Young stopped by my farm the other aftern oon to discuss plans for 

enlarging the fish and wildfowl pond. Carroll is a dejected man these days, and he 

feels nis hard times are largely attrib uta ble to people like me. He knows I’m a 

conservation writer, bu t he do esn’t come right out and blow off steam in my face. 

Still, he does blame environmentalists for the tough time he has making payments 

on the heavy, earth -moving machinery he bought during the flush, pre-energycrisis period of th e late Sixties and early Seventies.

Carroll is a m aster bulldozer operator, and his father is a marvel of rhythm and 

motion on the drag-line. In 1972, the two of them worked as a team to build my 

pond with a small part of the cost paid by the Dep artm ent of Agriculture’s (DOA) 

Rural Environmental Assistance Program. Carroll and his father completed the 

work in record time, first, because they are highly competent, but mostly because 

there were a lot of other jobs waiting to be done. Now there are not so many.

“The federal people first told us we couldn’t dredge any more salt marsh,’’ he 

said as we walked along the pond dike. “Now we can’t dredge upland swamps. 

Between the two, th at’s about half my business.’’ Carroll gave me a quick glance. 

“I guess conservation is a good thing for some, bu t it ’s just a bou t going to ban kru pt m e.”

There are m any developers and machine operators like Carroll Young bewildered 

and hu rt by legislative changes affecting old attitudes toward land use. Some are 

fighting to regain their righ t to do anything with the land t ha t makes the g reatest 

moneta ry profit from it. They do not perceive any other values in land but money, 

and they find the words of Aldo Leopold, if they know them at all, to be nothing 

bu t sentimental claptra p.

Writing in the Journal of Wildlife Management in 1943 (Vol. 7, No. 1), Leopold observed th at “the conquest of nature by machines has led to much unnecessary 

destruction of resources. Our tools improve faster than we do. It is unlikely th at 

economic motives nlone will ever teach us to use our tools gently. T he only remedy 

is to extend our system of ethics from the man-man relation to the nian-ear th 

relation. We shall achieve conservation when and only when the destructive use 

of land becomes unethical—punishable by social ostracism. Any experience th at 

stim ulates this extension of ethics is culturally valuable. Any tha t has th e opposite 

effect is culturally damaging.”

Trad itionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hits been preoccupied with 

man-man relations. As the largest and most powerful engineering firm on earth, 

it has seen its first obligation as th at of the nation ’s handmaid en in the development of commerce and heavy industry. Sadly, few of th e colonels in charge of the 

various regional corps headquarte rs have read Leopold—have learned th at there 

is a critical cultural value “in a ny experience which reminds us of our dependency 

on the soil-plant-animal-m an food chain. Civilization has so cluttered this elemental man-earth relation with gadgets and middle-men th at awareness is growing dim. Wc fancy industry supports us, forgetting w hat supports ind ustry.”

Promotions from colonel to general have all too often depended on completing 

the most or largest projects possible for an assigned area. Cost was no object. In 

fact, the more people employed for a longer period of time, the happier local 

politicians are with th eir district commander. In a University of Wisconsin stud y 

of 147 Corps projects, it was found th at —environmental considerations aside— 

fully half the projects should not have been built on economic grounds. Fu rth ermore, taxpayers never finish pay ing the main tenance costs on most public projects. 

Somebody must paint the bridges, man the locks, and redredge the channels—- 

eternally.

In a recently proposed enla rgem ent and realig nment of the “Delaware BayChesapeake Bay Wate rway in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia,” the Corps of 

Engineers came up with a rosy projection of how many “benefits” this alleged 

recreational boating waterway will bring to the states involved. Ra the r tha n 

acknowledge th at the Corps has repeatedly failed over the past half-century to 

dredge perm anen t channels parallel with the barrier islands so as to shorten the 

north-so uth inland waterway route between New York and Florida by half a day 

(shades of the SST time-saving flights between Paris and New York!), the Engineers’ Draft Environmental Im pact Statem ent says “no main tenance dredging 

costs are included in th e a nnual charges for the purpose of developing th e Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio, as th e net reduction in main tenance dredging is included as a benefit. 

Also, the main tenance cost for Aids to Navigation, maintenance of structures, 

and land costs are reduced to reflect only the difference in cost between the 

proposed project and continua tion of th e existing projects.”
673

This nifty bit of economic casu istry means th at with all realistic main tena nce 

costs excluded (heck, half the channel marker lights along the present waterway 

don’t work anyway!), the Corps’ mathem aticians can concoct an annual benefit 

of over $1 million a yea r for the “new and improved” waterway. Furthermore, 

by not accepting the fac t th at boating along the Atla ntic coast of the Delm arva 

(Delaware, Maryland, Virginia) peninsula has for over three centuries meant 

shallow-draft skiffs and scows sailing from coastal ports through natural channels 

and inlets to the fishing grounds beyond, the Corps is able to justify ano ther 

assault on nature for the good of indu stry.

For what Eas tern Shore fisherman really believes the Corps is “im proving” a 

multimillion dollar ditch for his benefit? Salisbury, Marylan d is slated to be the 

Delm arva headqu arte rs for offshore oil deve lopment in the Baltimore Canyon, 

and the Delm arva w aterway is scheduled to be the principal coastal link between 

the heavy indu strial base under construction at Cape Charles, Virginia, and the 

petrochemical industries alre ady s ituated in Delaware and New Jersey.

Yet the Corps disguises the project as a boon to flounder fishermen! While 

averring tha t the waterway will be too shallow for industrial barge traffic thro ugh 

“most” of its length, the Corps does not rule out future deepening of the channel 

to accom modate larger shipping. By th at time, Army engineers will have figured 

out a way to describe “new maintenance costs” as “old main tenance costs,” 

hence making them pa rt of a “net reduction,” alias “benefit.”

In any fight with the Corps, citizens quickly discover they have few friends in 

Congress. In fact, the Corps and the Congress are so intim ately linked on most 

waterw ay projects, be warned th at you will prob ably give away any plan you may 

be developing for legal actio n by writin g your represe ntative appealing for his 

assistance. This is an awful note to share with my more idealistic readers, bu t I 

am able to speak from painful and personal experience.

Arth ur E. Morgan, engineer and first chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), once observed “when a congressman dares to oppose a proposal of the 

Corps, he may find himself, as some of them have made public, bombarded by 

protestin g letters from members of the Rivers and Harbors Congress.” This 

latte r group, euphemistically renam ed the Water Resource Congress, is made up 

of Corps’ lobbyists and sponsors including land speculators, contractors, and 

retired Army engineers. They represen t one of the most powerful lobbies in 

Congress, a power symbolized by the fact t hat th e Corps is one of the few federal 

agencies with permanen t “advisors” on Capitol Hill.

To date, courts of law have been the conservation ists’ best and only ally. 

Despite Army protests, the U.S. Supreme Cou rt ruled in I960 th at the Refuse 

Act of 1899 authorizes the Corps to regu late the environmental effects of dumping 

in navigable waters. Unfortunately, all thro ugh the Sixties, the Corps continued 

to duck its responsibility by insisting it was too understaffed to be both empire 

builder and policeman.

Besides, considering the many cozy relations the Corps had established with 

certain industries, just think how embarrassing it would have been for the Army 

to sue friends and good ole boys for violating some quain t 19th cen tury law! So 

what if some of the stuff being dumped is in violation of the 1899 Refuse Act and 

is capable of killing men, as well as fish and wildlife? Which is more important: 

Hea lthy bu t unemployed people, or jobs th at are created in burying the dead?

When the National Environmen tal Policy Act (NEPA) was created in 1969, 

the Corps once again trie d to duck its environmental protective responsibilities. 

And once again, a legal suit was required to force the Corps to comply with the 

law. However, the spirit of the law and the l etter of the law are app arently two 

different ma tters to some Corps’ senior officers, for the perm it program quickly 

eroded to the point where some distric t offices appeared to be outdoing others in 

issuing nonrestrictive perm its. In the old days, developers and industry did as 

they pleased withou t the paperwork. Today, some Corps’ districts seem to be 

licensing developers and industry to do as the y please!

This may be why Congress pe rmitted Section 404 of the W ater Pollution Control 

Act of 1972 to become law. This vital section for the first time provides the Corps 

with regulatory autho rity over not just “navigable waters,” bu t all waters of th e 

United State s. The new law clearly commands th at any future development 

respe ct the integrity of wetland resources, and the Corps of Engineers along with 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are charged with examining wetland 

development plans and issuing permits to alte r wetlands only a fter every possible 

alte rnative has been explored. One wonders how many Congressmen approved 

Section 404 with the tho ught th at greater autho rity for the Corps would mean 

even greater freedom for the developer?
674

For its part, th e Corps reacted like a scalded cat. Las t May i t issued a misleading 

press release claiming th at “under some of the proposed regulations, federal permits 

may be required by the ranche r who wants to enlarge his stock pond, or the farm er 

who wants to pro tect his land against stream erosion.” Farm and livestock 

journals and regional outd oor publications swallowed the bait—hook, line, and 

sinker! Angry letters poured into Corps’ headquarters denouncing the new act. 

The Corps’ propagandists suavely replied tha t th e best way to amend the situatio n 

was to persuade Congress to gut the law.

So the battle was rejoined: Environmentalists on one side who hope to see 

the Corps wearing a new white hat, and certain regional Corps officers and 

developers on the other side who are very happy, tha nk you, with the fit of the 

scruffy old Corps black hat. In the middle crouch veteran conservationists, scarred 

from countless skirmishes with the Corps, who firmly believe th at there is no 

room for compromise.

Despite the assertions of th ese old-line conservationists th at the only hope for 

Western Civilization is the abolition of the Corps of Engineers, Tom Barlow of 

the National Resources Defense Council argues persuasively tha t reform is possible 

and the only answer: “There are no other horses in sight. Either we tame the Corps 

and teac h it to serve conservation, or it will continue to gallop roughshod over 

the entire environment.”

On the sidelines of th e battlefield are those many benighted souls who came to 

worship at the post-War alt ar of the second home. Last Jan uar y, public hearings 

were held in Virginia to review a developer’s “right ” to fulfill the promises he 

had made to buyers of lots to destroy productive salt marshes and coastal lowlands 

and replace these with consumptive golf courses und marinas. The First Charter 

Land Corporation (alias, Capta in’s Cove) pleaded before Colonel Newman 

A. Howard, Jr. of the Norfolk District Corps office, bu t in reality its plea was 

pitched to the angry parcel-of-land owners who demanded their “righ ts” to 

have the fan tasy th ey bought on time come true. When a local waterman testified 

th at he had poled his boat across the development area on more tha n one storm 

tide, the landowners booed and hissed him into silence. No man likes to be told 

he has bought a pig in a poke.

First Cha rter Land Corporation has already pleaded guilty to four violations 

of 33 U.S.C.A. section 403 and one violation of 33 U.S.C.A. section 407 and paid 

the fine. Now this same corporation hopes to do on a grand scale and legally under 

the perm it program what it illegally started with only 108 acres. In all, the 

Capta in’s Cove development hopes to modify or destroy 1,865 acres of marsh 

and coastal lowlands. The logic seems to be: “We were cau ght robbing the bank 

by breaking and entering. Maybe we can get away with more money by passing 

the teller a note!”

Will the Corps issue this developer (and others like him) permits to destroy 

the last of our nation’s wetlands? Or will the Corps persuade their friends in 

Congress to waive its autho rity in all such matters?-T he Corps’ new role as wetlands guardian is currently under review by the Congressional Public Works 

Committee, I hope you’ll t ake time to remind your r epresentative th at elections 

are coming up and tha t you’ll be very unhappy with him if he does not stand behind 

the Water Pollution Control Act, and especially Section 404, as an ally somehow 

reminds me of our alliance with the Soviets in World War II. It is a dubious pill 

to swallow. However, we must give the organization this one last chance to demonstrate t hat man-e artn relations mean jus t as much to it as man-man relations. 

Footnotes

For the record, people like me who want to enlarge farm ponds or remove 

debris from drainage ditches are in no way hindered from doing so by Section 404 so long as we’re not tam pering with the inte grity of nat ura l wetlands. Fu rth ermore, we wish the Carroll Youngs of this continen t success, bu t we trus t they 

will use their considerable skills with tractors and cranes to build more duck 

factories, not drain th e ones th at Nature has provided without Benefit/Cost Ratios.

In a related m atte r, the Wildlife Managem ent Ins titute , the National Audubon 

Society, and the Natio nal Wildlife Federation have charged th at DOA’s annual 

$175 million Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) is often used to boost 

productio n and private profit rat her tha n protect or enhance natural resources. 

Ins tea d of focusing on fish and wildfowl pond construction, for example, ACP 

funds are being used to uproot windbreaks and shelter belts along the edges 

of fields, to channelize waterways under the guise of “streambank protection ,” 

and to build livestock fences that should rightly be considered pa rt of a ranche r’s
675

working expenses. Perhaps most shocking of all is the extensive aerial spraying 

of rangelands with herbicides in many Western states. Wiping out vast areas of 

natural wildlife habitat so cattle can be pastured on the new growth is illegal 

funding under a federal program called “agricultural conservation.” So while 

you’re writing your representative about the Corps’ responsibility under Section 

404, why not add that you’d like to see the word conservation restored to Agriculture’s ACP?

Finally, Wes Sandall of Bassett, Nebraska, needs our help to fight another 

dumb show of the ever-destructive Bureau of Reclamation. In recent years, the 

Bureau has been trying to outdo even the Corps of Engineers in the realm of 

terrifying projects calculated to exterminate wildlife and uproot people. Bultec’s 

Nebraska nightmare includes the channelization of one entire county and the 

Niobrara River. If you can help, contact Sandall at (402) 684-3468. And beware 

any government agency bearing “benefits!”

F is h in g W o rld,

Floral Park, 2V.Y., July 16, 1976.

Senator H ow ar d II. B a k e r, Jr.,

Public Works Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

D ea r S en a to r B a k e r : As editor of the nation’s largest magazine for sport 

fishermen, permit me to encourage you and your colleagues on the Public Works 

Committee, to retain in full strength Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control 

Act. Maintaining the Corps of Engineers’ authorization to provide increasing 

federal protection to wetlands is critically important.

The Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that 

30,000,000 saltwater recreational fishermen annually spend $1.25 billion angling 

for a catch of edible finfish that equals the U.S. commercial catch. And more than 

25 of the most important commercial species of finfish, crustaceans and mollusks 

are dependent on estuaries at some stage in their development.

Freshwater wetlands are a comparably impo rtant sanctuary for the fishes th at 

provide our huge inland angling and commercial catch.

There will be little point in regulating commercial fishing out to the 200-mile 

limit if we continue destroying the nursery grounds.

Sincerely yours,

K e it h G a r d n e r, Editor.

[M al lg ra m ]

F lorid a Ag r ic u l t u r e W a ter C o u n c ii,

Orlando, Fla., J uly 22, 1976.

Senator J e n n in g s R a n d o lph ,

Washington, D.C.

The Florida Agriculture Water Council respectfully encourages your active 

support in passage of S. 2710 (Breaux-Wright amendment) for the protection of 

States rights, prevent Federal land use control, and stop bureaucratic regulations 

and court decisions from usurping congressional authority. Request this notice 

be made a p art of the official hearing record.

W . E . C le m m o ns.

Atl a n ta, G a., July 26, 1976.

D ea r M r. R a n d o l p h : T am writing this lette r to voice my disapproval to the 

Wright Amendment of H .R. 9560.

Please record this letter for the hearing.

Sincerely,

G r o ff F u c il .

Sta t e m e n t by F o r e st F a rm ers Asso c ia tio n Atlan ta, G a.

Forest Farmers Association, an organization of timberland owners, and primarily small, nonindustrial owners wishes to present its views on Section 404 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and 1976, and 

especially implementation of Phase II, originally scheduled to be effective July 1, 

1976. Our group represents ownership of over 25 million acres of commercial 

timberland in 15 southern states, with members in virtually every timbered 

county in the area.
676

Our Association strongly opposes implementation of Phase II of Section 404 

and the interim final regulations proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

and favors acceptance by the Senate of the House-passed Wright amendment 

included in the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act Amendments of 197G (H .lt. 

9560), or similar corrective action.

Phase II regulations, as understood by our Association, would expand Corps 

jurisdiction to millions of additional farm and forested areas. It would enlarge 

the definition of “navigable waters” to all natural and artificial bodies of water, 

five acres and larger; plus tri bu tary stream s flowing five cubic feet a second or 

more, and adjacent wetlands. An extensive perm it system would be required 

before many forestry-related activities, requiring dredges or fills, could be performed.

Forest Farmers Association vigorously opposes Phase II im plementation for the 

following reasons:

(1) The Corps’ regulations would have an important and highly detrimental 

effect on timb er growing an d forest development in the South. This is particularly 

true as regards the approximately two million private, nonindus trial timberland 

owners in the South, who own approximately 70 percent of th e region’s com mercial forest land.

(2) A general perm it system , as sometimes advocated by the Corps, is subject 

to legal challenge, and an individual perm it system would be tremendously 

involved and, virtually unworkable. Even the Corps, tacitly , admits this. Individual permits could cost the owners $10 to $100 each and could tak e from 

several weeks to several years to process, by their own estim ate. At the Baton 

Rouge hearings General Mc Intyre stated as a rough estimate it might take some 

2,000 or more employees and $50 million or more, annually, to handle the program 

by the time it reached Phase III.

(3) Forest Farm ers Association feels tha t it was not the inten t of Congress to 

assert federal jurisdiction over the nation ’s waters to the maximum extent proposed by subsequent Court rulings and the Corps of Engineers’ interim final 

regulations, as the y stand.

(4) It appears th at these regulations as published, perhaps, reflect greater 

response to demands for wetlands preservation rather than the stated purpose of 

the FWPCAA of 1972—improvement of water quality. If certain environmental 

groups feel t ha t grea ter protection of wetlands is desirable, our Association feels 

they should opt for national wetlands legislation, rather tha n seeking to achieve 

th at end through the backdoor, using FWPCAA of 1972 and other water quality 

legislation. The same goes for federal land use control legislation, which died in 

Congress last year.

(5) Our Association strongly opposes Phase II implementation as it would 

res tric t imp ortant silvicultu ral and forest man agem ent activities, even while 

sta tin g these activities are exempt. Specifically referred to are such forestry-related 

activities as woods road building, ditching, bridge construction, etc. Timber, in 

addition to being a renewable resource is a basic, life-support, consumer prod uct. 

Unrealistic restrictions placed on timb er production will only serve to reduce 

supplies and force prices up. All this while the federal government, itself, is predicting futu re timb er shortages and implementing incentives programs to grow more 

trees.

(6) Section 101(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires th at 

regulations minimize the amount of paperwork and delay involved in achieving 

the purposes of the Act. Yet, the five major steps now required seem to defeat this:

(a) The application itself will require considerable time and expense to 

prepare and process, and will cost the landowner anywhere from $10 to $100;

(b) Public hearings, at the app lica nt’s expense, could add as much as 

three months to the delay;

(c) Section 401 certification requirements could entail another three 

mo nth s;

(d) Certification of compliance with Coastal Zone Management requirements might tak e six m onths; and

(e) An Environmental Impac t State ment might be required—an additional 

major burden on the applican t which could add up to six months to the process.

It is not difficult to imagine th at the entire process could require one or two 

years to complete. Experience with other Corps of E ngineers’ permits makes this 

seem not unreasonable.

(7) Time is often of the essence in forestry operations. Forest managers must 

be able to take advanta ge of favorable weather and soil conditions, as well as 

markets. Weather controls site prepara tion, planting, insect and disease protection
677

and salvage, as well as harv esting and road building. Flexibility is essential to 

proper forest managem ent. A delay of one month for many for<-st o perations can 

result in forest land lying idle for an entire growing season. Furthermore, there are 

approximately two million small, private owners in the South, alone. Little 

consideration appea rs to have been given to the sheer volume of paperwork which 

would be generated by such a perm it system. Applications could literally run into 

the tens of tho usands in our area, alone.

(8) U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agricultue for Conservation Rob ert W. Long 

has indicated th at these new regulations pose the thre at of “unnecessary Corps red 

tap e” which would hold up work on USDA programs to help rural communities 

repair flood damages and restore land and streams by forcing civilian agencies to 

apply to the military for work permits. It is also conceivable th at the federal 

Fore stry Incentives Program, which has begun to make progress in stim ulating 

development of southern forestry, could be offset by making forest managem ent 

unprofitable for many small forest landowners.

(9) The regulations are complex and ambiguous, which makes it difficult for 

the landowner to determine which landm oving operations may require perm it 

application.

(10) The potential for veto of an approved application by several agencies 

represents an unnecessary complication of the application process. Experience 

indicates th at requ irem ents to satisfy several different agencies almost always 

results in substantial delays, confusion, and red tape.

Forest Farm ers Association feels th at the Wright amendmen t or similar corrective legislation, which stops Corps of Engineers’ regulations at Phase I, and truly 

exempts forestry-related activities is highly important. Our organizatio n feels th e 

Wright am endment would achieve this objective w ith an expression of clear legislation intent, defining forestry-related activities to include road building, 

ditching, bridge construction , etc. With such clarification the Wright amendmen t 

or similar legislation would provide an acceptable compromise which more truly 

reflects the intent of Congress.

The Committee’s consideration of these views is inv ited and will be appreciated .

Oce an Cit y, M d., J u ly S I, 1976.

S en ato r J en ni ng s R an do lp h,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator: As I write this letter I’m overlooking th e la st remaining section 

of wetlands in Ocean City, Md. It’s about three city blocks in size and with one 

glance an amateur birdwa tche r’s eye can count a dozen species—willets, barn 

swallows, red wing blackbirds, laughing gulls, blue herons, snowy egrets. Horseshoe 

crabs and channel crabs, mussels, and turtles also make this small remainder of 

Ocean City’s former self their home and breeding ground.

Paddling through some shallows last week I was surrounded by young croakers 

who made the water virtually boil with their jum ping to escape my intrusion.

Bordered by houses on two sides and twe nty story condominiums on a third 

this saltmarsh area of bavberry and spa rtin a grasses is a city in itself. Home to 

more phylum and specie of animal tha n the remaining ten odd miles of miles of 

concrete and asp halt it is an area th at man cannot live without. After all—what 

would m an’s life be like with no birds in the air or fish in the bays?

Saltmarshes, the second most productive growing area in tons per acre, must 

be kept as they are and we need a strong Section 404 program to do it.

I supp ort the Hart a mendm ent to the Clean Water Act now numbered S. 2710. 

The Wright-Breaux amendm ent which excludes most wetlands and cuts back 

controls over the nation’s waters is ill conceived, inad vertently prepared and 

premature.

I feel th at th e Hart amendmen t (S. 2710) is good no t only so I can count birds 

from my balcony, bu t so m y children, my children’s children and so on can have 

the same pleasure as I in watch ing downy willets follow their mother thro ugh the 

tall grass along the waters edge.

The testimony of the seven “private witnesses” scheduled for July 28 is obviously biased against continuing phases II and II I of the 404 program.

To get an imp artial opinion on the matt er would be nearly impossible bu t 

witnesses should be equally called on both sides of th e ma tter, not five oppon ents 

and two proponents as it is now scheduled.
678

There are four additional poin ts I would like to make:

(1) It is premature to amend Section 404; no hearing should be held nor amendments considered until afte r the full three-phase program has gone into effect.

(2) The proposed Senate Ilart-Cleve land Amendment is preferable to the 

Wright-Breaux House Amendment because it would address those issues mistakenly raised by those who oppose further regulation under the section; it would 

write into law th e exemptions and general perm it program alrea dy set for phases 

II and III in the regulations, and it would provide a progress report for the Congress to review a t the end of the next year.

(3) Wetland areas are valuable for their capabilities to break down and remove 

quantities of pollutants such as nu trients and organic wastes from their tributaries, 

to store flood waters and to feed and nurture the lower end of the food chain.

(4) The House am endment would stop the Section 404 program from controlling 

the discharge of polluted dredged materials into trib utaries of drinking water 

supplies th at do not happen to fall within the House’s narrowed definition of 

“navigable waters.”

Sincerely,

T homas and R obin Galloway.

P.S.—I would like this to be included for the record of the hearing of July 27, 

28, 1976 on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

General Development Corporation,

August 4, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington,

D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: General Development Corporation is the largest 

community developer in Florida, and possibly in the southea stern United States. 

We are currently developing seven m ajor communities which now have more t han 

60,000 full-time residents. We are interested in the full range of problems which 

affect community development because our activities include residential, commercial, and industrial development.

As a development company, our activities are heav ily impacted by environmental regulation. One of the major laws with which we must comply is the 

Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500). PL 92- 

500 is a very broad and all inclusive act designed to address the question of the 

quality of the Nation’s waters. As stated in the opening sentence of this act, the 

act seeks to, “restore and m aintain th e chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s w aters.”

As one means of a ttaining this goal, the act prescribes in Section 404 t ha t the 

Secretary of th e Army may issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or 

fill material into the navigable waters of th e nation. Because PL 92-500 is a bill 

which seeks to address the problem of water quality, a num ber of important 

cases have ruled th at federal regulatory jurisdiction und er the Act must reach 

furthe r than the trad itional limits of navigability. Until the U.S. District Cou rt 

for the District of Columbia required the U.S. Corps of Engineers to extend its 

jurisdiction above the mean high water line, there wras a period of unc ertainty for 

priv ate business which made it difficult to plan because of the conflict between 

the policies of the U.S. Corps of Engineers on the one hand and the En vironmental Protection Agency on the other hand. With the promulgation of the 

interim final regulations under Section 404 by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, substa ntial resolution of this conflict was achieved. This deve lopment in turn made 

planning for our industry more predictable, whatever else members of the industry might feel abo ut the necessity of having to obtain permits under the new 

regulations.

What is imp ortant to keep in mind is tha t, in issuing its Section 404 regulations, 

the U.S. Corps of Engineers was doing what it was required to do by PL 92-500. 

The Corps did not march into this new area of jurisdiction arbitra rily or whimsically, bu t only after having been required by the courts construing the clear 

int en t of PL 92-500 as a, “Pollution Control Act’’.

Two of the areas which give us grea test concern in the emerging environmental 

regulatory process are:

(1) The lack of pred ictability which results from the ever-continuing amendment of existing environmental legislation in such a way as to conflict w ith sta ted
679

purposes and policies contained in this legislation which in turn leaves business 

unsure of what it is required to do or how it must comply; and

(2) The continuing exemption of the agricultural and silvaculture interests, and 

the pointed application of environmental regulation to the development industry 

in such a manner as to raise in our minds a very real question as to whether we 

are receiving equal protection of the laws.

To the extent tha t we have been able to follow the current debate generated 

by HR 9560 (S. 2710), generally referred to as the “ Wright Amendment” as well 

as this amendment’s earlier predecessor, the “Breaux Amendment”, we would 

consider the elimination of Section 404, or limitation of Corps jurisdiction to the 

mean high water line of navigable waters, as mistaken.

Congress must decide whether it intends to address the issue of water quality. 

While a balanced approach to determining federal jurisdiction for this purpose is 

necessary,1

 attem pts to limit that jurisdiction to traditional concepts of navigability and mean high water lines will create built-in conflicts in the law. In the 

end, these conflicts will work to the disadvantage of private business by denying 

it the predictability it must have to comply with the law. Moreover, sweeping 

exemptions of particular economic interests from the operation of PL 92-500 will 

raise equal protection issues which may jeopardize the statute itself. Although the 

Breaux and the Wright amendments intend to simplify and restrict federal regulatory jurisdiction under PL 92-500, their net effect will be to create further 

uncertainty, litigation, and resulting lack of predictability.

Instead, you and your staff might well profit from an examination of the Florida 

Dredge and Fill Rule (Ch. 17-4 F.A.C.) enacted under Ch. 403 Florida Statutes, 

known as the “Florida Pollution Control Act”. The Florida Pollution Control 

Act and the Florida Dredge and Fill Rule are comparable analogues of PL 92- 

500 and the U.S. Corps of Engineers Section 404 Interim Final Regulations.

Florida’s Dredge and Fill Rule was the first successful effort by the State to 

define the area of its water quality jurisdiction in wetlands. The rule recognizes 

that navigability is not a sole criterion for determining State jurisdiction required 

to protect the quality of State waters. Moreover, the generally accepted engineering practices of determining mean high water lines were shown in the course of 

numerous workshop discussions to be unreliable and expensive indicators of wetland areas which need protecting if water quality is to be maintained. The vast 

stretches of mangrove swamp and fresh water wetlands are of such a diffused 

nature tha t the normal mean high water line indicators are often lacking. Moreover, the determination of mean high water line often depends on the establishment of tidal data which may be nonexistent or highly questionable.

Because it was in its interest to do so, General Development Corporation cooperated with the state agencies as well as with Florida environmental groups to 

develop a definition of wetland areas based on dominant species of vegetation located on lands contiguous to waters of the State. The list of vegetational indicators 

was carefully refined, and it was recognized tha t the preservation of a transitional 

zone around wetland areas was a necessity. These zones were also defined. The 

State agreed to a commonsense limitation of its jurisdiction based on the size of 

lakes and ponds, and further limited its jursidiction to coastal waters, bays, 

bayous, rivers, and streams and their tributaries. Artificial waterways were included within the State ’s jurisdiction so long as there was a continuous excavated 

channel or series of excavated channels.

The net effect of the Florida Dredge and Fill Rule was to recognize that the 

State has a legitimate concern with wetland areas above the mean high water line 

if it is to preserve water quality. It also gets away from making the development 

industry overly dependent on expensive studies which often do not resolve the 

jurisdictional issues based on water quality questions. I t is much less expensive to 

conduct to a biological assessment of a wetland area, using vegetational transects, 

infrared photography, and related biological techniques. The conduct of the mean 

high water line survey through a mangrove swamp or in a broadly diffused fresh 

water wetland is both extremely expensive, and very often nondeterminative of 

the issue of regulatory jurisdiction.

Thus, we would oppose proposals to eliminate Section 404 of PL 92-500, or 

attem pts by either legislative or executive action to limit the development of the 

existing Section 404 Interim Final Regulations of th e U.S. Corps of Engineers. 

What we need to work for is a constructive refinement of federal water quality 

jurisdiction, and a clarification of the permitting process. (The Florida Depart1

 Sen. Gary H ar t’s suggested amendment allowing limited types of agricultural and 

other exemptions seems to make sense.
680

ment of Environm ental Regulation and the U.S. Corps Dis trict offices in Jacksonville under Col. Donald Wisdom’s leadership are making imp ortant progress in 

streamlining and coordinating the state and federal permitting process.) Eliminating Section 404 or limiting Corps’ jurisdiction as proposed would leave broadly 

stated purposes of PL 92-500 on the books, while crippling the ability of the 

responsible federal agencies to fulfill their duties. This can only crea te furth er 

confusion an d chaos in an alrea dy complex area just at a time when some degree of 

consistency is being achieved. Further, the imposition of trad itio nal engineering 

concepts for the use of mean high water lines to determine the limits of federal 

jurisdiction in vast areas of the southeastern United States will impose heavy 

expense on private businesses having to operate in these areas, withou t assuring 

the required degree of c ertain ty which private business must have.

We urge you to vote against these amen dments, and instead to encourage 

further refinem ent of th e existing regulatory process. A s ta rt has been made, and 

refinements will contin ue as the priv ate and public sectors in this field interact. 

Developing court cases will also give further clarification. We should let the process 

continue for a reasonable period of time, and not seek to wrench the process off its 

trac k at a time when the needed predictability and consistency are just beginning 

to emerge.

Sincerely,

Arthur L. Harper, Jr.,

Vice President,

Environmental Regulation.

Corte Madera, Calif., July 21, 1976.

Senator J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: Thank you very much for your letter of July 6th 

in which you informed me of the oversight hearings set for July 27 and 28 at 

which time actions rela tive to Section 404 of the Wa ter Pollution Control Act 

will be reviewed.

As I stated to you in my letter of June 24, 1976, I am disappointed and grea tly 

concerned over the procedures allowed during the Wright-Breaux Hearings; 

specifically, the verv sho rt time (20 minutes) permitted for debate on a most 

imp ortant ma tter. I am again asking you to make every effort to oppose any 

further inroads which will weaken what little protection we can count on for a 

priceless national resource—this cou ntry’s wetlands.

Section 404 MUS T BE RE TA IN ED and funds allo tted for its im plem entation.

I request th at this letter and my letter of July 21 be made a part of the hearing 

record.

Very tr uly yours,

Wiliiam G. Gordon.

J uly 6. 1976. Mr. William G. Gordon,

39 Edison Avenue, Corte Madera, Calif.

Dear Mr. Gordon: Thank you for writing to express your concern over the 

possible effect of changes being proposed in the provisions of Section 404 of the 

Water Pollution Control Act.

In light of your views, you will want to know th at the Senate Public Works 

Committee is scheduling oversigh t hearings July 27 and 28 to review the questions 

raised by both judicial and adm inistrative actions rela tive to Section 404.

The comm ittee will decide thereafter what its position will be on provisions of 

the House-passed version of S. 2710.

Truly,

J ennings R andolph, Chairman.

Corde Madera, Calif,. June 26, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

5121 Dirksen Office Buildin g, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. R andolph: We implore you to vigorously oppose current efforts to

destroy what little remains of this cou ntry’s wetlands. We ask you to support the 

Section 404 program and do all in your power to defeat any att em pt to amend 

the same in any m anner whatsoever.
681

As you must know, there has been a heavy att ack by vested in teres ts to destroy 

by massive development a vita l ecosystem which, aside from all its attribute s, 

supports the major pa rt of this nation ’s fish harve st. Today, as perhaps never 

before, with shortages in grain, with disastrous weather patterns prevalent 

everywhere, we ca nnot interfere to furthe r deplete our food supply.

The Wright-Breaux Amendment, which was so narrowly defeated and which 

you will be considering, is destructive. We were advised by Congressman Paul 

McCloskey th at this measure was hastily sub mitted by James Wright, Chairman 

of the Public Works Committee, and th at debate relative thereto was limited to

20 minutes. This is frightenin g in its implications. It shakes further our small 

faith in our legislators.

Section 404 was adopted and seemingly implemented after lengthy a nd countless 

public hearings. The cost of such proceedings, is, as you know, staggering. Now, 

there is a strong, well-mounted attempt to destroy 404. It serves a vita l public 

purpose and it must not be weakened. May we count on you to see tha t it is not:

Sincerely yours,

Wiiliam G. Gordon,

J oan S. Gordon,

Citizens f or preservation of Bylands.

Statement of Mayu n I I. Greaser, P resid ent, American Dredging C ompany

I am Maylin II. Greaser, President of American Dredging Company of Fort 

Washington, Pa. I am also a Director and Regional Vice President of the Nation al 

Association of Dredging Contractors.

For over 100 years American Dredging Company has been the leader in the 

development of contained land disposal areas for dredging materials. In 1800, 

American Dredging Company commenced acquisition of land along the Delaware 

River in Gloucester County, New Jerse y for the purpose of providing a disposal 

area for dredged material. Today, the Company owns approximately 2,500 acres. 

Much of this la nd is zoned for heavy maritime industry and the remainder for other 

industrial uses. Natura lly, we pay high property taxes on this land because of the 

industrial maritim e use zoning. However, our use of this land as a disposal area has 

been seriously restricted because of the Section 404 regulations promulgated by the 

Corps of Engineers.

The need for such disposal areas in connection with our dredging activities is 

essential if we are to continue in business. We regularly perform the requ ired 

main tenance dredging and related work for more t han 50 water front port facilities 

along the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. The Company has also performed a sub ­

stantial amoun t of con tract work for the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard 

and the U.S. Navy on the Delaware River. This navigatio nal work is of gre at public impo rtance to the Port of Philadelphia.

I urge the C omm ittee to support the Wright Amendment which will restore the 

balance between the need to protect the environm ent and the need to maintain 

navigation for the purpose of interstate an d foreign commerce. One of the fea tures 

of the Wright Amendment which will be most helpful is the S tate delegation pro ­

vision which will eliminate the duplicate perm it requirements th at are now required under the existing law. There is no reason to require both a Federal and 

State perm it where the S tate applies essentially th e same crite ria as is used in the 

Federal procedure. Such duplication is time consuming, costly and adversely 

affects ancillary dredging for essential navigational projects.

Furtherm ore, under the prese nt practices and procedures, it takes two years or 

longer to obtain a Sta te perm it and ano ther 1 or 2 years more to obtain a Section 

404 permit for disposal of dredged materials in a contained land disposal area. 

While it is generally recognized th at the original intent of Section 404 was to 

regulate “op en” water disposal of dredged materials and to encourage the placement of dredged materials in contained land disposal areas, recent judicial interpretations of this section has had the opposite affect.

Although I strongly support the Wright Amendment, nevertheless, I hav e 

reservations as to the inclusion of “adjacent wetland s” within the Federal regulatory jurisdiction. I believe that under certain circumstances, denying a pro per ty 

owner the right to fill “ad jacent wetlands” might well amoun t to the taking of 

priv ate p roperty for public use without ju st compensation, th ereb y raising a serious 

constitutional question.

In conclusion, I would like to t hank th e Committe e for the inv itation to app ear 

before you to express my views on this important question.
682

Towson, Mix, July 21, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, 4202 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: “ Good-Bye, proud world, I ’m going home. . . .” 

Th at is I’m going home if th ere should remain such a sacred and sylvan retrea t. 

I am most concerned about the progress thu s far re the saving of our nation’s 

wetlands. I sup port wholeheartedly preserving clean water not only for today 

bu t for tomorrow as well. We should not cut back the controls over the nation’s 

waters. We need to retain the more strict “404” regulations. A better time to amend 

would be afte r one has seen the effects of the full three-phase program and can 

assess them. In any event, the H art am endmen t to the Clean Water Act (S. 2710, 

which I support) is much bette r in its specificity and details than the WrightBreaux amen dment. Also, the Hart amendment would provide a progress report 

for Congressional review at the end of next year. I hardly think it necessary to 

reiterate the services which wetland areas perform. How much more pollution and 

sewage can we (and wildlife) safely drink? Please give the more strict controls a 

chance to prove themselves both in hearings and in action. Tha nk you.

Cordially yours,

Clara E. Grether.

Wachapreague, Va., July 27, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator J ennings: I heartedly sup port the Ha rt ame ndment to the 

Clean Water Act, now numbered 8. 2710. This sta tm ent is to be considered as 

testimony and included for the record of the hearing of July 27-28, 1976 on Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act.

I supp ort the Ha rt ame ndm ent for the following reasons: (1) It is very prem ature to amend Section 404 and no hearings should be held nor amendments considered until after the full three -phase program has gone into affect; (2) the proposed Senate Hart-Cleveland Amendment is preferable to the Wright-Breaux 

House Amendment because it would address those issues mistakenly raised by 

those who oppose fu rther regulation under the section; i t would write into law the 

exemptions and general permit program already set for Phases II and II I in the 

regulations, and it would provide a progress report for the Congress to review at 

the end of th e next year; (3) wetland areas are valuable for their capabilities to 

brea k down and remove quantities of pollutan ts such as nutrients and organic 

wastes from their tributaries, to store flood waters and to feed and nurture the 

lower end of th e food chain; (4) the House amendment would stop the Section 404 

program from controlling the discharge of polluted dredged materials into tributaries of drinking water supplies th at do not happen to fall within the House’s 

narrowed definition of “ navigable waters.”

I also think that other groups should be permitted to testify during the hearings. 

Sincerely,

Gerard J. H ennessey.

Herbert H. Lehman College, 

of the City University of New York,

Bronx, N.Y., July 19, 1976. Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 4202 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am writing in connetion with th e hearings which 

will be held on July 27-8 on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. My inte rest in 

this m atter is th at of a private citizen, concerned with the “ chemical, physical and 

biological integrity of the na tio n’s waters”, especially as it affects the protection 

and preservation of our much-th reatened wetlands.

In my opinion S. 270 contain s several ill-designed features. Specifically:

(i) I see no point in amending Section 404 until the three-phase program has 

gone into effect and shows its strengths and weaknesses in practice. The controls 

and regulations established in Section 404 are clearly designed to prote ct our waters 

from pollution, and it is foolish, in my opinion, to allow th e priva te interest of those 

who stan d to gain by pollution to prevent im plem entation of the entire three-phase 

program.
683

(ii) For essentially the same reason I support the Senate Hart-Cleveland 

Amendment: it will incorporate into the law the exemptions and the general 

permit program already established in the regulations for Phases II and III, and 

thus will invalidate the objections of many who, through ignorance, oppose regulation under Section 404.

(iii) Because of the immense value of wetland areas as a natural water purifying 

device th at at the same time serves as flood-water reservoir and nursery for lower 

plant and animal life, I think these areas should be protected most carefully from 

pollution and development. The House (Wright-Breaux) Amendment excludes

most wetlands from protection under Section 404: for this reason alone the House 

amendment must be eliminated from the final version of the bill.

(iv) the Wright-Breaux Amendment also allows the discharge of polluted 

dredged materials into tributaries of drinking water supplies. By cutting back 

controls over what waters are subject to protection, and by an excessively narrow 

definition of “navigable waters”, it moves the nation back almost a hundred

' years. Again, this amendment cannot be allowed to stand.

Sincerely yours,

Erica C. Garcia,

Associate Professor.

Annapolis, Md., July 24, 1976.

Senator J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: The Executive Board of the Wardour Garden 

Club (membership 38) is strongly in favor of the Hart amendment to the Clean 

Water Act (numbered S. 2710).

The above statement is to be considered as testimony to be included for the

record of the hearing of July 27-28, on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Furthermore, our members feel t ha t additional groups who are in favor of th e 

Hart amendment be permitted to testify at the hearing.

Thank you for your consideration in this extremely important matter. 

Respectfully yours,

Mrs. J ohn A. Hutchins, 

President, Wardour Garden Club.

Institute For Environmental Studies,

Madison, Wis., July 24, 1976.

Senator J enninos R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, Dirksen Senate

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: In view of the importance of legislation now before 

the Senate Public Works Committee (particularly the Wright-Breaux amendment 

to Bill S. 2710), I am enclosing a copy of a recent summary done on the public 

benefits of the remaining inland wetlands.

The principal conclusions can be stated as follows:

(1) In the order of 90 percent of inland wetlands have been drained across 

much of the United State s;

(2) Inland wetlands appear to be as valuable, if not more valuable than coastal 

wetlands;

(3) The public benefits are principally for wildlife and fishery habitat, nonpoint pollution control, water quality maintenance, flood control, recreation and 

education;

(4) The economic value of these benefits appears to be best estimated at 

$10,000 per acre in much of the midwest, and in some areas a t $50,000 per acre.

I thought these results would be helpful to the Committee in its consideration of 

water-quality related aspects of Bill S. 2710. I respectfully request tha t the 

report be included in the record of your hearings on July 27 and 28.

Sincerely yours,

Orie L. Loucks,

Professor Botany, and

Director, Center for Biotic Systems.

76 -1 61 — 76-------44
684

A Summary of R esearch on the P ublic Benefits From I nland Wetlands

for Freshwater R esources and Water Quality

Research on the role of inland wetlands in regulating water quality and the 

produc tivity of lakes and streams has been underway at the University of Wisconsin for some years. The results indicate that th eir value for wildlife and fishery 

hab itat, non-point pollution control, water quality main tenance, flood control, 

recreation and education have been seriously underestimate d. Ninety percent of 

the wetlands of Wisconsin are already drained and this is believed to be representa ­

tive of a large proportion of the inland states. The following report summarizes 

studies of the direct and indirect public benefits of both sta te and nation al significance th at are associated with the remaining wetland area.

l. wetlands as wildlife and fish habitat

Most wildlife and fish species inhabit wetlands at some time in their lives.

Marshes are waterfowl habitat. The values become expressed in terms of water 

fowl usage during migration in spring and fall, production during the breeding 

season, and hunting opp ortu nity . [1] Musk rat, mink, and beaver are other commonly trappe d wetland species. Other game species such as phea sant and deer use 

wetlands, particularly during certain seasons for water, food, and shelter. Thus 

even if hunting occurs in forests or agricultural fields, the upland game h unter also 

benefits from using the area adjacent to the wetland resource. Wildlife managers 

have concluded that there is a direct relationship between th e number of wetlands 

in an area and the abundance of wildlife. [2] In addition, many wildlife species 

other th an game depend to a considerable degree on wetland habitats.

Deep water marshes, and marshes with seasonally deep water, are especially 

important to freshw ater fisheries because important game species, such as northern 

pike and to a lesser extent walleyes and muskies, spawn in these areas. Several 

species of fish inhabit the open channels and high waters of marshes throu ghout the 

year. Federal, state, local and private organizations have long recognized the value 

of the wetland resource for fish and wildlife and have carried out modest land 

acquisition programs. Federal acquisition programs along the Mississippi flyway 

point o ut the interstate na ture of this resource. The fish and wildlife production of 

these wetlands provides recreational benefits for millions.

In 1973, in Wisconsin alone, 1.2 million fishermen, including 25 percent out-ofsta te’anglers, caught 108 million fish. [3] A 1970 U.S. D ept. of Interior study of east 

north-central district of the U.S., repo rted 2.8 million hunters including some 1.1 

million waterfowl hunters along the Mississippi flyway. [4] In Wisconsin these 

sportsme n spent approximately $200 million in 1973. An annual retu rn of $200 

million/yr at five percent interest gives us a capitalized value of $4 billion for ju st 

the hunting and fishing resources produced by the remaining wetlands of this area.

However the number of users is probably a better indicato r of th e importance 

of a resource to society. One q uarte r of the four million people in Wisconsin fish, 

with the average fisherman fishing 20 tim es per year. [3] In 1970 it was found t ha t 

one of every three men in the U.S. fished, and one of everv five hunted. One-ninth 

of the women fished, and one ninety-fourth hunted. [4] The recre ation resources 

being used by these people depend heavily on the presence of an adequate acreage 

of h ealthy wetlands.

2. WATER QUALITY MAINTENANCE

Wetlands filter sediments and excess nutrients improving downstream water quality

Rec ent studies in Wisconsin and other states show th at freshwater wetlands 

serve a grea tly underra ted role in limiting the impact of intensive land uses, 

particu larly agriculture and residential development, which migh t otherwise 

severely damage aqu atic resources. This process is most effective when small 

bordering wetlands are allowed to stand along small feeder streams. There presently exist no man-m ade controls for waste and nutrients from such non-point 

sources, other than the protection of these small, periodically satura ted wetland 

feeder areas. This function becomes more imp ortant when intensive agriculture is 

the dom inan t land use.

A stu dy conducted at the University of Wisconsin [5] compared the a mount of 

phosphorus loading presently received by an urba n lake to the amoun t received 

before settlement (and before destruction of 10 percent of the are a’s wetlands). 

The shift from natura l vegetation to agric ultural and urban land uses, and the 

removal of 300 acres of wetlands, resulted in a two-fold increase in surface runoff 

to the lakes. The study showed th at had the missing acres of wetlands been
685

preserved, 200-300 kg/y r of the additional phosphorus would have been trapped 

by the wetlands rather tha n enter the lake.

Assuming the runoff could be collected and processed, removal of a similar 

amoun t of phosphorus by adva nced tre atm ent would cost $1800/yr for facilities 

alone. However, it is presently not feasible to collect and tre at pollution from 

non-point sources, urban as well as agricultu ral.

Unrestra ined release of non-point pollution to stream s an d lakes has been shown 

to resu lt in the collapses of the biological resources of these aquatic systems, the 

loss of game and pan fish resources and the loss of recreational industries associated 

with these resources. Consequently, wetlands not only serve as ha bitat and 

breeding ground for these prized biological resources, bu t do irreplaceable service 

in the maintenance of the high level of water qua lity needed for these resources 

to survive. Even with extensive stocking of streams and lakes with fish, without 

upstream wetlands, the lowered water qua lity will make the investm ent of little 

value.

The higher level of water quality associated with upstream wetlands also is 

impor tant to the survival of recreational industries dependent on water sports. 

Madison, Wisconsin is currently spending over $150,000 yearly trying to maintain 

the qua lity of its famous lakes, a service once performed by wetlands, more 

effectively and at no cost. These costs are likely to triple in the next few years 

under new program s for water qua lity improvement.

Other studies of the beneficial effect of marshes on water qua lity include a 

stu dy in Pennsylvania, Tinicum Marsh as a Water Purifier, [6] and the Effects of 

Marshes on Water Qua/tiy [7] done on Wisconsin marshes. The effects of marshes 

as water purifiers have been tran slated into economic values by calculating the 

cost of an equal amoun t of sewage treatm ent. [8] As the costs of man-made 

tre atm ent systems rise due to inflation and increased standa rds, wetlands will 

continue to provide this function at no cost, along with all the associated recreational benefits.

3. FLOOD CONTROL AND EROSION

Wetlands store large volumes of water which would otherwise induce serious costs from

downstream flooding.

Flooding is a natural characteristic of river systems. ^Jisvever, because human 

society centers arou nd rivers, measures are taken to minimize loss of life and 

property due to flooding. Damming, diking, and channelization are tradition al 

answers to the flood problem. More recently, floodplain zoning and acquisition of

wetlands along stre am courses have been proposed as less costly and more environ mentally sound alternativ es to the earlier flood control measures.

Wetlands provide a natur al means of flood control. A stu dy of the Connecticut 

River indicates th at wetlands reduce peak flood flows by storing large qua ntities 

of water and releasing it gradually . [9 J A stu dy of flood plain wetland areas along 

the Nepuset R iver in Massach usetts indicated t ha t a loss of 10 percent of wetland 

storage capa city would increase flood stage by 1.5 f t while a 50 percent reduction 

resulted in flood stage increases of three ft .[10]

Standard engineering prac tice recognizes the importance of wetlands in the 

magnitude of flood discharge. Conger’s formula relates the flow of flood waters 

(Q) to a certain value (K) times the perc ent of marsh and lake area. K depends 

on the tributar y area, slope of stream and drain age basin characteristics. [11] 

Conger used 13 wate rshed chara cteristics, and oth er tha n area and rainfall, 

wetlands were the second most important landscape feature. Using this formula, 

a reduction of wetland acreage from one perc ent to zero percent results in a 19

percent increase in the magnitude of peak flood discharge for a two year flood and a 

85 percent increase in peak flood discharge for a 50 y ear flood.

Llollar values associated with flood control aspects of wetlands were calculated 

for the Charles River (Massachusetts) by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.[10] 

Findings indic ate th at a 40 percen t reduction in wetlands along the Charles River 

would result in a two to four foot increase in flood stage (for a flood sim ilar to th at 

of 1968) causing an additional $12 million in damage. The 8,500 acres of wetlands 

along the Charles had a value, for flood control purposes alone, of $647,000 per 

year, or $75.00 per acre per year. [10] The Army Corps of Engineers advised 

acquisition and protection of these wetlands as the most economic flood control 

measure.

Wetlands help control erosion and reduce sedimentation.

Erosion of topsoil in rur al areas has long been known to reduce agricultural 

productivity. Such erosion is often associated with spring runoff when flow rates 

are high. Various soil and water treatm ents help reduce soil erosion in upland
686

areas, bu t many low lying areas, formerly wetlands, bu t now drained and cultivated, could decrease water flow with consequent redu ction in the erosive energy 

of the water.

Sedimentation of rivers, lakes and reservoirs results from the erosion process. 

The sediment load of a river can be reduced by any areas of w etland vegetation 

th at will inte rcep t a portion of the sedim ent load. Excessive erosion results in 

sediment loss which has many biological and economic ramifications, inclu ding 

reduction of water quality, inhibition of a quatic life, increased flood damage, an 

increase in harbor and channel shoaling, and reduction of the reservoir life. 

Wetlands slow the water flow, allowing the suspended sediment to settle, and 

thereby improving water quality dow nstream .[9] In the Alcovy River floodplain 

in George this function has been calcu lated to have a net ann ual value 

of $23,232.[13]

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Wetland areas provide a broad and varied ar ray of function s in the environment* 

We can only ap prox imate the economic value to society of each of these functionsA clearer understanding of their importance will be gained by visualizing the 

number and variety of man-made devices th at society must erect and maintain 

to perform the same functions.

Consider a wetland area bordering a small river which flows into a lake. If th e 

wetland area were filled or ditched the same functions provided by the wetland 

would require:

(1) A water tre atm ent pla nt to remove nutrie nts from surface water, wa ter 

runoff or throughflow;

(2) In the absence of nutrie nt removal, weed harvesters or chemical tre atmen t 

must be used in the lake;

(3) A fish hatche ry will be required to replace lost spawning grounds;

(4) Other measures will be taken elsewhere to replace lost waterfowl breeding 

grounds;

(5) Settling ponds may be constructed in feeder streams to remove sediments 

which impair th e recreational and fishing value of th e lake and rivers;

(6) Higher dikes, dams and levees will be needed for flood control;

(7) Other open spac* <fl^eas will have to be purchased for park and recreation 

uses.

There are many ways in which the direct and indirect values of these wetland s 

can be converted to dollar equivalents, and each is inadequate in some respects. 

Two obvious approaches are (1) the sum of all dolla r values of downstream 

benefits, including secondary industries associated with water recreation, and (2) 

the replacement value of the wetlands as in dicated by present and planned local, 

state, and federal expenditures to improve water quulity, flood control, fisheries 

and wildlife.

Working inde pendently by both of these procedures, it is evident th at the real 

value of wetlands depends on how much of original wetland acreage remains 

available in a watershed. Where up to 90 percent of the wetlands have been drained 

or filled, as in much of th e midwest, this value appears t o be at least $10,000 per 

acre, and in some areas probably exceeds $50,000 per acre.

R efe re nce s

1. Benson, D. and R. F. Perry. 1965. An Acre of Marsh is Worth . . . Info rmation Leaflet, N.Y. State Conservation Dept. Division of Conservation Edu cation. 

4 pp.

2. Environmental Monitoring and Da ta Acquisition Group. 1973. T he Investigation Description and Recommendation of a Critical Resource Information 

Program (CRlP) for Wisconsin: Phase 1 Report—Concepts of Resource Definitions, Uses and Measurement Criteria. (In sti tute for Environ. Studies, U of 

Wisconsin—Madison).

3. Wisconsin Dept. of N atu ral Resources, July 1974. Results of a Mail Survey 

of Sport Fishing in Wisconsin in the 1973 Open Wa ter Seasons (Bureau of Research, 3 pp.)

4. U.S.D.I., 1970. Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, National Survey of Hunting. 108 pp.

5. Janota, T., and O. L. Loucks. 1975. An Analysis of the Value of Wetlands for 

Holding Inorganic Phosphorus. University of Wisconsin, Center for Biotic Systems. Mimeographed rep ort.
687

6. Grant, R. R. and R. Patrick. 1970. Tinicum Marsh as a Water Purifier. 

In: Two Studies of Tinicum Marsh. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, 

D.C.,_pp. 105-123.

7. Lee, G. F., E. Bentley and R. Amundson. 1975. Effects of Marsh on Water 

Quality. In Hasler, A.D., Ed.: Coupling of Land and Water Systems. (Ecological 

Studies, V. 10. Springer—Verlag, N. Y., 298 pp.).

8. Gosselink, J. G., E. P. Odum and R. M. Pope. 1974. The Value of a Tidal 

Marsh. Center for Wetland Resources. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana, 30 pp.

9. La vine, D., C. Douchy, D. McClusky, L. Petry, S. W. Richards. 1974. 

Evaluation of Inland Wetlands and Water Course Functions. Royal Printing 

Services, Inc. Guilford, Connecticut. 166 pp.

10. Dewey and Klopper. 1964. Report of Effect of Loss of Valley Storage Due 

to Encroachment—Connecticut River. Connecticut Water Resource Commission. 

8 pp.

11. Conger, D. H. 1971. Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in 

Wisconsin, U.S. Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin.

12. Wharton, C. II. 1970. The Southern River Swamp—A Multiple-Use Envionmcnt. Bureau of Business and Economic Research Georgia State University. 

48 pp.

I nstitute for Environmental Studies,

Madison, Wis., July 24, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, United Stales Senate, Dirksen Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: We are writing to express our concern with the 

proposed change of the definition of “navigable waters’’ by the Wright-Breaux 

amendment to S. 2710, now before the Senate Public Works Committee. As 

members of the Institute for Environmental Studies of the University of Wisconsin, we agree with and support the findings of the values of wetlands submitted 

by Dr. O. L. Loucks, Director, Center for Biotic Systems, Institute for Environmental Studies. We direct your attention to this report for a summary of research 

indicating the societal values of inland freshwater wetlands.

We would like to add: Waters and wetlands of all the states are a rcsoxirce needed

and used by all people of all states. The redefinition of the term ‘navigability’ 

proposed by the Wright-Breaux amendment poses a serious threat to the waters 

and associated wetlands of the United States. The waters of this nation, the wildlife that depend on them, and the recreational values of these waters are not 

confined to the boundaries of a particular state. The laws and actions of the people 

of one state will affect the use of the water associated resource in many states.

Enclosed is a map of the major watersheds of the United States; note tha t state 

boundaries and watershed boundaries do not coincide. We feel t ha t jurisdiction 

of these areas, to maintain their highest and best use, should remain with the 

federal government to avoid the inevitable conflict between states.

We respectfully request that this letter be included in the record of your hearings 

on July 27 and 28.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Friedman,

Research Assistant.

Elin Quigley,

Research Assistant.
688

Dear Senator Baker: I am writing this letter concerning the oversight hearings on July 27 and 28 on the Section 404 Perm it Program of the 1972 Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act.

As a representative of th e Iowa Wildlife F ederation and affiliate of the Natio nal 

Wildlife Federation, I would like to express our su ppo rt for the Cleveland-Harsha 

approac h to the Section 404 perm it system .

Since wetlands provide spawning and nursery areas for commercial and sport 

fish and shellfish; provide natural tre atm ent of waterborne and airborne pollutan ts; recharge the ground water for water supply; provide natural protection 

from floods and storms; provide essential nesting and wintering areas for waterfowl; con stitute a high-yield food source for aqu atic anim als; and provide an 

im porta nt filter system for lakes and stream s, I believe a strong Section 404 

Permit Program will be of benefit of protecting our remaining wetlands.

Sincerely,

J ames A. Settles, 

President, Iowa Wildlife Federation.

Izaak Walton League of America, I nc.,

Huntertown, In d. Ju ly 17, 1976. Re H.R. 9560 and related legislation.

Hon. Howard II. Baker, Jr.,

Publw Works Committee, United Slate s Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington,

Dear Senator Baker: The Clean Water Committee, Fo rt Wayne Cha pter 

IWLA has supported PL 92-500, the Clean W’ater Act of 1972 since its beginning 

and has carefully noted its operation through Region V, EPA and the various 

stages of state implementation. The Committee has nothing bu t grea t admiration 

for the thoroughness of this Act.
Therefore, we strongly oppose IIR 9560 because:

(1) Section 8: An EPA overview of construction grants of sewage plants of all

sizes is a very necessary step. This provides a consistency in overview of the total 

water program. Furth er it provides control of municipalities, which until the 

birth of 92-500 did not exist; municipalities pleaded governm ent imm unity, were 

not on permits, and sta te agencies were reluctan t to pursue any att ack against 

cities.

(2) Section 9: Grace periods for municipal pollutors is unnecessary. Municipalities should take the initiative in sewage pla nt construction and be reimbursed as 

the grants become available. The 5 year grace period is not a solution to the 

problem. Grant programs need “stepping up ”, and small towns in particular 

need help and not penalties in having to wait for grants to materialize.

(3) Section 12: Civil penalties should stand as written into PL 92-500. The 

change as written in HR 9560 only stands to benefit big and frequent pollutors 

and is a deterre nt to the clean water goal of 1985.

(4) Section 13: Most importantly, any change in Section 404 of PL 92-500 

before it has had the opp ortunity to even be tested as effective is prem ature. 

Section 404 has given us the opp ortunity for the first time in the battle for clean 

water to take issue with dredging, filling and spoils and what these actions do in 

degradation of quality water. Additionally, Section 404 attem pts to recognize the 

importance of wetlands as water quality purifiers and ground water acquifer 

recharge areas.

Any deletion of the inten t of the Permit system implied in Section 404 and its 

application to the “waters of the U.S.” would be premature and destructive of 

this very important aspect of water quality managem ent.

We strongly request th at you support the goals of the Clean Water Act as 

passed in 1972 and vote against IIR i)560. PL 92-500 is a thorough, admirable 

piece of legislation th at should “run its course” as envisaged in its inception. 

PL 92-500 is our last opp ortuni ty to arrive at the Clean Water Goal by 1985. 

Keep it stron g and working.

Sincerely,

E th tle R. Bloch,

J an e H. D us ti n,

Co-Chairman, Clean Water Committee.

Enel: Copy of Editorial. Please read.

House Water Waste . . .

The natio n has rarely witnessed such reckless legislative behavior as the House 

of Representatives recently exhibited in passing legislation to amend the 1972 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Despite a few instances of reform, the 

amending legislation is the antithesis of a measure designed to eliminate pollution 

of th e nation’s water resources.

Largely motivated by blind reaction against federal land use regulation, a 

fear exploited by land development interests including the National Association 

of Home Builders, House members tore into the original clean water legislation. 

In the end, they wholly destroyed reforms and created more legal and administra tiv e problems tha n before. They stripped a vita l form of federal pollution 

control from 99 per cent of the nation’s previously regulated waters. And to 

stifle criticism, they cloaked their amending legislation in the disguise of its far 

superior Senate-passed cou nterpart.

All of this took place withou t public hearings and withou t careful analysis of 

the amendments’ long-range impacts. Unwarranted fear fractu red facts. Rhetoric 

ruled over reason. Parochialism purloined prudence. Legislative haste literally 

created a framework for more waste in the nation’s waters.

Fearing federal land use c ontrols, the House-passed Wright am endm ent hacked 

away the regulatory heart of Section 404, a vital component of the original 

water pollution control act. Yet the original act does not involve federal land 

control unless the reg ulate d land is submerged under the nation’s rivers, streams, 

lakes and marshes, and is susceptible to pollution by dredging and filling.

The Wright amendment essentially reduces the scope of federal jurisdiction 

over pollutive dredging and filling from “all the wate rs of the United Sta tes ”— 

as the ac t originally provided—to only the waters which a re involved in intersta te 

or foreign commerce. It makes the fruitless mistake of attem pting to sep arate 

by legislative mandate the inseparable linkages established by nature among 

all water systems.
690

The Wright ame ndment has grave implications for all the nation’s water resources, the small portion visible on the surface and the much greater reserves 

hidden underground. It places the remaining 55 per cen t of the natio n’s marshes 

in danger of being filled and draine d for land development. In a biotic sense, these 

wetlands function primarily as water purifiers, as rechargers of underground 

supplies, as food suppliers for nearly 70 per c ent of the na tion’s commercial fisheries 

and as breeders of waterfowl and furbearers.

Jeopardizing wetlands along with the nation’s secondary streams and lakes, the 

Wright amendment could effectively cancel all the impressive gains made by the 

multi-billion dollar federal and priv ate sector investments to curb pollution of 

prim ary watercourses. In the process, the ame ndm ent could create a legal nig htmare of conflicts with oth er federal legislation including the 1899 Rivers and 

Harbors Act, the Wetlands Aquisition Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act and the Environmen tal Policy Act. And while the courts and the Congress 

untangle the mess, most of the states will not assume the vacated federal role 

because the y lack sufficient funds and professional staff.

By crippiing Section 404, the House seriously negated all the work embodied 

in developing the original legislation, and it halted the emerging fruition of the 

ac t’s implementation by federal and state agencies.

What happened in the House was irresponsibly compounded by Presiden t Ford. 

Pending the outcome of a House-Senate conference to settle glaring pollution 

control differences between the two chambers, Mr. Ford suspended Section 404 

regulation of wetlands and secondary stream s by the Army Corps of Engineers.

While the President’s action lends undeserved credence to the House amendments, there is reason to expect the Senate conferees to restore a measure of sanity 

to the water pollution control act. Facing stiff House opposition, it will be a difficult job. And ironically, limited success m ay even result in the dea th of Section 

404 itself.

. . . and Senate Cleanup

Continued progress of the nation’s water pollution control program in great 

measure depends on the success of the Senate conferees in their delicate negotiations with House colleagues. The central issue of course is Section 404, b ut there 

are at least a half-dozen less critical amendments which should be reworked into 

constructive reforms.

In addition to environmental and adm inistrative logic against hasty tampering 

with Section 404, Senate conferees can employ ano ther powerful argu ment. Such 

drastic changes in 404 really amou nt to major legislative action since th ey redirect 

the th rust of the en tire water pollution control act. The most responsible a pproach 

to 404 entails allowing it to remain intact until both chambers und ertake comprehensive reviews of proposed changes. The original act, for example, required 

two years of congressional stud y, 39 House-Senate conference sessions and a 

successful override of a presidential veto.

If the House fails to accept the most responsible app roach to Section 404, Senate 

conferees should consider scrapp ing it altogeth er as the next best, bu t radical, 

alternative. In its Wright amendment form, Section 404 could easily inflict more 

damage on “all the wate rs of th e United States and its territorial seas” tha n not 

having it at all. Without Section 404, another as yet unscarred part of the original 

act, Section 402, could substantially secure the best interests of water pollution 

control.

The intense controversy over Section 404 should not distract the conferees from 

focusing on other less sweeping but important House-offered reforms. The am endment to qualify communities which use ad valorem taxes to sup port waste tre at ­

ment operations for federal pollution control funds is a generally sound idea. Too 

many cities through out th e nation are deprived of adequa te sewage trea tm ent and 

the federal assistance to improve it because the original act restricts grant funds 

to those communities which impose a user charge.

It’s conceded th at user charges are the b est means to support a sewage u tility. 

But a better defined House amendment could ensure th at ad valorem taxes more 

proportionately assess treatmen t costs on those pollu ting the most.

Another House-passed ame ndment th at deserves support along with scrutiny 

authorizes the Environ men tal Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate complete 

grant approval to the states. The int ent of this amendm ent is to speed up the 

complicated gra nt applica tion process and cut down pape r work. Again, the quickly 

authored House language produced a poorly constructed amendment. The con-
691

ferees should carefully detail the conditions under which EPA can delegate its 

authority and precisely what standards of administration must be achieved by 

the delegated state.

The Senate conferees bear the heavy burden of restraining ill-conceived House 

caprice. They must convince their colleagues from the low'er chamber tha t the 

“meat axe’’ approach to legislating is not the way to reform the water pollution 

control act. And it is not the way to restore the nation’s waters.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation,

Washington, D.C., August 2, 1976.

Re Proposed Amendments to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act Redefining the Authority of the Army Corps of Engineers to Require 

Dredge and Fill Permits.

Senator J ennings Randolph,

lioom 5121, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: We understand the Senate Public Works Committee

is now considering several bills designed to amend Section 404 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA) and to redefine the authority of 

the Army Corps of Engineers to require permits for dredge and fill activities 

carried out in the navigable waters of the United States. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a worldwide producer of timber and paper products with operations in 19 

U.S. States, supports enactment of legislation designed to limit the authority of 

the Corps of Engineers in this area.

We believe that legislation is needed now to prevent the Corps’ Section 404 

program from turning into a bureaucratic nightmare. As a result of a March, 1975, 

U.S. District Court opinion, 1 2 the Corps has been forced to expand the jurisdiction 

of its program to include virtually all the w’aters of the United States rathern than 

applying it to the more limited class of “navigable waters” specified in Section 404 

of the Water Act.

Unless the Congress acts, it may well be necessary for every farmer who wishes 

to expand an irrigation ditch, every rancher who wishes to construct a stock pond, 

and every logger who wishes to build a temporary forest road to obtain a Corps 

permit before doing so. As Congressman Jim Wright of Texas has pointed out, the 

Congress never intended that Section 404 be read so broadly?

For Kimberly-Clark, imposition of such requirements would be extremely 

burdensome. In our timber operations, which now encompass some 1.3 million 

acres nationwide, we estimate t ha t we would be required to apply for some 500 to 

600 additional dredge and fill permits annually. The vast majority of these permits 

would be for environmentally inconsequential activities related to the construction 

of temporary forest roads. In almost every case, these new permits would duplicate 

other permits which the Company is already required to obtain from State and 

local environmental authorities.3

 The Company would also undoubtedly face the

1

 N atu ra l Resou rc es D ef en se Co un cil V. Ca llo way , 392 F.S up p. 685 (D.Ct. D.C . 19 75 ).

Se cti on 50 2( 7) of th e W ate r Ac t [33 U.S.C. § 13 62 (7 ) (197 2)1 def ine s th e term

“n av ig ab le w ate rs ” as used In Se ction 404 of th e Act [3 3 U.S.C. § 1344 (197 2) 1 as fo llow s: 

(7 ) Th e term ‘‘nav ig ab le w ate rs ” mea ns th e w ate rs of th e U ni te d Sta te s, in cl ud in g th e 

te rr it o ri al se ns.

In Ca llo wa y, th is ln ng ua ge was in te rp re at ed ns “a ss ert in g fe de ra l ju ri sd ic tion ov er th e 

nati o n ’s w at er s to th e max im um exte nt fe as ib le under th e Comm erce Cl nu se of th e 

C ons titu tion, ’ an d as “to lim ite d to th e tr ad it io n al te sts of nav ig ab ility.” 392 F. Su pp . 686 .

2

 S ee Co ng ressman W ri ght's Thu rs day , May 13, 197 6, “Pre ss Re lease” on II.11. 956 0

Clearly, th e [C al lo w ay ] co urt case wo uld ex te nd th e he av y ha nd of fe de ra l re gula tions 

in to th ou sa nds of pri vate acti v it ie s ne ver in te nd ed by Co ng ress— ac ti vit ie s w ith pra cti ­

ca lly no re al im pac t on w ate r po llut io n. The Ar my sa ys it will ha ve to m on itor an d polic e 

ns many as 30,00 0 pe rm its a ye ar. The re we re on ly 2,900 tw o ye ar s avo.

Th e ob viou s re su lt s wo uld be an en ormou s ex pa ns io n of th e fe de ra l bu re au cr ac y, poin tless in tr usi on in to th e liv es of p ri vate citiz en s, an d too li tt le of va lu e be ing ac co mplishe d 

becaus e th e go ve rn m en t was tr y in g to ov ersee too much.

3 Se ction 101(f ) of th e W at er Ac t [33 U.S.C. § 12 51(f ) (1 972)] re qu ires th a t it be 

im plem en ted so ns to

. . . en co ur ag e th e d ra st ic m in im iz at io n of pa pe rw or k an d in te ra ge nc y de cision pr ocedu res. nnd th e be st us e of av ai la bl e m an po wer an d fu nd s, so as to pr ev en t ne ed less 

du pl ic at io n of un nec es sa ry de la ys a t al l leve ls of th e go ve rn men t.

Cl ea rly , im po sitio n of th e un ne ce ss ar y an d du pl ic at iv e dr ed ge an d fill per m it re qu irem en ts 

now co ntem pl at ed by th e Cor ps of Eng in ee rs wo uld ru n di re ct ly co un te r to th e spe cific 

re quirem en ts of Se ction 1 01(f ).
692

prospect of serious disrup tions to its forest operations as a result of the inevitable 

delay s involved in the bureaucratic processing of these individual permit applications.

To remedy this situation we urge you to sup port the Wright Amendment to 

H.R. 9560, the House version of “The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1976.” Congressman Wright’s amendm ent, which has now passed 

the House, is embodied in Section 16 of S. 2710, one of the bills now pending before 

the Public Works Committee.

Congressman Wright’s proposal would Tedefine th e term “navigable waters of 

the United States” in a manner consistent with the historic and lim ited jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers over such waters.4

 Further, the Amendment would 

remove normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities from those activities 

subject to the Corps’ autho rity , thereby eliminating thre e principal sources of 

potentially burdensome and unnecessary regulation und er Section 4C4.® Finally, 

the Wright Amendment correctly recognizes th at the States have a legitimate 

role to play in the regulation of dredge and fill activities within their borders, an 

essential step to more rational und effective managem ent of this Program in the 

future.®

For these reasons, we urge you to vote for the Wright Amendment as now 

embodied is Section 16 of S. 2710.

Very truly yours,

R obert E. Free r, Jr.

Staff Vice President and

Washington Counsel.

Annapolis, Md., July SO, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator: Please include this with testim ony for th e record of the hearings 

of July 27-28 on Section 404 of the Clean Wate r Act.

The Hart amendment to the Clean Water Act, S. 2710 should lie sup ported as 

representing the best interests of all the people! Governm ent officials are wrong 

if they judge the people’s best interests in term s of the clamo r made by special 

interests. Inevitab ly, vast numbers of people are uninformed or unable to be 

beard. It is the moral responsibility of our legislators and people who take time to 

speak up to be heard for the vast majority of the people whose heritage is at stake!

Please permit as many groups and individuals to testify as possible.

Sincerely,

Carol M. Kirk.

Bosque F arms, N. Mex., July S3, 1976. Hon. J ennings R andolph,

S151 Dirksen Senate Building, Capitol Hill, D.C.

Public Law 92-500 Section 404—best wetlands protectio n ever—oppose 

ame ndm ents—please read into hearing record.

Mr. and Mrs. J ohn B. Kunz.

‘ Th e W righ t Am en dm en t to S. 2710 rede fin es th e term "n av ig ab le w at er s” ns fo llo w s: 

“ Th e term •navigable w at er s’ as used in th is se ction sh al l mea n al l w at er s wh ich ar e 

pre se ntly use d, or are su sc ep tibl e to us e In th eir n atu ra l co nd itio ns or by re as on ab le im ­

pr ov em en t as n mea ns to tr a n sp o rt in te rs ta te or foreign comm erc e sh or ew ar d to th eir 

ord in ar y high w ate r mark. In cl ud in g al l w at er s wh ich are su bje ct to th e ebb an d flow 

of th e tide sh or ew ar d to th eir mea n high w at er m ar k (m ea n hig her high w at er m ar k on 

th e wes t co ast) .”

Se e Se ction 16(b ) of S. 271 0 ad din g a new Se ction 4 0 4 (d )( 1 ) to th e KWP CA.

‘ Se e Section 16 (b ) of S. 271 0. ad din g a new Se cti on 4 0 4 (d )( 1 ) to th e W at er A ct: 

"T he di sc ha rg e of dred ge d or fill m at er ia l— (1 ) fro m no rm al fa rm in g, si lv ic ul tu re , an d 

ra nch in g ac tivitie s, includ in g, b u t not lim ite d to. plo wing , te rr ac in g, cu ltiv at in g, seeding , 

an d har ves ting f or p ro du ct io n of foo d, fiber, an d fo re st p ro du ct s ;

* • • • * • • 

is no t pr oh ib ite d or ot he rw ise su bj ec t to re gul at io n un der t his Act .”

• S ee Se cti on 16 (b ) of S. 2710, ad di ng new Se ctio ns 404 (f ) an d (g ) to th e FW PC A.
L andels, R ip i ey & D ia m o n d ,

San Francisco, Calif., Ju ly SO, 1976.

Re Senate oversight hearings with respe ct to section 404 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act.

H o n . J e n n in g s R a n d o ip h ,

Chairman, Committee on Public IT o ri x, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: This firm represents Leslie Salt Co. which is located in Newark, California near San Francisco. We request th at this lette r be 

made a pa rt of the record of the current Senate Oversight Hearings concerning 

Section 404 of the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act.

Leslie Salt Co. owns and operates a solar salt production company on lands 

adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. Leslie owns approximately 45,000 acres of 

land, 36,000 of which are utilized for salt production through solar evaporation. 

The remaining lands constitute areas which are no longer in salt prod uctio n and 

which are located in industrially developed areas suitable for development. A 

small portion of th e lands constitute open marsh.

Leslie Salt Co. and its predecessors have been engaged in salt production in the 

present location for approximately 100 years. Leslie is a major producer of salt 

and currently produces one million tons of crude sal t per year from its San Francisco 

Bay facilities. The salt is marketed throughout California and the northwestern 

state s. Seventy percen t of Leslie’s salt productio n is utilized for industrial pu rposes; 20% for food production and canning; and 10% for agricultural and 

livestock uses. Leslie employs approximate ly 535 people in its San Francisco Bay 

operations and has invested more tha n $18 million in its s alt productio n facilities.

The lands upon which Leslie cu rren tly engages in its salt productio n activities 

were all conveyed by the United States to the Sta te of California pursuant to the 

Arkansas Swamp Act of 1850 (43 U.S.C. § 982, et seq.) for the purpose of facilitati ng the construction of levees and reclamation. Thereaf ter sucn lands were 

reclaimed, and in fact, their conveyance into private ownership was conditioned 

upon reclam ation of such lands by purchasers.

Reclamation of these lands commenced in the late 1800’s. By 1920 virtually all 

of Leslie’s lands had been reclaimed. Following their initial reclamation which 

consisted of c onstruction of levees and drains, most of the lands were devoted to 

agric ultural use with some being devoted to salt production. Over the vears, the 

lands have been converted from agricultural use to salt production. *The solar 

salt productio n process involves the pumping of salt water from the bay into the 

enclosed ponding areas where the w ater is perm itte d to e vaporate over a pe riod of 

five years.

Although the land s owned by Leslie were marshlands in their natural state, 

they have not existed in th at condition for at leas t 75 years. During that period 

of time the y have n ot been subject to any tida l influence. The lands all lie above 

the line of mean high water and did so in the ir natura l state.

Prior to 1972, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers exercised jurisdiction for 

dredging a nd filling in th e San Francisco Bay by virtue of Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899. The Corps of Engineers followed the trad itio nal concepts of the definition of “navigable waters of the United States” in implementing 

th at program and did not claim jurisdiction over marshland and former marshland areas. Commencing in 1972, the San Francisco District of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers commenced a policy of exercising regulatory jurisdiction over 

not only existing marshlands but also lands which were former marshlands. The 

basis for extending jurisdiction over these areas was a new jurisdictional guideline defining the shoreward limit of a navigable water on the Pacific Coast as 

being “mean higher high water.”

Shortly after the San Francisco District of the Corps of Engineers ado pted the 

policy described above, the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (FW PCA ), and in particular Section 404, came into existence. As you 

know, the Corps of Engineers has adopted a series of regulations defining its regulatory autho rity pursu ant to Section 404. For all practical purposes, Section 404 

has replaced Section 10 of th e Rivers and Harbors Act insofar as th e regulation of 

dredging and filling is concerned. Under Section 404, the Corps has adopted regulations a nd has imple mented a policy which extends its jurisdiction over not only 

existing marshland areas but also lands which were formerly marsh bu t which
694

have been reclaimed for almost a cen tury and are now dry lands o r self-contained 

ponds th at are periodically artificially filled with water. The salt ponds of Leslie 

Salt Co. would be dry land if wa ter was n ot pumped into the ponding areas

Leslie Salt Co. does not object to the extension of jurisdiction over existing 

marshlands which it believes should be protected and reta ined in their natural 

state. However, the Corps in implementing its supposed authority under Section 

404 has extended jurisdiction to lands th at were formerly marshlands for reasons 

th at are wholly unrelated to water quality. Leslie, for example, obtains perm its 

under Section 402 of the FWPCA of all discharges into th e San Francisco Bay or 

into any other waterw ay. The EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control 

Board which implement Section 402 in the San Francisco Bay area, do not consider Leslie Salt s ponding areas or its dry lands to be within the ir jurisdiction. 

The Corps, however, has claimed jurisdiction over these areas by adopting a 

strained definition of “ navigable waters” .

The Corps of Engineers has adopted a definition of “navigable waters” for the 

purpose of Section 404 of the FWPCA for the purpose of extend ing its ju risdiction 

to dry land areas or areas which do not in any way affect water quality. The 

principal reason for the Corps extending jurisdiction is for land use regulation. 

This is illustrated by the fact th at dredging and filling (including the filling of 

Leslie’s ponds) are regulated by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Developm ent Commission, an agency of the State.

The principal shortcoming of the FWPCA which has led to the excesses of the 

Corps in its implem entation of Section 404 is the definition of “ navigable waters”. 

Th at definition has been construed by the Corps to include areas th at are not 

“waters” bu t are dry land. This has been achieved by using a definition of historic 

or former “mean higher high wa ter” as being the boundary of a navigable water 

on the Pacific Coast for the purposes of defining Corps’ jurisdiction. This definition 

ignores well-established legal principles for defining navigable waters which limit 

the boundaries of such w aters on the Pacific as well as the Atlantic Coast to mean 

high water. By using the definition of navigable waters as the vehicle to extend its 

jurisdiction, the Corps has sought to impress all lands below mean higher high 

water with the “navigational servitude” , which is akin to an easement. This in 

effect creates an interest in the lands in favor of the federal government th at has 

hereto fore never existed and which could conceivably perm it the federal government to cause private improvements to be removed and facilities to be constructed 

by the federal government withou t the paymen t of compensation to the owner.

Many misleading stat ements have been made with respect to the justification 

for the use of “mean higher high wa ter ” on the Pacific Coast. I think it should be 

pointed out th at only one out of every seven high tides on the average on the 

Pacific Coast ever reaches the level of mean higher high water. Use of “mean 

higher high water” on the Pacific Coast would be akin to using only the average 

of the highest tides th at occur every month on the Atlan tic Coast as the mean s 

for determining the boundaries of a water body.

The principal vice of using “mean higher high water” as the definition of 

“navigable waters” is its effect upon lands which were formerly below mean 

higher high water, bu t which have been reclaimed for many years. In other 

words, it is the use of former mean higher high water rathe r than present mean 

higher high water t ha t creates severe hardship.

Leslie supp orts the concept of the FWPCA, th at is, a comprehensive and 

enforceable scheme for cleaning up and protecting the nation’s waters. Likewise 

Leslie believes that the protectio n of existing wetlands is necessary and desirable. 

However, we do not believe th at it was th e intent of Congress in enacting Section 

404 of the FWPCA to provide a vehicle for the Corps of Engineers to exercise 

land' use regulation for purposes unrela ted to water quality.

We suggest th at if Congress wishes to protect existing wetlands through the 

FWPCA, th at it specifically deal with th at question rather than attem pting to 

encompass wetlands within the FW PCA by expanding th e definition of “navigable 

waters” . The effect of dealing with the wetlands problem in this manner is to 

bring within Corps’ jurisdiction many lands which are no longer wetlands as well 

as many areas which have no effect on water quality.

We respectfully requ est th at Congress consider amendments to the FWPCA 

which will make it clear th at Congress is not inten ding to regu late areas which 

may have been marshlands many years ago, or which may have been wate rs 

many years ago, b ut which are curren tly d ry lands a nd areas which do not affect 

water quality. This can be accomplished bv limiting jurisdiction of the Corps 

und er Section 404 to areas on the Pacific Coast th at are currently subject to
695

tidal inundation. Such an amendment would protect wetlands as well as other 

tidal areas but would not subject former marsh areas to Corps’ jurisdiction.

Thank you for considering our position.

Very truly yours,

Edgar B. Washburn.

League of Women Voters of the United States,

W ashington, D.C., Ju ly 26, 1976.

lion. Jennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Wor ks,

4204 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The League of Women Voters of the United States 

urges you to reject amendments to Section 404 of the 1972 Water Pollution 

Control Act tha t would eliminate protection of our nation’s wetlands.

With over half of our nation’s wetlands already destroyed by dumping of 

dredging materials and filling for development, we cannot afford to lose the 

remainder. With only minimal legislative changes, the permit program already 

developed by the Corps of Engineers in its July 1975 regulations can give these 

vital resources the protection they deserve and need.

Any amendment tha t limits a dredge and fill permit program to waters used 

for interstate commerce will eliminate protection for 80 percent of our inland 

and coastal wetlands. Similarly, exempting federal activities from Section 404’s 

protection creates the potential for many of the largest dredge and fill programs 

to proceed without adequate environmental safeguards.

The regulations developed by the Corps in July 1975 have already addressed 

many of the concerns about excessive federal regulation. If Section 404 is to be 

amended, the League urges you to incorporate those regulatory provisions into 

law.

Proposed changes in law should include authority for a general permit to be 

used for minimal or environmentally insignificant discharges of dredge or fill 

material; the exemption of normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities from 

permit requirements, and the retention of federal authority over the activities 

that would most significantly affect the nation’s water resources.

The existing Corps’ regulations give the states a significant role in determining 

whether a permit for proposed dredge or fill discharges should be granted. Any 

major changes in this federal-state relationship will only introduce new bureaucratic and judicial delays in the program and create inconsistencies within the 

Water Pollution Control Act.

Our nation’s ecologically and economically vital wetlands cannot afford further 

assaults. The League therefore strongly urges you to reject crippling amendments 

to Section 404.

Sincerely,

R uth C. Clusen, President.

, J ean Anderson,

Environmental Qua lity Chairman.

League of Women Voters of Houston,

Houston, Tex., Ju ly 16, 1976.

Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr.,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator B aker: The League of Women Voters of Houston is concerned 

abou t proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 

P.L. 92-500. Of particular concern to us is the proposed revision of Section 404 

of P.L. 92-500. Section 404 requires th at a permit be obtained, through the Army 

Corps of Engineers, for dredge and fill operations in the navigable waters of the 

United States. This section is, in our view, the principle regulatory protection of 

our nation’s wetlands, some 46% of which have already been lost to dredge and 

fill operations. Wetlands, be they marsh, swamp or bay, coastal or inland, serve a 

variety of roles: buffer areas for flood and storm water, filters for pollutants which 

run off surrounding lands, hatcheries and nurseries for fish and shellfish, breeding 

and nesting areas for birds and mammals. We urge you to oppose any efforts to 

limit the application of Section 404 until there has been an accumulation of 

practical experience with the Corps of Engineers’ recent regulations thereunder.
696

Other amendments to Section 404 would delegate dredge and fill permit a uth ority to the individual state s. No s tandards or guidelines for the delegation of such 

author ity are, however, proposed or provided for. There are many states which 

have no wetlands program and, of those which do, there is no uniformity of 

approach. We ask th at you oppose any such piecemeal approach to the protection 

of our vital and fas t disappearing wetlands.

In the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Congress expressly designated 

the National Commission on Wate r Quality as the vehicle for comprehensive 

study and review of the imp act and implementation of the goals of th at Act. We 

urge th at the rep ort of th at Commission be studied and considered by the Congress and th at no amendm ents be adopted until th at has been accomplished. 

Legislation as vita l to our nation as P.L. 92-500 deserves no less.

Sincerely,

Madeleine Appel, President.

Columbia, Md., July 27, 1!)76.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am writing to say th at I am strongly in favor of 

the Hart amendment to the Clean Water Act (S. 2710)—we need Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and I would like this lett er included in the testimony at 

the July 27-28 hearings. I feel th at as many groups as possible should be allowed 

to testify at those hearings, whenever they are held.

Sincerely,

V. II. Levering.

Statement of Major China Clay Producers in Support of R epeal or Amendment of Section 404 of the Federal Water P ollution Control Act

statement of position

The china clay industry will be severely and adversely affected if the Army 

Corps of Engineers is permitted to commence Phase II and Phase II I of its 

proposed regulation of dredge and fill activ ities pursu ant to section 404 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Unless Congress enacts immediate legislative 

relief, china clay mines mu st either curtail their activities drastically or risk 

operating in violation of federal law. To prevent this result, as well as for other 

significant reasons set forth below, the major United States producers of china 

clay strongly urge prompt legislative action th at eith er eliminates section 404 

from the Act or, in the alte rnative , adop ts Congressman Wright’s amendment, 

section 10 of II. R. 9500, or other legislation specifically exempting china clay 

production from the Corps’ dredge and fill regulations.

SU M M AR Y O F N E E D FO R A M END M EN T O F SEC TIO N 404

China clay lies near the surface of the soil. It is generally found well inland" 

far removed from waters th at are actually navigable and from “wetlands” closely 

situated to those waters. Mining areas for china clay can encompass hundreds of 

acres, and the mining operatio ns themselves require grading, building of roads 

and bridges, contouring, impounding of waters, and other activities similar to 

those which mig ht occur on a large farm or ranch. Typically, the mining area is 

trav ersed by many small creeks and streams, which, as the mining progresses, 

mu st be crossed, redirected, or otherwise temporarily affected by the mining 

operations. Once the mining has been completed, the land is reclaimed in accordance with stringe nt standard s established by state law.

Decisions affecting these small creeks are frequently required in the normal 

course of mining operations, and it is not uncommon th at those decisions must 

be made with less tha n one day’s notice. For example, mining equipment often 

mu st be moved across creeks or drainage areas to oth er areas being mined or 

reclaimed. This necessitates the construction of tem porary roads and crossings. 

In its present form, section 404 requires companies tha t mine china clay to obtain 

advance permits from the Corps for the construction of each such road and 

crossing.

Numerous other clay mining activities will also require permits from the 

Corps, including the tem porary storage of overburden removed during mining, 

the reclam ation of certain areas, and even the construction and maintenance of 

impounds in order to effect sed iment control and to comply with National Pollu-
697

tion Discharge Elimination System permits issued under other provisions of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (A more detailed description of mining 

activities that would require section 404 permits is contained in the Appendix to 

this statement.)

For the reasons summarized below, requiring permits for these types of mining 

activities would place an unreasonable burden on the china clay industry, would 

produce little or no environmental benefit, and would constitute an unnecessary 

and therefore unwarranted legislative abdication to administrative law-making.

1. The regulations promulgated by the Corps pursuant to section 404 require

S

ennit applications for many of the day-to-day activities of china clay mining.

>y the Corps’ most conservative estimate, the processing of each application will 

take at least six months to one year. Unless Congress takes prompt legislative 

action on section 404, china clay mines must either curtail their activities significantly or risk operating in violation of federal law.

2. The negative effects of suspending mining operations for china clay would 

be far-reaching. Not only is china clay a principal ingredient in many essential 

products, but the industry itself is an economic mainstay of many rural areas, 

especially in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

3. Moreover, general permits will not alleviate the burdens placed on the 

china clay industry by section 404. First, the approval process for these permits 

will of necessity be quite lengthy. Next, even if the general permit is issued, the 

Corps has admitted that no dredge or fill activity could proceed without the 

Corps’ prior determination that each planned activity falls within the general 

permit. Each of these determinations themselves could entail weeks of delay.

4. Applying section 404 to the china clay industry will result in little or no 

benefit to the environment. These mines are located well inland, far removed 

from the critical and ecologically sensitive coastal wetlands. Furthermore, the 

industry is already effectively and extensively regulated by environmental laws 

of both the state and federal governments.

5. Congress never intended section 404 to give the Corps authority to regulate 

dredge and fill operations in all waters of the United States. To assert tha t one 

relatively obscure legislative provision mandated such a comprehensive regulatory 

program strains credulity.

6. The Corps’ regulations, which were necessitated by the decision of a federal 

district court, have converted section 404 into a wetlands protection act. Whether 

our nation is willing to pay the costs of regulating all wetlands is beside the point; 

careful consideration of this complex and important issue must be a prerequisite 

to the enactment of such an all-encompassing regulatory scheme. Congress 

should be the architect of any major wetlands protection legislation, not the 

Corps of Engineers.

R E G U LA TIO N AS PR O PO SED BY T H E CO RPS O F E N G IN E E R S ’ R EG U LA TIO N S W OULD B E 

UND U LY B U R D E N SO M E

The Corps has designed an administrative procedure for section 404 permits 

tha t would require each mining company to submit a massive amount of paperwork before it could perform many of its normal daily activities. For example, 

in order to secure a permit to ford a stream with a single piece of mining equipment, a company would need to obtain: (1) a state certification th at the specific 

proposed project will comply fully with the provisions of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act and its regulations; (2) state approved reclamation plans; 

(3) an “Environmental Assessment” and perhaps an “Environmental Impact 

Statem ent” surveying the individual and cumulative effects of any activity 

associated with “any waters of the United States;” (4) an archaeological survey 

of the individual and cumulative areas to be affected; and (5) an application 

specifying the type, composition, and quan tity of the dredged or fill material, 

plans and drawings of the proposed activity, and innumerable other details.

Upon receipt ot this mass of material the Corps then will take, in its best 

estimate, six months to one year to decide whether it will issue a permit allowing 

the mining company to resume its daily operations. Obviously, a company 

cannot continue to operate with a regulatory system tha t requires it to obtain 

permits for its day-to-day activities. Unless those activities can be planned 

months in advance. It is impossible, however, to plan the daily operations of a 

china clay mine in that manner. Where and when a mining company explores 

mines and reclaims land is dictated not by its own long-range planning, but by 

market demands for varying grades of ore, availability of reserves, discoveries,
698

deple tion of reserves prior to expectation, and a multitude of o ther factors th at 

simply prevent planning equipment moves and mining operations mon ths or 

even weeks ahead of time. Thus, if the Corps’ dredge and fill regulations go into 

effect, the china clay industry mu st significantly curtail mining activities or 

risk operating in violation of federal law.

S U S P E N S IO N O F C H IN A CL AY M IN IN G W OULD H AV E FA R -R E A C H IN G N E G A T IV E 

IN D U S T R IA L AN D EC ONOM IC E F F E C T S

The negative effects of suspending mining operations for china clay would be 

far-reaching. China clay is a necessary raw material for many industries. Its 

principal use is in paper, both as a coating and as a filler, b ut it is also used in a 

wide variety of other products, such as w hitewear (e.g., porcelain, electric insulators, plumbing fixtures), certain refractories, medicines, and fillers for rubber, 

paint, plastics, insecticides, and many other products.

Moreover, any significant cur tailment of china clay mining would have severe 

economic repurcussions in certain areas of the coun try. Although the china clay 

industry is small compared to most other mining industries, it is extrem ely 

important to the economy of many rura l areas, especially in Georgia, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee. It is particula rly important to the economy of Georgia, 

where it accounts for over 50 perc ent of th at state’s mineral productio n value. 

The six principal producers submitting this statem ent have a combined payroll 

of more than $36,000,000 and employ more tha n 3,000 people, the great m ajority 

of whom live in rura l areas whose economies are heavily depe ndent upon the 

china clay industry.

G EN ER A L P E R M IT S AN D AN EX PA N D ED CORPS A RE N O T T H E A NSW ER

Because the Corps has recognized the problems with its dredge and fill permit 

program, it has suggested th at it might be willing to issue “general per mits” . 

Many of the problems described above would still remain, however, even if china 

clay production were to be covered by general permits. First, the approval 

process for these permits would of necessity be quite lengthy. Next, even if a 

general perm it is issued, the Corps has adm itte d th at no dredge or fill activity 

could proceed without the Corp s’ prior dete rmin ation th at each planned activity 

falls within the general perm it. Each of these determinations could entail weeks 

of delay.

On the other hand, there would be little justificatio n for maintain ing this additional level of bureaucracy at public cost if th e Corps were merely to issue these 

general permits in a perfunctory manner to preven t the closing of china clay 

mines. An indication of the expe nditures necessary to fund section 404’s permit 

program is provided by the House Public Works Comm ittee, whose rep ort on 

II.It. 9560 reveals that, absent the exclusion or ame ndm ent of section 404, the 

Corps will have to increase its staff by 600 merely to process the applications. The 

Corps has advised us t ha t its Savannah distric t office, which has jurisdiction over 

many of the china clay mines in Georgia, contemplates adding three new offices

with full staff complements to cover the territory currently served by only the 

one office.

A PP L Y IN G SEC TIO N 404 TO T H E C H IN A CLAY IN D U STR Y W IL L R E SU L T IN LIT T L E 

OR NO B E N E F IT TO T H E EN V IR O N M E N T

Applying section 404 to china clay producers will not yield any significant 

economic benefits. Deposits of the clay are generally found on high ground, 

hundreds of miles removed from waters th at are navigable in fact. As a result, 

the streams and creeks affected by china clay mining activities are generally 

small; most have only an inter mittent flow and are actually depressions or gullies 

th at drain higher surrounding areas. Generally, the “w etlands” in the area of 

the mines are merely lowlands where wate rs running off surrounding higher 

terr ain collect prior to percolation or eventual drainage into a continuous stream. 

Often the “we tlands” simply result from a beaver dam or other ob struction placed 

in a small creek.

Moreover, these mining activities are already heav ily regulated by environmen tally interested agencies at both the federal and sta te levels. Mining discharges, for example, must conform to guidelines established by the Env iron ­

mental Protection Agency and by corresponding sta te agencies. In addition, in 

Georgia and South Carolina, where the industry is centered, state perm its are
699

required for all mining activities and are issued only after a thoro ugh review of 

mining and reclamation plans. This review enables the states to control land use 

and to assure th at any damage to the land is temporary. Sta te laws also pro tect 

coastal marshlands and other ecologically sensitive areas. Mining can not be commenced in these areas withou t permits and is generally excluded altog ether.

Finally, many of the mining activitie s t hat would be su bject to regulation under 

section 404 are presently required in order to protect the environment. For example, 

the overburden from mining is deposited in lowland areas to protect wildlife and 

vegetation existing at higher elevations. The mining companies also establish 

impounds, or settling ponds, to accomplish sediment control. These impounds 

additionally serve to collect plant effluents and thus control pollution created by 

the china clay processing facilities. Diversion of strea ms is also often effected in 

the mining operation in o rder to avoid water pollution; and reclamation of mining 

areas is required by s tate law. While each of these a ctivities is designed to protect 

the environment, they will all be subject to regulation by the Corps unless section 404 is changed or elimin ated.

SEC TIO N 404 W AS N E V E R IN T E N D E D TO G IV E T H E C O R PS T IIE PO W ER TO CONTROL 

DAY-T O-D AY A C T IV IT IE S

Nowhere in the legislative history of section 404 is there any indication th at it 

was inten ded to have the broa d reach and all-encompassing scope given to it by 

the Corps’ current regulations. Yet, given the use of the term s “dredged or fill 

material” and “navigable waters” in section 404, and the broad definition of 

“navigable waters” found later in the Act, the decision in NRD C v. Calloway, 392 F. Supp. 687 (1975) and the Corps’ regulations, although resulting in an 

irrational and unworkable regulatory scheme, cannot be said to be without 

technical foundation. Thus, the courts can not be relied on to corre ct this misinterpreta tion of Congressional intent; inste ad, Congress must act to bring 

section 404 back within manageable proportions.

Because the Corps’ regulations make such fundam ental changes in its powers, 

current proposals to amend section 404 should not bear the burd en of proving 

their need. To the con trary, the burden should be on the proponents of section 

404 to establish th at the Corps’ regulations are needed. Until the y meet th at 

burden, changes to section 404 should be considered mere technical or perfecting 

amendments designed to correct a situ atio n not contemp lated when the Act was 

passed in 1972.

BRO AD W ETLA N D S P R O T E C T IO N L E G IS LA TIO N , IF N E E D E D , 8H OU LD B E EN A C TED BY

CO N G R ESS A F T E R F U L L C O N S ID E R A T IO N ; IT SHO U LD NOT B E CO N C EIV ED A CCID EN TA LLY IN SECTIO N

Those opposing repea l or amendment of section 404 argue th at wetlands 

protection should not be discarded withou t full investigation. This argu mint 

fails to recognize that, absent repeal or alte ration of section 404, the Corps will 

assume a significant role in land use planning without Congressional authorization. The full and careful legislative consideration needed before the enactm ent 

of such a comprehensive regu latory program was precluded by the und erstandable failure of anyone to predict the interp retation given to section 404 by the 

courts. Thus, if section 404 remains in force as p resently w ritte n, the cou ntry will 

be deprived of this requisite consideratio n and will be faced with a Corps of 

Engineers th at has, by accident, become vested with more power over the daily 

activities of many Americans tha n almost any other federal agency.

Perhaps this cou ntry needs a “Wetlands Protection Act;” maybe it is even 

willing to absorb the costs of having mining and other industries regulated by 

the Corps on an almost daily basis. However, if such all-pervasive legislation is 

to be enacted, it ought to be enacted by considered choice, and not by a court’s 

technical inte rpretation of a complex act or by the rambling regulations of an 

agency.

C O R R EC TIV E L E G IS LA TIO N S U PPO R TED BY T H E C H IN A CLAY IN D U STR Y

The china clay producers filing this sta tem ent believe th at there are three 

legislative alternative s th at would correct the problems faced by their industry. 

These are as follows:

(a) Elimination of Section 404-— The elimination of section 404 would preclude 

the Corps from effecting Phase II and Phase II I of its comprehensive dredge

76-161— 76------ 45
700

and fill regulations, thus giving Congress an opp ortu nity to investigate fully the 

desirability of a federal wetlands protection program. If this investigation reveals 

a need for such a regu latory program, Congress can then enac t appropriate legislation th at clearly delineates the scope of federal regulatory power.

If Congress chooses to strike section 404, it should make clear its inte ntion to 

forestall any comprehensive wetlands management program until it has studied 

the ma tte r fully. This would preven t the elimination of section 404 from being 

interp reted as authorizing the Environm ental Protection Agency to regulate all 

dredge and fill a ctivities under section 402 of th e Act.

(b) The Wright Amendment, Section 16 to II.R . 9560.—The House proposal is a 

compromise, bu t a workable one. It restricts the autho rity of the Corps to areas 

in which it has both the expertise and the manpower to carry out its new duties. 

By limiting the Corps as it does, the W right Amendment also succeeds in relieving 

it of its virtual nationwide land use control powers and eliminates many of the 

ridiculous intrusions of the Corp s’ regulations into areas such as the mining of 

china clay.

On the other hand, the Wright Amendment is flexible. Under its terms, waters 

or wetlands of the United States could be made subject to regulation pursuant 

to a joint agreement between the Corps and the sta te in which the areas to be 

regu lated are found. Thus, the Wright Amendment allows for the protectio n of 

all important waters and wetlands, while avoiding overregulation by the Federal 

Government.

(c) Exempted Activities Amendments.— Amendments to section 404 have been 

proposed th at will eliminate “no rmal” agric ultural and silvicultural activ ities 

from its coverage. Such proposals clearly favor certain groups over others even 

though their activities may have similar effects on the environment. For th at 

reason, any specific activities exemption approach to amending section 404 m ust 

be constitutionally and otherwise suspect. If, however, such an approach is 

followed i t ought to be expanded to cover all activities, such as ch ina clay mining, 

th at have little or no impact upon the nation’s aquatic system. In any event, 

water pollution control activities, certain “de minimis” activities, and the temporary disturbance of “navigable” waters, when subject to reclam ation requirements, ought to be excluded from the operation of section 404. Specifically, we 

propose th at the following activities be excluded from th e operation of section 404:

(1) The discharge of any dredged or fill material for the purpose of constructing 

or main taining impounds or other pollution control facilities and ditches or berms 

or similar facilities designed for the protection of waters from pollution or the diversion of waters from areas in which the y are likely to become polluted;

(2) The discharge of any dredged or fill materials during the construction of 

roads, bridges, crossings, or oth er facilities over or through streams having a flow 

und er normal conditions of less than 100 cubic feet per second; and

(3) The discharge of any dredged or fill material pursu ant to the conduct of 

any activity specifically subject to state or federal regulations calling for the 

reclamation of the affected area in a m anner consistent with contiguous properties 

and the discharge of any dredged or fill mate rial during the course of any such 

reclamation.

CONCLUSI ON

For each of th e reasons sta ted above, it is appare nt th at Congress should take 

some legislative action to correct the situation th at exists under the Corps’ regulatio ns promulgated pur suant to section 404. We have outlined three, alte rna tive 

approaches, any one of which would alleviate the serious problems now facing china 

clay producers. Our great concern, however, is th at because of a difference as to the 

prefe rred approach Congress will fail to take any action in time to preven t the 

forced curtailmen t of china clay mining activities by the impleme ntation of Phase 

II and Phase II I of the present regulations. We therefore urgently request th at 

Congress act decisively now to enact one of the three legislative approaches outlined above.

Subm itted by Suth erland, Asbill and Brennan on behalf of: American 

Industrial Clay and Georgia Kaolin Divisions of Y ara Engineering 

Corp.; Anglo-American Clays Co.; Engelha rd Minerals and 

Chemicals Corp.; Free port Kaolin Division of Freepo rt Minerals 

Co .; J. M. Huber Co rp.; Thiele Kaolin Co.
701

App end ix

TY PICA L CH INA CLAY MIN IN G AC TIVI TI ES TH AT WOULD REQ UIR E SECTION 404 PE RM IT S 

UN DE R PR ESEN T LAW

1. Deposit of Overburden.—China clay mining requires the removal of the top 

layers of soil (called overburden) to expose th e mineral. During mining, most of the 

overburden is backfilled into previously mined o ut areas, bu t some of it is placed 

outside the mining pit. Upon completion of mining, th at overburden is generally 

used as fill, or is graded and contoured in accordance with reclam ation plans. During mining the overburden placed outside the mining pit may be reta ined in surrounding “lowland” areas which, because of their location, may support nat ura l 

drainage or be periodically inundated. Such placement might, in some instances, 

be considered the disposal of “fill” material in a "wetland .”

The placement of overburden in such areas, however, is the only efficient placement from an energy standpoint as well as an economic one. If the overburden 

were placed on higher ground it mig ht cover mineral reserves, requiring it to be 

removed twice in the course of mining, and it might adversely affect valuable agricultural land. On the oth er hand, any adverse effect on “wetlan d” areas by the 

tem porary storage of overburden is not per manen t because applicable mining 

laws require the reclam ation of all affected areas. Finally, from an environmental 

sta ndp oin t it m ust be recognized t ha t in th e inlan d areas where china clay mining 

is conducted the higher elevations sup port valuable wildlife and vegetation at 

least equal to the ecological value of the lower properties. Any regulation th at 

would require overburden placem ent on higher elevations rather tha n in lowlands 

should be supported by information indicating th at one type of property is more 

worthv of protec tion than another.

2. Construction, Use, and Maintenance o f Impounds.— The removal of rain water th at has collected in mine pits and control of runoff from affected areas m ust often 

be controlled if it affects water qua lity in nea rby streams. Such sedimen tation 

control is accomplished by collecting this water in impounds where it is allowed 

to settle and clear prior to discharge. These impo unds are co nstructe d in lowland 

areas to tak e adv antage of natur al drainage. The impounds may requ ire bot h 

dredging and , in th e construction of dams, filling.

Impounds, or settling ponds, also c ons titu te 1977 BPCTCA and 1983 BATE A 

for the discharges from china clay processing facilities. These impounds are eith er 

entirely man-made or constructed by damm ing lowland areas. They often exceed 

100 acres in size. Pollution control results from settlin g of plant effluent in these 

impounds. Nevertheless, represen tatives of the Corps’ Savannah office have 

indicated th at such settlin g would con stitute the discharge of fill material into 

a “ navigable water.”

In order to preserve the life of these impounds, the y may be dredged with the 

dredged spoil being used to increase their freeboard. The alte rna tive to periodically 

increasing the capacity of these impounds in this manner would be to abandon 

“filled” im pounds a nd construc t new ones, thus affecting more acreage. Nev ertheless, under section 404 and the Corps’ regulations, such maintenance of impounds 

will require Corps approval an d permitting.

In short, prio r to the construction, use, or mainten ance of a pollution control 

facility designed to meet what has been defined und er the Act as “be st available 

technology economically achievable,” the activity will have to be permitted by 

the Corps.

3. Construction of Roads and Bridges.—The mining properties cover sub stantial 

acreages t hat must be improved to permit access to vehicles; for this reason, the 

companies build a sub stantial num ber of roads. These roads often cross small 

strea ms, drain age areas, lowlands th at may hold stan ding water after large 

rains, and other areas th at could conceivably be considered “navigable waters” 

und er the present definition applied to section 404 by the distric t cou rt th at 

ordered the prom ulgation of the present proposed regulations of the Corps. 

Because of the prevalence of such areas, Corps approval would probably be 

required under section 404 each time th at a company moves its equipment into 

a new area.

4. Stream Diversion.—Streams may run throug h or nearby mine areas. In such 

instances, to avoid polluting a stream, it may be diverted. Such activity would 

require a Corps permit und er present section 404.
702

5. Reclamation.— All acreage affected by the mining operations must be reclaimed. This could involve grading walls around man-made lakes, with a conseque nt discharge of fill material, or removing dams or berms in wetland areas. 

It could involve replacing stre am beds and otherwise redirectin g water flows in 

order to comply with reclamation plans required by sta te authorities. It almo st 

always requires moving heavy e quipment in, around, and over creeks and lowland 

areas. All such activities, even if conducted in accordance with sta te approved 

plans, would also have to be approved by the Corps under present section 404.

Wachapreague, Va., Ju ly 27, 1976.

Se na tor J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

D ear Senator J ennings: I heartedly support the Har t ame ndment to the 

Clean Water Act, now numbered S. 2710. This sta tem ent is to be considered as 

testimo ny and included for the record of the hearing of Jul y 27-28, 1976 on 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

I sup port the Ha rt amendm ent for the following reasons: (1) It is very prema ture to amend Section 404 and no hearings should be held nor amendments 

considered until after the full three-phase program has gone into affect; (2) the 

proposed Senate Hart-Cleveland Amendment is preferable to the Wright-Breaux 

House Amendment because it would address those issues mistaken ly raised by 

those who oppose furth er regulation under the sectio n; it would write into law 

the exemptions and general permit program already set for Phases II and II I in 

the regulations, and it would provide a progress report for th e Congress to review 

at the end of the next year; (3) wetland areas are valuable for their capabilities 

to break down and remove quantitie s of pollutants such as nutrie nts and organic 

wastes from their trib utaries, to store flood wate rs and to feed and nutur e the 

lower end of th e food chain; (4) the House amendm ent would stop the Section 404 

program from controlling the discharge of polluted dredged materials into tributaries of drinking water supplies th at do not happen to fall within the House’s 

narrowed definition of “ navigable waters” .

I also think tha t other groups should be perm itted to testif y during the hearings. 

Sincerely,

J ames W. MacF arland.

Palo Alto, Calif., July 23, 1976.

Re Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear S enator R andolph: Please consider this letter to be pa rt of the hearin g 

record on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

I believe that the Corps of Engineers should be given an opportu nity to implement their 3-phase program for 404, before any amendments or hearings on 

amendments are considered. It is difficult to give reliable and com petent tes timony 

on the status of a program no t yet implemented.

It has been my experience, and the record shows, th at the Corps of Engineers 

is a responsive, professional, well-managed agency, and has a reputation since 

1899 of being reasonable to permit-seekers. I see no evidence th at the Corps has 

suddenly become unreasonable and unable to responsibly manage th e 404 program.

Most recently, their adm inistrative procedures have allowed for abbreviated, 

sho rt cut approvals for minor work in navigable waters, and for general perm its 

for similar classes of projects, thereby eliminating any possibility of unnecessary 

“red tap e” . The Corps’ extensive expertise in construction management, project 

economics and scheduling, water quality, navigation, and environmental concerns 

att racte d the attention of Congress when this program was first entrusted t o the 

Corps. It would be reasonable to continue t ha t trust and m and ate until the Corps 

has had an opportu nity to fully implement the 404 pro gram th at Congress gave 

the Corps.

One reason for the 404 program was the main tenance of wetlands as fish and 

waterfowl hab itat , as the basis for feeding the lower p art s of the food chain which 

ultimately reach to all men, as flood storage reservoirs, and as free w ater qua lity
703

filters. The House ame ndm ent would prevent the 404 program ’s necessary control 

of the discharge of pollu ted dredge material into tributaries of drinking water 

supplies, which are not included within the House’s narrow definition of “ navigable 

water” . The House amen dment is counter-p roductive to the Clean D rinking Water 

Act, enacted just last year.

In summ ary, I urge you to reject all amendments until afte r implementa tion 

of the 3-phase 404 program. Anything less could be interprete d as a lack of 

confidence in the Corps of Engineers, which has managed the navigable waters 

program skillfully since 1899.

Yours very truly,

Dr. Robert Mark.

Maryland Wetlands Committee,

Annapolis, Md., Ju ly 26, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: We understan d th at your Committee is considering 

amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Law which would weaken 

federal protectio n of our nation’s wetlands (20-210).

Specifically, the Wright Amendment in this bill would remove current Section 

404 protection from most freshwater wetlands, streams and lakes.

Since the majority of states do not have laws to protect wetland areas, we 

believe th at the federal 404 review and permit process is essential. Even in the 

state of M aryland which has a wetlands law, pressures to dredge and fill wetlands 

are so g reat th at without federal review an d regulation, m any of our most valuable 

wetlands would be lost each year. Also, freshwater wetlands are no t protected 

under the Maryland Wetlands law as they are und er 404.

Wetlands are one of o ur nation ’s greates t natural resources. They filter pollutants from the water, provide Hood protectio n and serve as irreplaceable breeding 

grounds for fish and waterfowl.

Furtherm ore, since wetlands form the base of the food chain essential to life 

in estuaries like the Chesapeak e Bay, our great bays and lakes cannot survive 

without them.

Thus, we urge you to stand firm against any weakening of the Section 404 program.

Ins tea d of the Wright amen dment, please sup port the llart amendment which would 

clarify 404 regulations and authorize general permit programs for projects with 

minimum environmen tal impact.

Sincerely,

Marjorie Beane, Acting Chairperson.

Berlin, Md., July 24, 1976.

Senator J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph : Testimony to be included in the record of the hearing

of July 27-28, 1976 on section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The undersigned 

strongly endorse the Har t Amendment now numbered S2710 and are strongly 

opposed to the Wright-Breaux Amendment, We recommend for your consideration 

a simple authorization bill extending one years funding for the Clean Water Act.

Very truly yours,

Beatrice II. Marty, 

Kenneth B. Marty,

Louis R. Huppman,

Dianne Huppman,

Elizabeth R. II. II uppman, 

George H. Huppman.

Cheney, Wash., July 16, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

My Dear Senator: Please enter my rema rks in the record of th e hearing of

July 27-28, 1976, on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

I would like to go on record as wholeheartedly supporting the present form of

Section 4C4. As a biologist by profession, I understand the importance of w etlands
704

in the natural world. Not only do they provide habit at for wildlife and many 

desirable aquatic organisms, bu t wetlands also serve to remove nutrien ts from 

water courses and therefore act to retard eutrophication in bodies of water fed by 

these streams. Wetlands are thus of th e g reate st im portance to the maintenance of 

water quality. For this reason, I strongly favor reten tion of Section 404.

In my opinion, the Wright Amendment passed by the House in II.R. 9560 is a 

dev asta ting blow to efforts to achieve clean water in our country . I hope th at the 

Senate will not follow a similar path and cave in to the special interests who seek 

to profit by destruction of our few remaining wetlands. I urge the Senate to adopt 

no amendments to Section 404 with the possible exception of the Ha rt Amendment, which simply clarifies the existing regulations.

I apprecia te the fact th at the Senate, unlike the House is holding hearings on 

this ma tte r in an effort to obtain public input.

Very truly yours,

J ames McFarling.

San Diego, Calif., July 15, 1976.

lio n. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public ITor&s Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,

D.C.

Dear M r. Chairman: This is subm itted for the official record of the July 27-28 

hearing on Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The undersigned citizens are interested in stron g regulations for control of discharge of dredge and fill materials in th e waters of the USA, whether navigable or 

not. Two reasons for our interest, based on knowledge of this pa rt of the country, 

follow.

In southern California small local creeks often supply water to the reservoirs 

used for urban drinking supplies. In San Diego County coastal wetlands are of 

great importance as nurseries for the large fishing industry, both commercial and 

recreational.

We urge that Sec. 404 n ot be am ended for the reasons given above. In add it'on, 

we feel amending is untimely ; such action should wait until the entire program 

(all 3 phases) have gone into effect. If cosideration is given to the Hart-Cleveland 

and Wright-Breaux amen dments, we support th e first or Senate one as preferable.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. and Mrs. A. Morley.

Richard R. Nageotte,

Attorney at Law, Ltd.,

Woodbridge, la ., August 13, 1976.

Re Senate Public Works, section 404 hearings

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington,

D.C.

D ear Senator R andolph: This letter is forwarded to you for submission as 

pa rt of the public record concerning itself with the above referenced hearings. In 

discussions with your staff on August 12, 1976, I was advised th at the hearing 

record would be open u ntil August 16, 1976 and tha t the next meeting of your committee is on August 25, 1976. The reasons for my calls and this letter were as a 

resu lt of concern th at the only inp ut to your committee hearings m ight be from professional lobbying environmentalist groups and input received from the general 

public might be limited. Your staff assured me, however, th at you have received a 

broa d range of comments concerning the section 404 amendments. As an attorn ey, 

I have been involved with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and o ther 

governmental agencies in the ar ea of dredge an d fill projects since 1971. I have also 

represente d individuals charged w ith dredge and fill violations in the federal court 

in Norfolk, Virginia.

My past involvement in these areas as an atto rne y is a great source of personal 

concern. I have observed over the years a continued expansion of federal jurisdiction into areas which I consider to be an unconstitutional taking of property without jus t compensation and in violation of due process of law. I have seen both 

government agencies and environmental groups oppose activities of individuals 

and corporations not for compelling environmental reasons bu t solely because 

they represented a profit motive in the priv ate sector. I have been involved with
705

governmental agencies and environm ental groups which voice opposition to projects ithou t ever havin g seen the projects or genuinely understanding the environmental impacts involved. I have seen a great deal of personal and financial resources wasted a3 a result of “ bureaucratic red tape” and delays which in some 

instances have been accompanied by a requirement to comp ly with everch anging 

rules, regulations and legislation in this area. In one instanc e alone, I have been 

involv ed for over five years in an attempt to obtain a permit from the Army 

Corps of Engineers and this m atter has still no t been concluded. I have seen or been 

made aware of instances in which dredge and fill permits are granted to some and 

denied to others without apparent relationship to environme ntal considerations. I 

have seen some evidence tha t persons opposing the philosophy of some governmental agencies are subjected to greater pressures includ ing unmerited criminal 

and civil prosecution while others are left to do as they please.

As a practicing attor ney all of the above practices which seem to accom pany 

legislation with its associated bureaucratic administration cause ine a great 

deal of concern. As an American, I am very much concerned about our environment. However, I feel that the methods and manner in which environmental 

questions are addressed leads to a perpetua tion of the above listed practices 

and in the end can only be detrimental to sincere environm ental efforts. When 

the practices tha t I have listed above become so severe, the pendulum will shift 

by legislation or otherwise and in the end the environment will suffer.

I have a number of ideas which I think make sense in an effort of wetlands 

preservation. The current system of atte mpting to extend jurisdiction of governmental agencies and then by the granting or denial of permits refuse to an 

individual or corporation its constitution al right to use its property under the 

guise of a public trust argum ent are in my opinion, uncon stitutional and counterproductive. As a first step to any wetlands policy , I would require tha t the avai lable wetlands for preservation be categorized. The w etlands while a valua ble asset 

to the environm ent are as other assets more or less product ive and valuab le 

given a number of economic and environmental reasons. Once the wetlands 

have been categorized to the point tha t identification can be made of those havin g 

sufficient value to be preserved, a governm ent policy could be established to 

insure their preservation withou t interference with the constitution al rights of 

the owners. A system of tax credits could be established for those persons who 

would voluntarily relinquish development of their wetlands. Watermen and 

persons deriving their source of income from the benefit of the wetlands, unlike 

farmers, do not b uy cultiva te or pay real es tate taxes on the land from which they 

derive their income. A reasonable tax could be placed upon watermen and persons 

deriving their income from the fishing indus try, which tax would of necessity 

be passed on to the consumer and the proceeds of tha t tax could be used for the 

establishment of a wetlands preservation fund. This fund could be used either 

independently by the governm ent or in association with other funds such as the 

Natu re Conservatory of Alexandria, Virg inia to purchase wetlands which would 

preserve them in their natur al state. This approach would spread the cost of 

wetlands preservation over the general public tha t derives its income from the 

fishing industry and consumes the products rather than place an inequitab le 

burden of wetlands preservation upon those few property owners owning and 

paying taxes on wetlands. In addition to the above suggestions, I have a number 

of others which I think would be of benefit to those whose genuine concern is 

preservation of sufficiently productive wetland areas without the need for extensive bureaucratic involvement and uncon stitutional taking of lands of private 

citizens.

While I recognize tha t the above indic tmen t of the current system and suggestions for a viable w etlands policy are necessarily generally set out because they 

are offered in letter form, I would be most happ y to cooperate with you or your 

committee or any members of your staff in an effort to more fully appraise you 

of my feelings c oncerning the current status of the wetlands policy and suggestions 

for a more viable future wetlands policy. It is m y continued hope t ha t this future 

policy will not be built around a more cumbersome bureaucratic administration 

under the guise of permit requirements brou ght about by extension of federal 

jurisdiction into areas in volv ing the rights of private citizens.

If I can be of further inform ation or assistance to you in this regard, please 

do not hesitate to call upon me.

With kindest regards, I remain 

Very cordially yours,

R ic hard R . N a g e o t t e.
706

N atio na l Ass o cia tio n o f H ome B u il d e r s,

W ashington, D.C., Ju ly 29, 1976.

H o n . J e n n in g s R a n d o lph ,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Was hington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This statem ent is submitted on behalf of the 79,000 

member firms of the National Association of Home Builders for the record of th e 

hearings on the imp act of the Army Corps of Engineers regulations issued pursua nt to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).

NAHB, the trade association of the home building indu stry, is seriously concerned with the impact th at these regulations, especially Phase II I, will have on 

residential construction. As presently written the regulations will require, after 

July 1, 1977, perm its from the Corps in order to dredge or fill in waters with a 

flow ra te of greate r tha n 5 cubic feet per minute or an area greate r than five acres 

and the adjacent and contiguous wetlands. There are many activities which are 

normally done to transform raw’ land into building sites which will require perm its 

from the Corps under the proposed regulations. Any dredging of a small stream, 

within the definition of navigable waters, which is done to alter its course, or 

reduce th e possibility th at it could overflow and flood nearby homes will require a 

permit from the Corps. So, too, will the diversion or p artial impoundm ent of such 

a strea m if natural materials are used. Additionally, the regulations will require 

perm its to fill in any marshy areas which are contiguous to navigable waters, 

including filling done to elevate river banks as a means of property protection. 

In those areas of the cou ntry w’hich enjoy an abundance of streams and tribu ­

taries, these are very common operations. Requiring perm its in order to carry 

them out will cause unnecessary and costly delays in construction. These delays 

will mean higher prices for consumers as the costs of developing land are driven 

upward.

The time delay from initial land acquisition to the star t of construction is a 

majo r facto r in determining the cost of a construction project. Subdivision development requires a series of discretion ary action s by local, sta te and often 

federal agencies which rare ly can be coordinated to occur simultaneously. The 

resu lt is delay while each agency’s approval is sought. A study by the Construction 

Ind ustry Research Board has translated time delay into dollars. The 1975 study 

found th at each clay’s delay between acquiring the land an d applying for a building 

perm it added $14 to cost of a $30,000 home and $24 to the cost of a $50,000 home. 

This same stu dy reported t hat the average delay between acquisition and applying 

for a building perm it in developing areas such as Southern California, Colorado, 

and Washington, DC, was more than 18 months. Any delays th at applying for a 

Section 404 pe rmit would cause would be in addition to this average figure since 

the land improvements which would require a perm it are among the first ones done 

by a builder in order to prepare the lot for construction . With the average price 

of a single family home now in excess of $43,000, a ny regulation which will add to 

this cost should be permitted only for the most serious of reasons.

These regulations do no t fall into th at category since they are, for the most 

par t, unnecessary. An effective mechanism already exists in the FWPCA to 

control run-off and sedim ent from nonprofit source activ ities. Section 208 of the 

FWPCA gives a very broa d gra nt of autho rity to regional planning groups to 

control such run-off and sedimentation. The gra nt of auth ori ty includes land use 

and other controls which are sufficient to control the typ e of pollution the Corps 

regulations are designed to prevent.

We fully recognize tha t dredging and filling in th e major rivers and lakes of the 

United States and the resulting pollution should be regulated by the Army Corps 

of Engineers. But to erect a far-reaching regulatory program th at will control 

activities undertaken on relatively minor stream s is lacking in logic and necessity. 

We urge the Committee to ado pt Section 16 of the House version of S. 2710, 

popularly known as the Wright amendment, when th at measure is considered in 

Conference. We feel the Wright ame ndment is a reasonable compromise w’hich 

carefully balances e nvironmental and economic needs. The Corps would have the 

autho rity to pro tect those waters used or capable of being used in intersta te or 

foreign commerce and the ir adjace nt and contiguous wetlands. Protection of all 

other waters and the ir wetlands will be left to the states. Thus, the amount of 

unnecessary and duplicate regulation is sharply reduced withou t neglect of 

important environmental considerations.

We respectfully urge the Com mittee’s favorable action with respe ct to this 

matter.

Sincerely,

C a r l A . S. C o an, J r.,

St af f Vice President and Legislative Counsel.
707

Statement of the National Association o r Realt ors* to the U.S. Senate

Committee on P ublic Works on Section 404 of the F ederal Water

Pollution Control Act

The National Association of Realtors is comprised of more than 1,000 local 

boards of realtors located in every sta te of the Union, the Distric t of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico. Combined membership of these boards is approxima tely 

500,000 persons actively engaged in sales, brokerage, managem ent, counseling, 

and appra isal of residential, commercial, indu stria l, recre ational and farm real 

estate. The activities of the Association’s membership involve all aspects of the 

real estate industry, such as mortgage banking, home building, and commercial 

and residential real estate development, including development, construction, 

and sales of condominiums. The Association has the largest membership of any 

trad e association in the United States concerned with all facets of the real estate 

industry. Principal officers are: Philip C. Smaby, President, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Harry G. Elmstrom, Vice President, Ballston Spa, New York; II. Jack son 

Pontius, Executive Vice President. Headq uarters of the Association is at 155 East 

Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois. The Wash ington office is located at 925 -15th 

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Telephone 202-628-5300.

The Natio nal Association of Realtors apprecia tes the opp ortunity to comment 

on Section 404 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Although we 

would have preferred to appear before the Committee, we welcome the opportun ity to present our views for th e record. The National Association of Realtors 

is the largest trade association in the United States involved with all aspects 

of the real estate indu stry. The Association is composed of 50 Sta te Associations, 

1600 local boards, 8 affiliated Ins titu tes, Societies and Councils with a combined 

membership of ap proximately 500,000 members.

We commend the Senate Public Works Committee for holding hearings on this 

controversial and far-reaching Federal program. Our sta tem ent will be broken 

down into the following areas:

Elements of a Wetland Protection Prog ram; Problems With the Present 404 

Program; Possible Solutions to the Current Problems With the 404 Program.

I. elements of a wetland protection program

The National Association of Realtors acknowledges the importance of our 

nation’s wetlands and we support a balanced, resource managem ent approach 

to protect these resources. We believe th at any program to protect the na tio n’s 

wetlands should contain four important elements. The program should:

(1) Provide ample opp ortunity for State and local involvement.

(2) Be limited enough in scope to be manageable, yet broad enough to cover 

ecologically significant wetlands.

(4) Recognize t he rights of property owners and compensation should be aw ard ­

ed where there has been a “t aking ” of property.

The present program, being administered by the Army Corps of Engineers, 

does not contain any of these elements. Consequently, we see some major problems 

with the existing program.

II. PRO BLE MS WITH PRESEN T 404 DREDG E AND FILL PER MIT PROGRAM

The National Association of Rea ltors would like to bring to the Committee’s attention several problems we perceive with the current 404 Program. 

In order to deal with these problems, we strongly believe three key elements must 

be addressed.

1. The redefinition of navigable waters to bring back in line th e Corps’ Prog ram 

with the original int en t of Congress.

2. Delegation of autho rity to those S tates which choose to und ertake a wetland 

protection program.

3. General perm its and exemptions for certain agricultu ral, ranc hing and 

silviculture practices.

These thre e key elements we feel must be dea lt with simultaneously. Following 

is a list of problems with the prese nt pro gra m:

1

 Realtor is a registered collective membership mark which may be used only by real 

estate professionals who are members of the Natio nal Association of Realtors and subscribe 

to Its str ict Code of Ethics.
708

A. The present 404 dredge and fill permit program mandates excessive Federal

involvement

The present Dredge and Fill Program is adm inistered solely by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners and private property 

owners must all go to the Corps to receive permits for any dredge and fill activ ity. 

Under th is program States and localities do not have the opp ortunity to become 

involved in the protection of their wetlands. This seems to be in direct conflict 

with the objectives of the 1972 Act and the desire of th e American public which is 

demanding less Federal control and less Washington influence over th eir lives and 

businesses.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act states:

“Sec. 101(b), Il is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the

primary responsibilities and rights of Stales to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and 

enhancement) of land and water resources . . (emphasis added).

It is apparent th at the Congress intended for the States to have a major role 

with the implementation of the Act. This is in sta rk con trast to the current 

program which is exclusively a Federal program absent of S tate participation.

Most States now have or are developing program s th at deal with ecologically 

important wetlands. In these States the Federal program will duplicate, in many 

instances, State efforts. Twe nty-three States enacted legislation to protect wetlands or shorelines. Thirty States are participating in Coastal Zone Management Programs. Forty-eight States have specifically authorized local control of 

development in flood-prone areas. These figures c ertainly indicate th at the States 

are willing to become involved in wetland protection. On this issue the House 

Public Works Com mittee’s re por t stated : “The Federal government can not and 

should not be expected to assume the entire responsibility for environmental 

protection.” 2

The National Association of R ealto rs believes th at there should be a delegation 

of autho rity to the States under the 404 Program.

B. The present 404 dredge and fill permit program will require a large and costly

Federal bureaucracy to administer

The Army Corps of Engineers estim ates th at an additional 600 employees will 

be necessary to process permit applications alone. The House Committee Rep ort 

points out, “this does not include enforcement activities which will become 

increasingly difficult.” 3

At a time when the Federal deficit soars, it is highly unlikely tha t either Congress 

or the Executive Branch will permit the additional large number of personnel 

required to manage the present Section 404 permit program, which some have 

estimated will be in the thousands.

The number of permit applications under the current Corps’ program . . . “is 

expected to rise from close to 20,000 to at least 40,000 an d more likely 50,000 by 

1978.” «

C. The present 404 dredge and fill permit program was mandated by the coxirts and

exceeds the intent of Congress

The NATIONA L ASSOC IATION OF REALTORS believes t ha t the Congress 

did not envision such an extensive and far-reaching program under the 1972 

amen dments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In fact, the 1972 Act 

did not even mention that wetland protection was one of its goals. It was the 

Court decision, N.It.D .C. vs. Calloway (392 F. Supp. 687 1975), which extend-d 

the Corps’ regulatory autho rity to virtually all waters of the United State s. We 

now find th at Section 404 is being looked at by m any as the mandate of Congress 

to protect our nation ’s wetlands. Although the stated goals of the Act are to 

“restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological inte grity of the 

Nation’s waters” and “provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, 

and wildlife . . .”, it does n ot st ate, as a goal, the protectio n of wetlands.

The Cou rt’s decision on this issue is analogous to ano ther court decision on the 

Clean Air Act which has led to the prom ulgat on of regulations dealing with 

significant deterioration of air quality. All too often it appears th at the inten t of 

Congress is being expanded by the courts. Therefore, we would hope th at this 

Committee would dra ft legislation making clear its int en t on this issue by redefining navigable waters as i t pertains to Section 404.

’ Federal Water Pollu tion Control Act Amendments of 1976, Report No. 94-1107, 

May 7, 1976, p. 22.

s

Ibid.

* Ibid.
709

D. The present 404 dredge and fill permit program will prove unmanageable

Because of the cou rt definition of navigable waters, which has come to mea n

“virtually every coastal and inland artificial or natural waterbo dy,” 5 * the scope 

of the Corps’ program will be so massive th at it will be impossible to manage 

effectively. Because of the numerous amounts of perm it applications that will be 

required, lengthy delays will be inherent in the program. The bureaucratic red 

tape, associated with the program, will add to spiraling construction costs, adversely affect the forestry industry and even fru strate meaningful conservation 

practices.

In dealing with the issue of manageability of the 404 Program, the House Public 

Works Committe e’s repo rt stated, “th e Committe e is concerned t ha t the program 

will prove impossible of effective adm inistratio n and th at more will be lost than 

gained in the protectio n of the Nation’s waters.” 8

 We believe th at the only 

practical and feasible way to make the program more manageable is through the 

redefinition of navigable waters.

E. The present dredge and fill permit program could have an adverse impact on normal

agricultural, ranching and water conservation practices

Although the Corps has sta ted th at it has no inten tion of regulating normal 

farming and ranching activities, there is no assurance th at futu re court action 

will not force the Corps to become active in this area. Such development activities 

as pond construction, sod waterways, diversion ditches, strea m bank improvements, and other water managem ent practices will come under the jurisdiction of 

the Corps’ regulatory program.

The House Committee report poin ted out similar concerns when it noted, 

“. . . under the existing Section 404 Program given its broadest reach, all m atters 

of small agricultu ral and forestry activities could be subject to Federal permit 

regulation.’’ 7

 Eventually, virtu ally all construction and development activity 

would also be subject to the Corps’ permit program if it is to lx? conducted adjacent 

or contiguous to surface waters.

F. The present 404 dredge and fill permit program is loo single-purpose in nature to

adequately protect wetlands

Any program to protect the nation’s wetlands should balance economic, environmental and energy considerations. The case by case permit approach, only 

dealing with dredge and fill activity, represents too narrow a focus to effectively 

protect valuable wetlands. Wetland protection should come through a balanced, 

resource managem ent approach rather tha n a piecemeal perm it approach.

As the House Committee Report points ou t, for example, that the Coastal Zone 

Management Program “. . . is the ty pe of comprehensive planning and regulato ry 

program which is needed for th e protection of wetland areas, not the limited pro ject 

by project approach under the expanded Section 404 Prog ram.” 8

II I . P O S S IB L E S O L U T IO N S TO T H E C U R R E N T PR O B L EM S W IT H TH E 404 PR OG RA M

The NAT IONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® would like to suggest 

two possible solutions to deal with the present problems. First, a national policy on 

wetland protection should be established, followed by legislation to implement tha t 

policy. The legislation and su bsequent program developed should include the ’four 

elements of wetland protectio n outlined earlier in this statem ent. Althou ghjthis 

would be the most thorough way to deal with the issue, it may not be the most 

practicable.

The second alternativ e would be for Congress to pass the Wright'Am end ment 

contained in Section 12 of S. 2710. The Wright Amendment conta ned in 11.R. 

9650 passed the House of Representatives Jun e 3, 1976, by a vote of 234-121. It 

should be pointed out th at the Amendment, as passed by the House, was a compromise. On April 13, 1976, the House Public Works Committee reportedjout its 

bill with the Breaux Amendment by a 22-13 vote. The Breaux Amendment would 

have redefined navigable waters as follows:

“The term ‘navigable waters’ as used in this section shall mean all waters which 

are pre ently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by 

reasonable improvement as a means to transp ort inters tate or foreign commerce 

shoreward to their ordinary high water mark, including all waters which are subject 

to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark (mean 

higher high water mark on the west coast).”

8

 Ib id , p. 20.

« Ib id ., p. 22.

7

 Ib id ., p. 23.

8

 Ib id ., p. 22 .
710

In addition to th at definition of navigable waters, the Wright compromise 

would:

(1) Mandate the impleme ntation of a dredge and fill perm it program for those 

wetlands a djacen t to “navigable waters” .

(2) Allow the Secretary of the Army to delegate permit a uthority to a S tate if it 

is determ ined th at the Sta te has sufficient autho rity to effectively protect those 

wetlands adjacent to “navigable waters” .

(3) Exempt normal farming, ranching, and silviculture practices from regulation 

under the Section 404 dredge and fill perm it program.

(4) Allow additional wetlands to be added to the Army Corps of Engineers’ 

perm it jurisdiction if agreed to by the governor of a State and Secretary of the 

Army.

In conclusion, the NAT IONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® strongly 

urges the Committee to sup port the Wright Amendment. We feel it will address the 

major concerns over the present 404 Program.

First, the Wright Amendment addresses the increasing public concern over 

Federal control and intervention into State and local affairs by allowing S tates an 

opportu nity to administer the program.

.Second, the Wright Amendment addresses the problem of creating an inefficient 

or unworkable program because it would lim it th e scope of the program under the 

redefinition of navigable waters.

Third, the Wright Amendment spells out the intent of Congress with respect to 

wetland protection and would, therefore, alte r the court-ordered program.

Fourth, by exempting certain ranching, farming and silviculture practices and 

bv allowing for general permits, the Amendment will remove some of the more 

burdensome requirements th at were never inten ded to be part of th e program.

Last, we contend th at the Wright Amendment addresses, at least in part, the 

problem of the narrow perm it approach to wetland protection. State involvement 

in the program could lead to coordination with other wetlan d protection program s, 

such as flood plain control and coastal zone management.

National Coalition for Marine Conservation, I nc.,

Boston Mass., July 9, 1976.

Re amen dments to section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr.,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Bake r: The National Coalition for Marine Conservation, 

Incorporated is una lterab ly opposed to any ame ndm ent to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act which would have the effect of reducing protection of vital 

coastal wetlands from further degredation.

Coastal wetlands arc essential to the produc tivity of the oceans. According to 

Dr. Beatrice Willard, a member of the Council on Environmental Quality, all of 

the ocean’s living resources are, direc tly or indirectly, depe ndent upon the coastal 

zone. Food webs which sup port the vital activity in estuarine waters and tidal 

marshes extend inland far beyond the mean high water mark. This intimate 

linkage between inland wetlands and the coastal zone was completely overlooked 

by the Breaux Amendment which would have limited the permit requireme nts for 

dredge and fill projects to navigable waters and “waters which are subject to the 

ebb and flow of the tide shorew ard to their mean high water mark.”

In all, some 40 perc ent of the nation’s wetlands (abo ut 45 million acres) have 

been lost. Housing and commercial development, highway construction, military 

bases, garbage dumps and other activities, all con tribute to wetland losses. 

Pollution is ano ther cause. Few states have acted vigorously to pre ven t furth er 

needless wetland losses. Criteria governing eligibility of the states to tak e over 

control of wetlands developm ent from the Corps of Engineers contained in the 

Wright Amendment are so vague as to be meaningless, and the Wright Amendment should be rejected for th at reason.

We urge you to reject the Breaux and Wright Amendments in their entirety. 

The Corps Regulations issued under Section 404 are workable and effective and 

specifically exclude normal farming and ranc hing activities from perm it requ irements. EPA Adm inistrator Russell Train has sta ted th at a properly mana ged 

Section 404 program is essential for protecting the nation’s water resources.
711

The Cleveland-Harsha Amendments would have the effect of preventing overregulation of farming and ranching activities evidently feared by supporters of 

Breaux and Wright-type amendments without exempting practices that have a 

substantial adverse effect on wetlands or permitting abuse of the exemptions in a 

way that would vitiate the permit system.

In the event tha t a majority of the Public Works Committee favors state 

control of wetland regulation, we urge you to substitute meaningful criteria which 

the states must meet and live up to in order to take over control of wetlands 

management from the Corps of Engineers.

Sincerely yours,

Christopher M. Weld.

Secretary.

National Conference of State Legislatures,

Office of State Federal Relations,

Washington, D.C., July 27, 1976.

Hon. Howard Baker, Jr.,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Baker: On behalf of the National Conference of S tate Legislatures, I urge your support for several of the House-passed amendments to your 

bill, S. 2710, on the Water Pollution Control Act.

As you know, the main burden of carrying out the responsibilities of P.L. 92-500 

rests on the States. Congress established an explicit national policy in Section 101 

of the Act to “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and 

rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.”

In keeping with this policy, the National Conference urges your support for 

Section 213 in the House amendments, enabling qualified states to assume more 

responsibility for processing sewage treatment construction grant applications. 

This provision would go far to break the logjam of applications now awaiting 

review and approval of the Environmental Protection Agency. Considering th at 

Congress intended a three-year construction program in 1972, the delays have 

been little short of crippling; as of last December—more than three years since 

the 1972 amendments—only $1.7 billion of the $18 billion authorized had been 

spent.

Not only does the environment pay for this inefficiency, bu t so do the taxpayers. 

Given the constant upward ratchet of construction costs, the federal red tape 

ensnarling the construction program translates into ever smaller returns for the 

dollars spent, so th at each delay brings state and local governments closer to the 

grim choice between what is adequate and what is affordable.

This is the more distressing when one considers that the misapplication of 

federal manpower also costs in quality control. After conducting several interim 

audits suggesting possible mismanagement and fraud, EPA has concluded that 

giving more responsibility to states for the construction grant program would 

strengthen federal control over such abuses at all levels. EPA. budgetary resources 

now devoted to processing construction grant applications could be freed for improved auditing and general oversight.

An important point here is t ha t the certification of states to take over more 

administration of the grant program need not result in loosened federal control. 

Any amendment on state certification can give EPA discretion to approve only 

those states th at can satisfy existing statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Further, the Agency should have discretion to withdraw certification for all or 

par t of a state’s authority if the state is not properly discharging its responsibilities.

Section 213 would, in our judgment, remedy major problems in the construction 

grant program without creating new administrative pitfalls. The National Conference of State Legislatures is joined in this judgment by the National Governors 

Conference, the Water Pollution Control Federation, and the water pollution 

control agencies of 48 states. In its report on P.L. 92-500, the National Commission on Water Quality also recommends state certification. We feel that this 

amendment deserves your careful consideration.

You are no doubt very much aware tha t many of the communities across the 

nation will be unable to meet the statuto ry 1977 deadline for secondary treatment. 

This is due in no small measure to the impoundment of construction grant funds 

and the same administrative difficulties th at Section 213 of the House amendments 

seeks to remove. Surely administrative fairness dictates that these communities 

not be penalized for problems beyond their control. We hope you will consider
language affording case-by-case extensions of this deadline where communities 

have shown good faith efforts to comply.

Another amendment worthy of you r close attention is Section 214 of the House 

ame ndm ents. Section 214 would simply clarify the original int en t of Congress th at 

states have complete control over the setting of priorities for sewage treatm ent 

construction. In the past, some sta tes have had their needs for one category of 

tre atmen t works, such as sewer interceptors, go unm et because EPA put more 

priority on another category.

Finally, NCSL urges your prom pt and favorable consideration of an am endm ent 

to limit t he expansion of Army Corps of Engineers perm it jurisdiction over dredge 

and fill activities under Section 404. To ave rt the coming profusion of federal red 

tap e over all waters of the United States, the Conference recomm ends a delimitation of Corps jurisdiction to commercially navigable waters, strong state inp ut 

into federal permit decisions, and the opp ortu nity for delegation of additional 

responsibilities to the states. Rep. Jim Wright’s compromise amendment to the 

House version of S. 2710 is, however, a workable approach. If there is insufficient 

sup port among your colleagues for the Wright amen dment, we feel th at there 

should at least be a longer moratorium on Phase II of the court-o rdered expansion 

of Corps responsibilities to all lakes, prim ary tribu taries, and the ir contiguous or

adj acent wetlands.

As you probably know, there is a sub stan tial reservoir of sup por t for some or 

all of these substan tive ame ndments among public interest groups, including not 

only NCSL, bu t the National Governors Conference, the National Association of 

Counties, and the National League of Cities/U.S. Conference of Mayors. We would 

like to think th at this support was in some measure responsible for the overwhelming 339-5 vote of approval for these amen dments in the House.

It would be most u nfortunate if Congressional action on these amen dments were 

to be postponed until next year. While a full examination of the nation ’s water 

pollution control effort and the recommendations of the National Commission on 

Water Quality deserves a high prio rity on the legislative agen da for the 95th 

Congress, we feel th at to defer consideratio n of the sub stantive amendments 

already proposed is to allow the program to labor indefinitely under burdens th at 

could be lifted now.

Sincerely,

Representative Nancie F adeley, Oregon,

Chairman, Nat ura l Resources Task Force,

Nat ional Conference of State Legislatures.

Statement of Representative Edward F. Williams of T ennessee, on

Behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures to the

Senate Committee on Public Works on Amendments to the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act

Members and Staff of the Senate Public Works Committe e: My name is Edwa rd 

F. Williams, and I am providing this testimony for the National Conference 

of State Legislatures on important needed amendments to the Federla Water 

Pollution Control Act. I have been a member of th e Ten nes se' House of Represen tatives since 1970 and an engineer in municipal and industrial water qua lity 

control for the past 16 years. To my knowledge, I am the only professional water 

pollu tion control engineer holding public office in the United State s. I am also a 

mem ber of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Advisory Group on Section 

208 Areawide Planning. Fur ther, lest there be any question of my credentials as 

an environm entalist, I am proud to have been named the Tennessee Water 

Conserv ationist of the Year by the Tennessee Conservation League in cooperation 

with the National Wildlife Federation in 1973.

I am submitting th is sta tem ent to urge your favorable consideration of several 

ame ndm ents strengthening the sta tes’ role in the national effort for cleaner 

water. As you know, Section 101 of the Act accords a prim ary role to the states 

in this effort, but I think there are more tha n adequate grounds to say th at in 

the past few years, this cardinal principle has been honored more in the breach 

than in the observance.

Knowing your inte rest in the problem of Army Corps of Engineers dredge and 

fill p erm it jurisdiction, let me begin by saying I strongly endorse what has come 

to be known as the Wright amendm ent to Section 404. This amendment, passed 

in the House by a wide margin early last June, provides ade qua te safeguards
713

against the environmental degradation of most of the nation’s wetlands as well 

as against the jurisdictional encroachment of the federal government into a 

matter best handled a t the state level.

The amendment would reduce the ambit of Corps dredge and fill regulations to 

commercially navigable waters and their contiguous or adjacent wetlands—a 

reasonable retre at from the administratively-nettlesome court-ordered regulation 

of all waters of the United States. In addition, the Wright amendment would 

exempt normal farming, foresting and ranching activities, maintenance work on 

currently servicable structures such as dams and bridge abutments, and the 

construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds and irrigation ditches. This 

should go far to allay many of the concerns you have no doubt heard on this 

issue, but a further safeguard against unneeded paperwork is the provision 

authorizing general permits for repeated dredge and fill activities whose environmental effects are marginal and otherwise in the public interest.

The most valuable feature of the Wright amendment, however, is tha t it 

recognizes and makes room for sta te capabilities and concerns. A state would be 

allowed to take over all or any part of Corps dredge and fill responsibilities if 

it could satisfactorily show it has the authority, responsibility and capability to 

carry out the functions in question, and the delegation of these functions is in the 

public interest. The Governor of a state could also request the Corps to extend 

its jurisdiction to waters not regulated under the amendment if they were of 

sufficient ecological and environmental importance.

States thus have the option to design a joint state-federal effort on this front 

tailored to their perceived environmental, fiscal and economic needs. They also 

have the opportunity to take over all Corps responsibility if they have an adequate 

program. This opportunity for delegation is one of the principal grounds for my 

endorsement of this amendment, since the State of Tennessee already has adequate 

legal authority under its Surface Mining Act to regulate dredge and fill activities, 

even in areas not earmarked for the Corps’ jurisdiction under the Wright language.

While this amendment sets forth a sound basic structure for the administration 

of dredge and fill permits, even its sponsor has conceded tha t it is not perfect, and 

I would like to suggest a few improvements. Under subsection (j) of Section 16 of 

the House bill, I note that the Secretary of the Army would have rather wide 

rule-making discretion in setting the terms of state delegation, the suspension of 

delegation, and its revocation for cause. Since states would have to make a 

substantial administrative commitment to qualify for delegation, I think they 

should have more say in the setting of conditions to which they will be expected 

to conform. This would go far to eliminate uncertainty and enhance the incentive 

for states to recover their proper responsibilities. State participation in the 

development of rules for suspension and revocation would also help to reduce 

possibilities for misunderstanding tha t could lead to unwanted litigation.

If the Committee does decide to adopt language similar to the Wright amendment, perhaps the problems I foresee there could be averted if language in the 

Committee report clarifies your intent th at the Secretary’s rule-making be carried 

out after consultation with appropriate state officials. The states should also be 

given adequate notice of deficiencies in the performance of their delegated responsibilities and enough time to correct them before the Secretary moves to suspend 

or revoke the delegation. Further, there should be an opportunity for public 

hearings and the building of a public record on the Secretary’s ultimate decision.

Another problem that could be resolved in legislative history concerns the 

requirement t hat a state have adequate "authority, responsibility and capability” 

to carry out the functions it requests for delegation. If the intent here is to make 

states adopt laws substantially identical to federal law and regulations as a condition for delegation, there could be undue delays. Experience with state delegation 

of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program suggests 

tha t it could take several years for states to enact the necessary laws, particularly 

in states with biennial legislative sessions. I therefore recommend th at any Committee report language on this question make it clear that a state could qualify for 

delegation if it can show tha t it has or will acquire the necessary staff and is 

demonstrably capable of performing the requested functions. Such capacity 

would, I think, be adequately demonstrated if a state were actively carrying out 

responsibilities delegated under the NPDES permit program in Section 402.

This brings me to another issue tha t was not adequately disposed of in the 

■debate on the House floor. Subsection (e) of the Wright amendment says that 

except as provided in any agreement between the Corps and the Governor of a 

state, the discharge of dredged or fill material in other than navigable waters or
714

their adjacent wetlands is no t prohibited or otherwise subject to regulation under 

this Act. Notwithstanding the assurances of some s upporters of this amen dment, 

it is not a t all clear th at subsection (e) would allow regulation of toxic pollutan ts, 

for example, in dredged or fill material discharged into non-navigable waters or 

non-adjacent wetlands. This being so, sta te programs may have to fill in the 

vacuum. Although Tennessee and many other states have laws authorizing controls 

on pollutants in dredged and fill discharges th at could be unregulated by the Corps 

under Section 404(e), it would be helpful to have language specifically assuring 

sta tes ’ rights to legislate in this area.

Finally, I notice what may be a drafting error in subsection (f) rela ting to 

state-Corps agreements on the regulation of dredge and fill activities in nonnavigable waters and non-adjacent wetlands. This subsection provides th at any 

such agreement may be revoked “by the Governor of the s tat e who entered into 

such joint agreement.” This language lends itself to the inte rpretation th at only 

the Governor who had ente red into the agreement could revoke it. To allow 

subse quent administrations to revoke or modify an agreement, I would suggest 

th at this autho rity be expanded from the “ Governor” to the “S tate.”

The House bill contains a number of other amendments as important to the 

States as Section 404, however. Chief among these is the provision for certification 

allowing states to assume more responsibility for sewer construction gra nt programs. In shifting most of the responsibility for gra nt application processing to 

the federal level, the 1972 Wate r Act amen dments engendered a costly bureaucratic Fran kenstein of duplication, delay and red tape. Much of this could be 

eliminated if the Act were am ended simply to recognize th at states can discharge 

many of EPA ’s responsibilities just as well or better, and th at qualifying states 

deserve the opportunity to do so.

In the State of Tennessee, for example, the Division of S anitary Engineering has 

been reviewing plans and specifications for sewage tre atm ent plants since 1945. 

Most of the other Southern states w ith which I am familiar have similar programs 

at least 15 years old. The 1972 Water Act amendments resulted largely in a 

duplication of these state efforts th at has slowed down sewer construction w ithout 

making any significant changes in facility design. Considering the cost of the 

duplication both in man-hours and construction delays, I urge you to give serious 

consideration to Section 213 of IIR 9560, enabling KPA to certify qualifying 

states to perform more of th e functions now tyin g up EPA personnel. This amendment is a special priority of the Natioual Conference of S tate Legislatures.

No doubt you are aware that the inefficiencies now written into the construction 

gra nt program have made it impossible for many communities to meet the 1977 

deadlines for secondary treatm ent. I thin k it only fair th at these communities 

be given some relief from a problem largely beyond the ir control, and I commend 

for your consideration a case-by-case extension of th is deadline where communities have shown good faith efforts to get their plants built or upgraded in time. 

Such a provision would also obviate pointless enforcement action and litiga tion 

for EPA.

Finally, I want to urge your close a ttention to Section 214 of the House bill, 

enabling states to set their own construction priorities by category of t rea tment 

works. Where a sta te has determined th at it needs more and better sewer interceptors, for example, it should be allowed to devote more of its construction 

grant allocation to this categ ory—n ot to th e kinds of works earmarked for priority 

by Agency people on some bureaucratic Olympus hundreds of miles away.

In Tennessee, John Saucier, our sta te director of Water Quality Control, can 

tell you off the top of his head what types of sewer construction are needed. I’m 

sure his salary is nowhere near tha t of the regional EP A decision-makers in Atla nta, 

bu t I doubt if any of them could come close to matching his grass-roots fam iliarity 

with the problems in our state.

In closing, I wan t to tha nk you and your staff for this opportu nity to convey 

my recomm endations for your water pollution bill on behalf of the National 

Conference of State Legislatures. In terms of money, manpower, and sheer scope 

of regulation, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is the most ambitious 

comm itment this nation has made to environmental improvement. It would be 

sad indeed if the goals of this Act were to be fru strated by an unwillingness to 

give the states more opportunity to share in the effort. The “primary responsibilities and rights of the State s” are, after all, one of the cornerstones of the 

Act itself.
715

N atio n a l C o n str u c tio n I n du st ry C o u n c il ,

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 10, 1076.

lion. J e n n in g s R a n d o lph ,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

D ea r S en a to r R a n d o l p h : Enclosed are 30 copies of the National Con struction Ind ustry Council sta tem ent on section 16 of S. 2710, which will be discussed 

at your Public Works Committee hearing later this month. We would appreciate 

having the statem ent distrib uted to the Committee members and included in 

the hearing record.

While we recognize th at inclusion of a written statem ent in the record will 

present the views of our organization to the Committee, the Council is very 

concerned th at it has not been allowed an opp ortunity to personally appear on 

behalf of the construction indu stry. NCIC wishes to express most strongly its 

objection to procedures which do not accord to an entire industry genuinely 

affected by and concerned with this legislation an equal opp ortunity to be heard 

along with those in the various governmental agencies whose views are not in 

agreement with our own.

Not only is the industry being denied time to present testimony, bu t we under ­

stand th at the Department of Tra nsp ortatio n will also be excluded.

In view of this, we would hope th at the written testimony will be given full 

consideration.

Sincerely,

A nth on y M. P o n t ic e l l i, 

Chairman, Legislative Committee.

Sta te m e n t on B e h a lf o f t h e N a tio n a l C o n str u c tio n I n du st ry C o u n c il

for S u b m is sio n to M em b er s o f t h e Se n a t e P u b lic W o r k s C o m m it t ee, 

U.S. S e n a t e, S ec tio n 16 o f S. 2710 (H.R. 9560)

The National Construction Ind ustry Council, formed in 1974, speaks with a 

single voice for 30 (thirty ) associations in the construction industry representing 

contractors, suppliers, design professionals and others associated with our ind ustry.

The following members join in this submission: American Concrete Paving 

Association; American Consulting Engineers Council; American Insti tute of 

Architects; American Insti tute of Steel Construction, Inc.; American Road 

Builders Association; American Society of Civil Engineers; American Society of 

Landscape Architects; American Subcontractors Association; Associated Builders 

and Contractors, Inc.; Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General 

Contractors of America, Inc.; Associated Landscape Contractors of America, Inc.; 

Ceilings and Interior System s Contractors Association; Concrete Reinforcing 

Steel Insti tute; Council of Construction Employers, Inc.; Mechanical Contractors 

Association of America, Inc.; National Asphalt Paveme nt Association; National 

Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Con trac tors ; National Constructors 

Association; National Council of Erectors, Fabricators, and Riggers; Natio nal 

Crushed Stone Association; National Electrical Contractors Association; National 

Society of Professional Engineers; National Utility Contractors Association, Inc.; 

Portland Cement Association; Power and Communications Contractors Association ; Prestressed Concrete Institute; Producer’s Council, Inc.; Sheet Metal and 

Air Conditioning Co ntractor’s National Association; and Society of American 

Registered Architects.

Additionally, the following non-m ember associations join in this sta tem ent: 

National Association of Counties; American Concrete Pipe Association; League 

of Cities and Conference of Mayors; League of Women Voters; and Wate r Pollution Control Federation.

The National Construction Indust ry Council jointly, and its members individually, support section 16 of S. 2710 (H.R. 9560) restricting the autho rity of the 

Corps of Engineers as outlined in Congressman Wright’s sub stitute ame ndm ent 

which appears in the House-passed bill.

The Corps’ original jurisdiction, gran ted under the Rivers and Harbors Act 

of 1899, has been broadened by successive court decisions interpreting both the 

1899 Act and section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and would 

require the Corps to prom ulgate regulations redefining navigable waters to the 

degree th at all waters of th e United States would be covered by 1977. Congressman 

Wright’s amendm ent would repeal stages two and thre e of th e Corps’ July, 1975, 

regulations.

76-161—76-----46
716

Several construction associations have filed s tate ments in opposition to these 

regulations with the Corps of Engineers. It is estimated th at should this new, 

expansive definition of navigable waters, as set forth in the current interim regulations, be allowed to stand, perm it applications under section 404 will increase 

to the level of 30,000 per year, necessitating the hiring of an additional GOO personnel merely to process the applications. (Report of the House Committee on Public 

Works and Transpo rtation, 94-1107, and the House floor debate opposing same in 

the Congressional Record of Jun e 3, 1976.)

NCIC agrees with the st atements contained in th e Committee Report evidencing concern that such a perm it program would prove impossible to administer 

effectively or will not have an appreciable effect in the protectio n of our nation’s 

waterways. In addition, activities of a small scope in both agriculture and forestry 

could become subject to Federal permit regulations. The attempt of the Corps 

to remedy these situa tions thro ugh issuance of “general permits ’ will not have 

the desired effect since such permits have, in the past, proved readily susceptible 

to court challenge by environm ental groups.

This new jurisdiction of th e Corps, if not curtailed by adoption of section 16 of 

S. 2710 (H .R. 9560), would extend to both Federal and non-Federal construction 

activities. The delays which would be anticipa ted to flow from such perm it 

requirements are presently app arent and have affected Federal programs 

conducted under the auspices of the Federal Highway Administration, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Economic Development 

Administration. It is obvious tha t, should these interim regulations remain in 

effect, major construction projects throughout the United States could be halted. 

Such delays would not only have the inflationary effect of increasing project 

costs, bu t would also restrict employment opportunities in an industry currently 

suffering a contractor unemployment rate of 15.3%.

For these reasons, NCIC supports the efforts of Rep. Jim Wright (D-Texas) in 

introducing the amendment resulting in section 16 of S. 2710, and sincerely hopes 

the Senate will tak e prompt action on this ma tte r within the 60-day deferred period established by President Ford on J uly 2, 1976.

N ati o na l C o o r d in a tin g C o m m it tee

on F is h an d W il d l if e in F ed er a l W a ter R eso u r c e s P r o je c ts,

July 16, 1976. Re Wright-Breaux ame ndm ent to section 404, Public Law 92-500

Hon. H ow ar d II. B a k e r, Jr.,

U.S. Senate,

Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C.

D ea r S en ato r B a k e r : As I indicated in my letter December 8, 1975 concerning 

“Section 404” permit regulations and EPA guidelines to the Corps of Engineers, 

I am deeply concerned about the effect th at the passage of the subject amendment 

would have on our wetlands. I have enclosed a copy of my letter to Senator 

Rand olph, who will be conductin g hearings on this amen dment, expressing the 

reasons for my views.

I would appreciate your s upport for the preservation of this nation ’s w’etlan ds 

and their dependent wildlife. The State of Tennessee is blessed with many wetland 

areas along the Mississippi River, which are of national importance since th is is a 

majo r flyway for North American waterfowl. In 1975, over six million ducks were 

harv ested in the Mississippi fly way. This is more than 50% of the ducks harvested 

in the United State s. In supp orting the protection of these wetlands you would be 

doing a great service n ot only to the State of Tennessee, bu t the natio n as a whole.

If you feel you cannot oppose the passage of this amendment, we would requ est th at your supp ort of this ame ndm ent be conditioned on companion legislation 

to provide comprehensive nationwide wetland protection.

Sincerely,

H arvey Bra y,

Chairman, National Coordinating Committee. Enclosure.
717

N atio n a l C o o r d in a t in g C o m m it t ee, 

on F is h an d W il d l if e in F ed er a l W a ter R eso u r c es P r o je c ts,

July 16, 1976.

Hon. J e n n in g s R a n d o lph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

D ea r S en ato r R a n d o l p h : I have been advised th at the Senate Public Works 

Committee has scheduled hearings for July 27 and 28 on the Wright-Breaux 

Amendment to Section 404 of the “ Water Pollution Control Act of 1972”. The 

National Coordinating Committe e is greatly concern ed^ a»ut the adoption of this 

amendmen t and I request th at this letter be made a pa rt of the hearings record.

The Natio nal Coordinating Committee is comprised of the executive officers 

of all major state, federal, and priv ate fish and wildlife agencies of the United 

States. Our committee was pleased when the U.S. District Court ruled, on March 

27, 1975, that th e Corps of Engineers m ust expand its jurisdiction in regard to the 

enforcement of “ Section 404” . We felt th at if this Cou rt decision was im plemented 

it would slow down the high rat e of loss of our wetland areas and waterways to 

development and fill. These areas provide vita l habit at for a great variety of wildlife, both vertebrate and invertebrate. These areas also produce the pl ant life th at 

is the source of much of th e organic ma tte r consumed by aquatic animals. They act 

as buffer zones p rotecting oth er land areas from erosion and flood damage. They 

aid in a natural purification of water in the maintenance and recharge of ground 

waters th at are necessary for the maintenance of stream flows. They are unique 

recreational areas with high aesthetic values, and contain delicate and irreplaceable 

flora and fauna th at support valuable opp ortunities for hunting, fishing, and nature 

stud y.

Most states have been unab le to afford the protection th at these areas require 

and, therefore, we feel it is incumbent upon the federal government to assume 

this protection. Since these areas provide habit at for migratory birds, the y are of 

obvious national importance. In addition, in the past some of the greatest detrimental effects resulting from the channelization and filling of these wetland areas 

was b rought abo ut by federal agencies. It is my firm belief tha t if the federal govern me nt neglects its responsibilities by approving the Wright-Breaux Amendment 

these areas will no t be adequately protected by local government agencies.

Tha nk you for allowing me the opportunity to comm ent on this important 

issue.

Sincerely,

H arvey Br a t,

Chairman, National Coordinating Committee.

N a tio na l C o u n c il of F a rm er C o o p e r a tiv es,

Washington, D.C., July 26, 1976.

Re dredge and fill regulations of section 404 of Public Law 92-500.

Hon. J en n in g s R a n d o lph,

Chairman, Public WorAs Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r M r. C h a ir m a n : The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives is a 

nationwide association whose members are farmer-owned and farmer-controlled 

cooperative associations engaged in the marketing of prac tically every typ e of 

agric ultural commodity, and the furnishing of major ty pe ’, of supplies and credit 

to their members and patrons. Approximately 4,500 farm er cooperatives serving 

more tha n 3.5 million farm er memberships are represented in the National 

Council. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estim ates th at five out of every six 

ranch ers/farmers are members of one or more farmer cooperative associations.

On Tuesday, July 27, a nd Wednesday, July 28, the Senate Comm ittee on Public 

Works will hold oversight hearings to review the dredge and fill regulations of 

section 404 of Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 

1972.
718

Earlier this year, on J une 3, the House of Representatives approved an amendmen t to section 404 which defines the term “ navigable w ater” as “ all waters which 

are presently susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement, as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce shoreward to 

the ir ordin ary high water mark, including all waters which are subject to the ebb 

and flow of th e tide shoreward to their mean high water mark (mean higher high 

water mark on the west coast).” This amendment became necessary because the 

Army Corps of Engineers, purs uant to a court order, has issued final regulations for 

the dredge and fill perm it program th at encompass not only navigable bodies of 

water, but all waters of.-.dj<- United States. As presently inte rpreted, this greatly 

expanded jurisdiction di^lie Corps of Engineers includes, as pointed out in the 

House floor debate, permit requirements for a rancher who wants to enlarge his 

stock pond or a farmer who wants to deepen an irrigation ditch or protect his 

land from stream erosion. Surely the placement of such power in the Corps of 

Engineers goes far beyond what was contemplated by Congress when it passed 

Public Law 92-500.

As your oversight hearings will demonstrate, adoption of the amendment to 

section 404 will no t leave th e Nation’s wetlands unprotected, since numerous sta te 

and federal statutes already regu late their use. The amendm ent will, however, 

eliminate a classic example of costly and unneeded regulation th at will hinder 

rather tha n help the conservation efforts of farmers. The Natio nal Council of 

Farmer Cooperatives urges your support for the enclosed ame ndment to section 

404 as contained in the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1976” and as approved by the House of Representatives.

Sincerely yours,

K en neth D. N ad en .

Enclosure.

pe rm it s fo r dr ed ge d or fil l mat er ial

Sec. 16. (a) Subsection (a) of section 404 of the Federal Wa ter Pollution Control 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding immediately after “navigable w aters” 

the following: “and adjacent wetlands.”

(b) Such section 404 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

“ (d)(1) The term ‘navigable w aters’ as used in this section shall mean all waters 

which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their nat ura l condition or by 

reasonable improvem ent as a means to transp ort inters tate or foreign commerce 

shoreward to their ordinary high water mark, including all waters which are subjec t to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark 

(mean higher high water mark on the west coast).

“ (2) The term ‘adjacent wetlands’ as used in this section shall mean (A) those 

coastal wetlands, mudflats, swamps, marshes, shallows, and those areas periodically 

inunda ted by saline or brackish waters th at are normally characterized by the 

prevalence of salt or brackish water vegetation capable of growth and reproduction, 

which are contiguous or adjac ent to navigable waters subject to the ebb and flow 

of the tide, and (B) those freshwater wetlands including marshes, shallows, swamps, 

and similar areas th at are contiguous or adjacent to other navigable waters, th at 

sup port freshw ater vegetation and th at are periodically inunda ted and are normally characterized by the prevalence of vegetation th at requires satura ted soil 

conditions for growth and reproduction.

“ (e) Except as provided in subsection (J) o f this section, the discharge of dredged or

fill material in waters other than navigable waters or adjacent wetlands is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this Act, or section 9, section 10,

or section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899.

“(f) If the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, and 

the Governor of a State enter into a join t agreement t ha t th e discharge of dredged 

or fill m aterial in waters other than navigable waters or adjace nt wetlands of such 

Sta te should be regulated because of th e ecological and environm enta l importance 

of such waters, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may regu late 

such discharge pursu ant to the provisions of this section. Any joint agreement 

ente red into p ursuan t to this subsection may be revoked, in whole or in part, by 

the Governor of the State who entered into such j oin t agree ment or by the Secretary of the Army, actin g throug h the Chief of Engineers.
719

“ (g) In carrying out his functions relating to the discharge of dredged or fill 

material under this section, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

of Engineers, is authorized to issue those general permits which he determines 

to be in the public interest.

“ (A) The discharge of dredged or fill material— “ (1) from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, including,

but not limited to, plowing, terracing, cultivating, seeding, and harvesting 

for the production of food, fiber, and forest products; “ (2) for the purpose of maintenance of currently serviceable structures, 

including, but not limited to, dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments and approaches, and other transportation structures (including emergency reconstruction); or

“(3) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock 

ponds and irrigation ditches,

is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this Act.

“ (i) The discharge of dredged or fill material as part of the construction, a lter ation, or repair of a Federal or federally assisted project authorized by Congress 

is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this Act if the effects 

of such discharge have been included in an evnironmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment for such project pursuant to the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and such environmental impact 

statem ent or environmental assessment has been submitted to Congress in 

connection with the authorization or funding of such project. “ (j) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is 

authorized to delegate to a Sta te upon its request all or any part of those functions 

vested in him by this section relating to the adjacent wetlands in tha t State if 

he determines (A) th at such State has the authority, responsibility, and capability 

to carry out such functions, and (B) tha t such delegation is in the public interest. 

Any such delegation shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary, including, but not limited to, suspension and revocation 

for cause of such a delegation.”.

National Crushed Stone Association,

July 28, 1976.

Senator J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: The board of directors of the National Crushed 

Stone Association, meeting this date, strongly urge that the Senate Public Works 

Committee vote to support the Wright amendment, as passed by the House in 

H.R. 9560, in your meetings scheduled for July 27-28 on S. 2710. Adoption of 

this amendment, relating to the Corps of Engineers 404 permit program will be 

in the best interest of the country and at the same time provide reasonable and 

adequate protection for the environment. The urgency of this matter is directly related to the numerous construction 

projects being delayed awaiting a section 404 permit. Your cooperation in bringing our position to the attention of all the members of your committee will be

appreciated. We urge tha t prompt action be taken on this matte r so tha t the bill can be 

cleared to the entire Senate for an early floor vote.

Sincerely, W. L. C arter,

President.

National E nvironmental D evelopment Association,

Washington, D.C., July 28, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The National Environmental Development 

Association is pleased to submit “Statement of Riley S. Miles, Chairman— 

National Environmental Development Association to the Senate Public Works 

Committee Regarding Section 404, P.L. 92-500,” for inclusion in the record of 

the July 27-28, Section 404 Oversight Hearing.
720

NEDA for some time has registered concern over the direction being taken by 

the Courts and the Corps of Engineers in regard to the inte rpretation and implementation of Section 404. We have shared these concerns with the app ropriate 

groups and government agencies and were called before this Congress previously 

to testify on this issue in June 1975.

e again subm it our views to you and ask your concurrence with the legislative 

solution to this problem which the House of Representatives has recently 

approved.

\\ e stand read}7

 to provide you with any additional assistance.

Sincerely,

R iley S. Miles,

Chairman.

Statement of Riley S. M iles, Chairman, National Environmental Development Association, to the Senate Publics Works Committee, Regarding Section 404, Public Laav 92-500

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we ap prec iate your consideration of the views of the National Environm ental Development Association 

(NEDA) with regard to the need for modifying and clarifying Section 404 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Unless this Comm ittee and the Congress act now, the private property rights 

of millions of Americans are in jeopardy and the prod uctive capacity of thi s 

nation is critically threaten ed.

(( Background information abo ut our organization is provided in the form of our 

“fa ct sheet” which I ask to be prin ted in the record of this hearing following 

our testim ony. Very briefly, NEDA is an alliance of many interests—industry, 

labor, farming and others—with a single purpose: to find ways to improve the 

environ men t without destroying the nation ’s economic system .

We have for some time registered our concern over the direction being taken by 

the Corps of Engineers toward regulation of virtually every body of water and 

every piece of land touched by water. On June 19, 1975—jus t a little over a year 

ago—I appeared before the Subcomm ittee on Water Resources of your Comm ittee 

on behalf of our organization. At th at tim e I urged action to overcome the effects 

of the court decision instructing the Corps to expand its dredge-and-fill permit 

autho rity beyond the navigable waters to all the waters of th e United State s. The 

Subcommittee chairman, Senator Gravel, told me th at the Committee would be 

doing something about the Section 404 problem, and I promptly reported this to 

the members of our Association. Since then, we have avidly followed developments in this situation, and have responded with information and assistance when 

asked; and we are pleased now that, at this date , the Committee appears read y 

to consider legislative action to correct what is certainly an unnecessary, unintended set of circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the current debacle involving the Corps of Engineers prom pts 

our reiteration of a principle which, when it is neglected, produces subs equent 

long-term disarray. Th at principle, we suggest, is construction of law which 

minimizes unintentional results.

Senator Jackson of W ashington, speaking at our annual meeting two years ago, 

alluded to a case-in-point which is close to our Association’s basic interest. He 

said th at there are times now when he simply does not recognize the original 

inte ntions of Congress in enac ting the National Environmen tal Policy Act. The 

rules, the regulations, the authorities and their implementations residing in and 

flowing from the Executive Branch go far beyond—and often appe ar to depart 

almost willfully from—the Congressional expression in NEP A, and especially 

th at expressed policy to “foster and promote the general welfare, to create and 

mainta in conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, 

and fulfill the social, economic and other requireme nts.”

The Environm ental Protection Agency of course is the fron t-runner in what 

we might characteriz e as run-away use of Congressional legislation. And EPA 

is at the center of the problem which draws this Com mittee’s attention .

It is obvious th at EPA, certain environmental pressure groups and the courts 

have moved us into an adm inistra tive jungle where we have tota lly lost the 

original p oint of the 1972 water pollution control law.

Congress put Section 404 into the 1972 act specifically to keep the Corps’ 

traditiona l autho rity over navigable waters separate from other provisions of the 

act. The section authorize d the Corps to “issue permits for discharge of dredged 

or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.”
721

The Army, in April 1974, published regulations to carry out this section, 

defining “navigable waters” reasonably close to the inte ntio n of Congress.

The Natural Resources Defense Council—a group which has filed some 135 

suits forcing government nction (of which 10 arose from the 1972 water act and, of 

these 10, five have been resolved in NR DC’s favo r)—sued to bring abo ut the 

District C ourt ruling in March 1975 th at “ navigable waters” in Section 404 means 

what it does for the res t of the act, namely, “th e waters of the United Sta tes .” 

EPA specified th at this includes tributaries of navigable waters, all inters tate 

waters, intra sta te waters, rivers and stream s which are used by inters tate travelers, 

which yield fish sold in inters tate commerce, or which are used by industries 

engaged in inters tate commerce. In other words, all waters.

The Army then came out with its three-phase impleme ntation program which is 

now at the threshhold of Phase II where, at least for the moment, thanks to 

Presidential action on Congressional appeals, it is holding.

In the past year there has been nothing bu t confusion about 404 author ity. 

Farmers, cattle raisers, foresters, construction crews and other citizens are in continuing, increasing dou bt abo ut what can and cannot be underta ken —is this 

activity covered by 404 or isn’t it? As has been pointed out to the Committee by 

other witnesses—and by Senators Domenici, Muskie and others—many activities 

have been held up while waiting to hear if 404 permits are required; in some cases, 

sta te governments require the same procedures as does the Corps, adding d uplication of approvals and compounding the confusion.

The scope and limits of Phase I were not and are not now clearly drawn. Bu t 

th at phase is simple when it is compared to the phases to follow.

Unless this Congress takes steps to preven t it, the Corps will in less than GO days 

now move the perm it program into the prim ary tributaries of navigable waters, 

lakes and adjacent wetlands; and this time next year, there will be required 

Federal perm its for dredge and fill materials entering any waters of the L nited 

States.

If this occurs, the unintended, confused circum stances of 404 will continue.

The appropriate correctional route was begun, we believe, in the House action 

on II.R . 9560, with the approac h struc tured by Congressmen Breaux and Wright. 

This approach redirects the Corps of Engineers to the environm ental protection 

mission intended by Congress in enacting th e 1972 law. It again charges the Corps 

to guard against pollution from dredged or fill materials which impact on—or 

result from—maintenan ce of th e nation ’s commercial waterways. But it exempts 

certain farm, forestry, ranching and other activities and it provides for delegation 

of 404 regulatory autho rity to states which request it. Essentially, the House bill 

tries to clear up confusion surrounding 404, to restore the perspective Congress 

intended, and to safeguard both the environment and property rights.

By acting favorably on this approach, Congress will lead the country out of the 

bureaucratic jungle which now characterizes the 404 program. Failure to act can 

result only in a Federal land use scheme with no state, local or individual inpu t and 

minimum economic growth.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for receiving 

NE DA ’s views in this v ital issue.

W H A T IS T H E N A T IO N A L E N V IR O N M E N T A L D E V E L O P M E N T A SS OCIA TIO N?

NEDA was organized on April 18, 1973, in Washington, D.C., following more 

tha n a year’s work by an ad hoc group of business, labor and government officials. 

The late Senator Allen Ellende r of Louisiana, the n chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, encouraged the organizers of N EDA with a 1972 statem ent 

which began: “ We can and must find ways to improve our environment without 

destroying our economic system .”

NED A is a n ational association with members from every part of th e country, 

from every segment of society. In NED A are small and large companies in a wide 

range of interests, labor unions, trade associations, farmers, cattle raisers, land 

developers, water users, scientists, economists, environmentalists and many 

private citizens.

W II A T IS N ED A ’S P U R P O S E ?

Articles of incorporation sta te NEDA’s purpose to be to: “Seek, prom ote and 

foster th e best metho ds for environmental protection th at will allow the continued 

development of our man ufacturing, agric ultural, transp ort ation and water potential necessary to the economic growth of the nation, and improveme nt of the 

standard of living of its people.”
722

NED A was founded on the belief th at economic grow th and environmental 

development are essentially compatible. It seeks to balance natio nal needs in 

these respects.

HOW IS TH IS PUR POSE FULFILLED?

1. Research and education.—NE DA ’s program promotes public and government 

recognition of the necessity for balancing natio nal needs in decisions dealing with 

economic, energy and environmental factors. This program is guided by th e Board 

of Directors, the Executive Com mittee and other committees. Results of volunteer 

and staff work include preparatio n of position papers, testimo ny to Federal and 

and Sta te legislative bodies, publications and tas k force efforts often involving 

cooperation with other organizations.

2. Information and Publications.— A monthly newsletter, BALANCE; and a 

special compendium of information, EE E REVIEW, are distrib uted to Congressional and other government officials, to other opinion-shapers, and to the press. 

An annual report provides a sum mary of activities, articles draw n from annual 

and oth er conferences, lists of officers and board members and other information 

of inte rest to members and to the public. Special publications, including position 

papers, speech reprints, articles, NED A testimony and the like are made available 

to members and to others.

3. Conferences and Meetings.—r-An annual National Conference in Washington 

serves as a public forum on balancing critical needs. Key Congressional and 

Adm inistration officials partic ipate with business, labor and association representatives in an examination of current issues.

NE DA ’s Annual Meeting is generally scheduled with the National Conference 

to facilitate member attendence. Officers and Board Members are elected, and 

oth er business is conducted. The Board of Directors meets at least once annually, 

with the Executive Committee convening regularly to represent th e Board and to 

govern association affairs. Comm ittees and Task Forces hold meetings at the call 

of their respective chairmen.

4. Soecial Activities.— Actions of the Association are regularly reported in 

BALANCE and are summarized in each yea r’s report to the membership. In 

addition, qua rterly “ Recent Activities” papers are sent to the membership and 

others.

NE DA ’s T riple E Award recognizes Congressmen, scientists, writers and o ther 

individuals whose public statements an d work reflect an understanding of the need 

for balance in key issues.

In addition, through NEDA initiative, work is coordinated with numerous 

oth er national, regional and sta te associations whose inte rest in “triple E” issues 

coincides with NEDA’s. A num ber of these organizations are NED A members 

and are represented on the Board.

The Association has received more than 100 letters from members of Congress 

and others, expressing interest in NEDA, endorsing the “Campaign for Balance.” 

More tha n 50 publications have written abo ut NED A and its activities since 

April 1973.

JOI NING NEDA AND THE CAMPAIGN FOR BALANCE

There are two categories of membership—group (which includes companies, 

unions, associations, sta te auth orities, etc.) and individual.

The Board establishes the dues stru cture for each budget year. Current dues 

schedule for individual members (reserved for those not affiliated with a company or group for membership purposes) ranges from $10 to $100.

Company, union, association or other group memberships are in five categories, 

depending upon level of contribution, ranging from $100 to $10,000, with full 

membership requiring a minimum of $500. All dues and contributions are taxdeductible.

For more information, write NEDA at the address on the other side of this 

page; or call (202) 638-1230.

National Farmers Union, 

Washington, D.C., July 22, 1976.

H o n . Mike Gravel,

IJ.S. Senate,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Gravel: The atta che d memorandum is being sent to all members of the Senate concerning Farmers Unio n’s position on S. 2710 which is pending before the Senate, and which contains language under Section 16 which
723

resolves the controversy over the jurisdiction of the Army Engineers over agricultural waters.

We are in full sup port of this legislation, and we ask th at you include both this 

memorandum and the atta che d memorandum to members of the Senate, in the 

record of hearings of the Public Works Subcommittee.

Sincerely,

R eube n L. J oh ns on , 

Director o f Legislative Services.

Enclosure.

J uly 22, 1976.

Memorandum To: All Members of th e Senate.

From: Reuben L. Johnson, Director of Legslative Services.

Farmers Union urges your sup port for S. 2710, which has been passed by the 

House and is now pending before the Senate. This bill amends the Water Pollution Control Act in one respect which is of great impo rtance to the agriculture 

community.

The bill has in it, und er Section 16, clarifying language concerning the jurisdiction of Army Engineers over agricultural activ ities affecting public waters. This 

language, which is referred to as the Wright Amendment, would help to clarify 

what has become a very confused issue, and the bill merits you r support.

National Grange, 

Washington D.C., Ju ly 15, 1976.

Hon. E dmund S. Muskie,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, Committee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate, Washington D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Grange is a general farm organization, 

comprised of producers of most major commodities, rural, suburban, and urban 

residents. The memb ership represents individual family members interested in 

preserving the family farm as a n integral part of agricultural prod uctio n and the 

development of ru ral communities where services will be available in parity with 

metropolitan areas.

The National Grange has supported conservation of our natural resources for 

over 100 years and was among the original supp orters of organized government 

efforts to bring about constructive measures to enhance the environm ent. This 

included support of Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972.

The in tent of this law had far-reaching implications on the way of life in America, 

a way of life which in a num ber of ways had been detrimental to everyone’s best 

interests. There was a lot of cleaning up to do an d it called for drastic action. The 

action is un derstan dab le when the impact a nd cost can be assessed agaiust a city 

or a specific indus try bu t the lines become fuzzy when these actions are directed 

against individuals, their livelihood and their personal property rights.

It is clear from the law t ha t we want to stop dumping pollutants into our rivers, 

streams, lakes and ponds. Prohibitio ns were spelled out in various sections of the 

law, namely Sections 301 and 402. Because dredge spoil and fill were pollutants 

and since dredging of navigable wate rs for inters tate commerce had traditiona lly 

and logically been a Corps of Engineers responsibility, Section 404 was added to 

give the Corps autho rity to control through p ermits this very significant activity.

By defining navigable waters in Section 502 to include the world, the courts 

found th at th e Corps should initiate a perm it system under 404 as far-reaching as 

the 502 definition. As a consequence, the Corps of Engineers issued interim final 

regulations which threaten to involve the United States Army in th e most min ute 

and innocuous t ype of farm operation.

Not only is this unw arra nted interference in farm operations, it is a case of the 

taking of private property without jus t compensation.

Exem pting normal farming operations from the Corps program is not a satisfactory answer. Nor is the concept of deleting Section 404 from the law. The 

only satisfactory solution is to specifically limit the Corps of Engineers to a role 

of controlling the deposit of polluta nts brough t abo ut thro ugh dredge and fill 

operations in navigable waters, navigable waters being those wate rs where interstate commerce is conducted.

The “W right amend ment” which is embodied in S. 2710 accomplishes this 

purpose and the National Grange strongly supports its passage.
724

The National Grange is in favor of national legislation specifically designed 

to protect wetlands hut it vehem ently opposes the attempt to use a water qua lity 

law to bring abo ut this end.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

J ohn W . Sc o tt,

Master.

N ati o na l Liv esto c k F e e d e r s Asso c ia tio n,

Omaha, Nebr., J uly 27, 1976.

S e n a to r J e n n in g s R a n d o lph ,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: Enclosed is the sta tem ent of the National Livestock Feeders Association regarding oversight hearings on Section 404 of the 

Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act—Dredge and Fill.

It is the position of the NLFA th at the interim final regulations, “ Perm its 

for Activities in Navigable Waters or Ocean Waters,” Part 209, Adm inistrative 

Procedure, 40F R 31320-31344 July 25, 1976, have create d considerable confusion 

and have exten ded the autho rity of the U.S. Corps of Engineers much further 

than Congress intended in passing the Act.

The Association strongly recommends th at Congress adopt appropriate legislation to absolve the situ atio n and to provide the Corps with clear-cut jurisdictional boundar es consisten t with its prim ary responsibility.

It is requested that you enter the Association’s statem ent in the hearing 

record.

Sincerely,

F rank Ar n e y ,

Director of Association Services.

Enclosure.

Sta te m e n t o f F rank A r n e y , D ir ec t o r o f Ass o cia tio n S e r v ic es, N a tio n a l

L iv esto c k F e e d e r s Asso cia tio n

Dredge and Fill

Permits for Activities in Navigable Waters or Ocean Waters, Pa rt 209— 

Administrative Procedure, 40 FR 31320-31344, Jul y 25, 1976, as applied to 

Sec. 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

« * • • • • •

The Natio nal Livestock Feeders Association subm its th at the interim final 

regulations, referenced above, overextend the autho rity of the U.S. Corps of 

Engineers, and have resulted in considerable confusion and serious misinterpretati on of Sec. 404 of the Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act. The Association 

strongly recommends Congressional action to provide clarification, most importantly of the term “navigable waters,” to limit the Corps to its prim ary 

area of responsibility, namely, the protection of navigation.

“ r e s p o n s ib il it y o f co rps o f e n g in e e r s ”

The prim ary function of the Corps of Engineers is protection of navigation. 

To east the Corps in th e role of protecting the e nvironment is a significant change 

in that function and clearly not the intent of Congress.

This was, as a ma tter of fact, specified by Senator Edmund Muskie, chief 

sponsor of S. 2770 which became P.L. 92-500, the “Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act Amendments of 1972.” In explaining the bill to his colleagues, Senator 

Muskie said, “The mission of the Corps of Engineers is to protect navigatio n. 

Its mission is no t to p rote ct the environment.” This s tatem ent by Senator Muskie 

makes it clear th at Congress did not intend for the U.S. Corps of Engineers to 

have permit autho rity as far reaching as th at provided for in the interim 

final regulations. To assume otherwise makes the grave error of relinquishing to 

an administrative branch of the Federal Government the power of legislating 

and, in addition, exercising a measure of land use control without land use 

legislation.
725

In this connection, the Com mittee’s attention is also drawn to the specific 

language of Section 404 of P.L. 92-500. Sec. 404(b)(1) calls for permits to specify 

disposal sites with guideline crite ria comparable to those which apply to the 

terr itorial seas, the contiguous zone and the ocean. See. 404(b)(2) says th at 

where the application of such guidelines alone would prohibit the specification of 

a site the economic imp act of the site on navigation and anchorage shall be 

applied. The words which have been underlined for emphasis, “te rritoria l seas,” 

“contiguous zone,” “ocean,” “naviga tion,” and “anchorage” are not words 

which direct, or even infer, the Corps involvement in other tha n those waters 

ove r which the Corps has had trad itional jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Association urges Congress to tak e the appropriate action 

to restrict the U.S. Corps of Engineers to its proper sphere of responsibility and 

function.

“th e ne ed to cl ar ify th e te rm na viga bl e w at er s”

The NLFA views injec ting a branch of the Military into an area of auth ority 

alien to its trad itio nal responsibility as a serious mistake, Specifically, the Association is disturb ed over the ill-founded definition of the term “navigable w aters” 

as used in the interim final regulations.

Using the word “n avigable” in referring to many lakes, rivers, streams, and 

oth er water impoundments is confusing and illogical because it is co ntrary to the 

understanding most people have of th e word.

As a result of this single term the interim final regulations are confusing, complex, too openended, too broad, and too sub ject to individual inte rpretation .

The implications of the rules and regulations as the y now stand would be 

unduly burdensome, time consuming and expensive for farmers. For consumers 

the imposition of the rules and regulations would resu lt in higher food costs

“ nl fa re co mmen da tion ”

Congress can favorably resolve the situatio n by taking appropriate legislative 

action to clarify the term “navigable waters” as it is commonly understoo d and 

as it applies to the trad itio nal definition and scope of autho rity of the Corps.

Efforts to reach a solution adm inistratively will only add to the confusion, 

prolong a final and satisfac tory decision, resu lt in additional and unnecessary 

expense, and will face the likelihood of being contested in the Courts.

The National Livestock Feeders Association strongly recommends tha t Congress 

act prom ptly to amend pending legislation to include language similar to th at 

offered by Congressman Wright of Texas as an ame ndm ent to II. It. 9560 which 

was passed by the House on Jun e 3, 1976. (11.It. 9560 was subsequently vacated 

and S. 2710, a similar Senate-passed bill, was passed in lieu after being amended 

to contain the language of the House bill as passed.)

The entire ame ndment is to be found in 122CII, Jun e 3, 1976, II5267: “Navigable wate rs” are defined as “. . . all wate rs which are presently used, or are 

susceptible to use in their natur al condition or by reasonable improvement as a 

means to transp ort inters tate or foreign commerce shoreward to their ordinary 

high w ater mark, including all waters which are s ubject to the ebb and flow of the 

tide shoreward to the ir mean high water mark (mean higher high water mark on 

the west coast).”

During the colloquy in the House on the Wright amen dment, Congressman 

Breaux of Louisiana, who had previously offered an ame ndment similar to th at of 

Congressman Wright, provides insight into what the ame ndment would do as 

regards the definition of “navigable waters.” (See 122CR, June 3, 1976, H5271) 

Mr. Breaux said, “I t simply keeps a Section 404 Corps of Engineers perm it 

requ irement for a ny dredge or fill activities tha t are being done in navigable waters, 

and it says th at ‘navigable waters’ are waters th at are navigable now or waters 

th at are susceptible of being made navigable by reasonable improvem ent.”

Such language provides the needed clarification of th e term “navigable w aters” 

and sets up specific boundaries for the Corps, allowing it to continue to function 

■effectively and efficiently in its prim ary mission of navigation protection.

Directly related to the confusion created by the term “navigable waters” is 

anoth er term, “adjacen t wetlands,” which also needs clarification. The language 

offered by Mr. Wright in his amendment provides the necessary definition 

as “. . . (A) those coastal wetlands, mudflats, swamps, marshes, shallow's, and 

those areas periodically inunda ted by saline or brackish waters th at are normally 

characterized by the prevalence of salt or brackish water vegetation capable of
726

growth and reproduction, which are contiguous or adjace nt to other navigable 

water subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and (B) those freshwater wetlands 

including marshes, shallows, swamps, and similar areas th at are contiguous our 

our adjacent to other navigable waters, th at support freshwater vegetation and 

th at are periodically inundated and are normally characterized by the prevalence 

of vegetation th at requires satura ted soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

Again, Mr. Breaux provides clarification. He said, “Specifically, in addition, 

it includes adjacent wetlands, and it defines w hat ‘wetlands’ are. It is a very broad 

definition. It means coastal wetlands, mudflats, swamps, marshes, shallows, and 

even those areas th at are periodically inundated by saline or brackish waters. 

So, specifically it says th at perm its will be required so th at those areas will be 

pro tected.”

Again, in the House language very definite boundaries of responsibility and 

autho rity have been established, and confusion has been eliminated, but necessary 

protection has been provided.

Finally, then, in the scheme of things, we come to the role of agriculture. The 

productio n of food and fiber for domestic use and exports is recognized universally 

as being extremely imp ortant to the economic well-being of this natio n. Consequently, Sec. (h)(1) and (3) of the amendment providing th at normal farming 

will no t be “ prohibited by or otherwise sub ject to regulation u nder this Act” is an 

im portant and valuable part of the am endm ent and should definitely be re taine d.

We would strongly recommend th at the committee add such an amendment to 

pending legislation, such as S. 3037.

Such action would provide needed clarification through Congressional action, 

relieve agricultural activities from permit regulations, bu t still provide protection to those areas which need protectio n and which were inten ded to be covered 

by the Act in the first place. The NLFA strongly recommends and urges th at the 

Committe e take such action.

Sta te m e n t of t h e N a tio n a l P arks an d C o n ser v a tio n Ass o cia ti o n

Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished members of the Com mittee:

The National Parks and Conservation Association apprecia tes the opportunity 

to present this statem ent on the implem entation of Section 404 of the 1972 Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). The NPCA was founded in 1919 by 

Stephen Mather, the first Director of the National Park Service as an independent, 

citizen-based conservation organization to promote and protect the national 

park s and monum ents of the U.S. This statem ent is being presented on behalf 

of NPC A’s nearly 50,000 members nationwide in strong sup port of the responsibilities given the Army Corps of Engineers in Section 404 P erm it Program, which 

insures (through regulation of dredged and fill mate rial discharges) the chemical 

and biological integrity of all the waters of the U.S.

The U.S. redirected its national water resources conservation policy toward 

acceptanc e of increased responsibility for protecting the nation’s aquatic resources, 

with the 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA. It is the opinion of NPCA th at the 

recent shuffling of the 404 Perm it Program is irresponsible. Lack of action by the 

“decision makers” neglects the commitmen ts of the FWPCA of 1972, t ha t could 

lead to perm anent destruction of the character of our valuable inland water 

resources.

NPCA feels th at jo int Federal and State control over the indiscriminate dumping of polluted materials into small stream s, river swamps and coastal marshes 

as well as our majo r navigational waterways, is essential to their preservation. 

Broad geographical imp act analysis can be provided by the Corps of Engineers 

to prevent the regulation of unharmful or insignificant discharges th at when 

evaluated state by state may no t be related to the inte grity of the na tion’s aquatic 

ecosystem as a whole. For example, the Corps’ Chesapeake Bay Study is being 

aided by a 14 acre full scale, working hydrolic model of the entire bay and its 

estuaries. The Corps’ Baltimore District is conducting a stu dy of the Bay in its 

entire ty as one ecological entity, without the sta te line restrictions, th at force 

artificial sectioning of the Bay. Respect for the nation ’s inlan d water resources 

as a whole is vital to their best management and conservation.

It is th e opinion of NPCA that within the last three or four years the Corps has 

shown a responsive change in attitud e toward development of an environmental 

ethic th at hits led to their recognition of the value of our noncommercial waterways. First they began hiring environmentalists to prepare impact s tate ments to
727

assist those making the final decisions to meet th e challenges of the 1970 National 

Environmental Policy Act. Then the Corps’ 1975 fall issue of “ Water S pec trum ’’, 

set two new env ironmental considerations as follow’s:

1. Increased use of nons tructural flood control approaches.

2. Creation of wetlands instead of dam construction to store excess waters. 

Finally on April 16th of this year The Corps denied a dredge and fill perm it for

development of 2,039 acres of mangrove swamps on Marco Island, Florida. 

NPCA hopes this decision sets a new “environmental response” preceden t for 

the Corps.

The Corps presently holds responsibility for maintenance of our navigational 

inland waterw ays and flood control measures th at entail acquiring floodplain 

areas. Inclusion of the 404 Perm it Program, among existing Corps responsibilities, 

enables the Corps to develop a comprehensive maintenance process to pro tect the 

physical inte grity of all inlan d aquatic systems, including wetlands, encompassing 

environmental assessment and local sta te input.

NPCA feels the 404 Permit Program provides the opportu nity for dire ct sta te 

involvement in water resource managem ent thro ugh joint Fed eral/State permit 

processing. This joint processing allows the sta te to deny a Sec. 404 perm it by 

means of its own sta te water qua lity certification. In addition, provision was 

made for implementing approved sta te coastal zone or wetland managem ent 

perm it programs, when they exist, with precedence as long as no conflict with 

the broader national water resource protection intere st existed.

However, NPCA does tak e strong exception to the recent Breau x-Wright 

Amendments to the reworked Water Pollution Control Act presented by the 

House Public Works Committee as II.R. 9560. These amendments restric t the 

scope of the Corps Permit Program, leaving much of our nation’s inland waters 

and wetlands unmanag ed and therefore unprote cted. Specifically exem pt under 

the Breaux Amendment are those rivers, streams a nd lakes not presently used to 

transp ort inters tate commerce. The Wright Amendment excludes from S(C. 404 

jurisdiction the environmental review of federal projects. This is not in keeping 

with the original protection commitm ent within the FWPCA, P.L. 92-500. The 

Breaux-Wright Amendment depicts a short-sighted and irresponsible approach 

toward resource protectio n.

It is NPC A’s opinion th at our wetlands and non-navigable waters are of vital 

importance to the integr ity of the nation ’s water resources, because:

1. Two-thirds of the economic value of the U.S. commercial fish and shell 

fish production is dependent on wetlands-based food chains.

2. Wetlands provide vita l nesting, rearing, and spawning h abitats for sportfish, 

birds and other wildlife.

3. Wetlands act as natural buffers against storm and flood damage.

4. Wetlands act to recharge the aquifers from which many public drinking 

water supplies are drawn.

As with many of our environm ental resources, the benefits of preserving our 

wetlands has not been realized until at present one half of these irredeemable 

resources have been filled and destroyed. After these wetlands are filled and 

developed the problems of protecting the structures plague the unknowledgeable 

consumer. Often wetland development results in serious damage to the quality 

of nearby water resources. Ground runoff carry ing man-made waste, sediment, 

fertilizer and septic effluent enter water systems, no longer naturally protected 

by the built in filter systems existent in wetland ecosystems.

In light of the above, NPC A opposes the acceptance of any national commitmen t th at falls sho rt of the responsibility to manage and protect the quality 

of the waters of the U.S. for municipal and industrial water supply, recreatio nal 

use, and fish and wildlife hab itat.

Therefore, NPC A strongly opposes the existing Breaux-Wright Amendment 

th at denies responsibility for full protection of “all the waters of the U.S.” \\ e 

further urge t hat the Sec. 404 Permit Program, as established in the 1972 FWPCA 

be administered by the Corps of Engineers w ith enouraged joint state control.

Albuquerque, N. Mex., Ju ly 29, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

U.S. Senate, Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: We ask you to pre ven t any damaging amend ­

ments to be added to Public Law 92-500 section 404. The present law with s tri ct 

enforcement is the best law we could possibly have. The damaging ame ndm ents
728

could leave 60,000,000 acres of wetlands unprotected . We object to the possibility of allowing the individual States to be responsible for the enforcement of 

this law. We reque st th at our comm ents be read into the hearing record.

Sincerely,

Nick and Kristina Nicolaus.

Fort Pierce, Fla., July 26, 1976. Senator J enninos R andolph,

Chairman of Senate Public Works Committee, Senate 0 ffice Building, Washington, D.C.

The North St. Lucie River Wa ter Managem ent District, Fort Pierce, Fla. respectfully encourages your active support in passage of S. 2710 (Breaux-W right 

amendment) for th e protection of State s rights, Preven t Federal land use control, 

and stop bureauc ratic regulations and court decisions from usurping congressional authority. Request this notice be made a pa rt of the official hearings record.

W. A. Dun,

President, North St. Lucie River Water Management District.

Northern Virginia Conservation Council,

Annandale, Va., Ju ly 21, 1976. Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, U.S. Senate Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am writin g on behalf of the Northern Virginia 

Conservation Council of which I am president to express the concern of our organization about S. 2710—Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500).

As you are aware, this bill was passed as purely auth orizing legislation by the 

Senate in December. Recen tly, however, this bill has been amended by the House 

of Representatives to add a num ber of substantive sections. Several of t he sub ­

stantive sections added to S. 2710 by the House of Representa tives have the potential to result in environmental damage and seriously weaken important federal 

programs in the area of water pollution control. Specifically, we are concerned th at 

the following sections are not in the public inte rest:

1. Section 16, Permits fo r Dredged or Fill Material.—This section would strip federal protection from a substan tial portion of the wetlands of th e United S tates. 

Our w etlands are va luable and rapidly diminishing natural resources. They function as natural systems for water purification and flood control and as breeding 

grounds and habitat for fish and shellfish. In so doing the y play an irreplaceable 

role in the preservation of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of our 

nation’s waters. They are a vital link in the food chain for fish, wildfowl and other 

birds, and mammals, including man. The wetlands do this at no cost to the taxpayer, in contrast to the billions of dollars th at are forecast as the costs of constructing facilities to perform some of these same functions. Thus, it is not only 

in conflict with the goals of P.L. 92-500 bu t also imp rudent from a fiscal perspective for Congress to perm it these natural areas to be eliminated by dredging or 

filling.

We are aware th at su bstantial objections to the 404 program have been raised. 

We arc not insensitive to those who complain of an unfair burden of regulation. 

However, we believe that, if the program were allowed to co ntinue on its present 

course, those who complain now will find th at th e latest regulations promulgated 

by the Army Corps of Engineers place very little regulatory burden on th e average 

farmer, rancher, or logger. Thus, we do no t feel tha t any change in the law is needed 

at this time. We would not, however, oppose an approach similar to th at embodied 

in an amendment proposed by Senator Gary Ha rt of Colorado which would give 

specific sta tut ory autho rity to the general permit program proposed by the Army 

Corps. This would exempt specific types of activities from regulation bu t would 

not tam per with the scope of the nation’s wetlands to which pollution control 

legislation applies.

We urge you to oppose Section 16 of S. 2710 and if a chance is deemed necessary 

to sup port the Ha rt amendment.

2. Section 12—Section 213, Certification.—This new section would allow EPA 

to delegate to the states approval autho rity for construction gra nt applications.
729

We are not opposed to decentralization of the construction grants program, bu t 

we do feel th at this amendmen t does not contain sufficient safeguards to insure 

th at only qualified states receive delegations and th at the quality of the program 

will be maintained after delegation. In addition, the amendment does not make 

clear th at impor tant NEPA protections and citizen suit rights will be protected 

should delegation take place.

We urge you to work for improvements to this section.

3. Section IS— Section 214, Determination of Priority.—This new section would 

give the states freedom to spend federal gra nt funds for collector sewers to the 

exclusion of tre atm ent facilities which are needed to clean up existing pollution 

problems. We believe th at the intent of P.L. 92-500 was to deal with existing 

pollution problems, not to fund construction of collector sewers which frequently 

stim ulate unplanned growth and thus create new pollution problems. This section 

would give the states the freedom to reverse these priorities.

We urge you to work for its deletion from the bill.

4. Section 19, Rule and Regulation Review.— This would allow a Congressional 

veto of regulations prom ulgated in response to clean water legislation. This would 

create unc ertainty and delay in Federal regulatory programs th at are already 

characterized by too much delay. It is especially threatening because eith er 

chamber of Congress could veto regulations withou t concurrence of the oth er 

chamber. In an area such as w ater pollution control, where there are considerable 

differences between the two chambers with respect to both philosophy and detail, 

a veto exercised by one cham ber alone would open the door for agreements made 

in conference to be subverted by continued unicameral rejection of regulations. 

We believe th at the Con stitutio n has provided for a workable system of checks 

and balances both within the Congress and between the Congress and the executive. The proposed Rule and Regu lation Review Amendment would have an 

unbalancing effect on both these relationships. Wh at we need now is crea tive 

thinking which encourages regulatory programs to move forward expeditiously 

not the addition of new impediments. We urge you to work fo r the deletion of this 

section from the bill.

We note th at the Public Works Committe e has scheduled hearings on the 

Dredge and Fill Permit program on the 27th and 28th of this month.-The Committee is to be congratula ted for its decision to hear public testimony on this 

impor tant issue. However, the Committe e should recognize th at there are oth er 

important issues raised in S. 2710 which have not been the subje ct of hearings in 

the Senate, and, in some cases have not been the subject of hearings in th e House. 

Some of these have been mentioned above.

We urge you not to ac t on any amendments to water pollution control legislation 

without taking time to hold hearings on all the issues. Many of the issues which 

are raised by S. 2710 direc tly relate to findings in the report of the National 

Commission on Water Quality . Since Congress is com mitted to taking up t ha t report and proceeding with “mid-course corrections” in the water pollution control 

program next year, there is no justification, in our opinion, for rushing through a 

bill this year without ade quate hearings. If the legislative calendar is too crowded 

to perm it full hearings this session, th e only responsible course of action is to defer 

action u ntil the new Congress comes in session in Jan uary.

Sincerely,

T homas E. Gause, President.

Mandeville, La., July 14, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

W ashington, D.C.

Dear S enator R andolph: Would you please include this letter as pa rt of th e 

public hearing record of July 27-28, 1976 on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Congressman John Breaux, aided by an unquestioning media, is pulling off a 

terrible coup th at will cripple Louisiana for generations. And very few people 

und erstand what he has done.

You should know th at the newspapers in Louisiana have virtually echoed the 

misleading charges of th e Corps of Engineers and the Secretary of A griculture in 

the ir campaign to shuck off an unw ante d responsbility for protection of the 

nation’s wetlands. It wras a simple task to arouse the fears of Louisiana farmers 

th at Section 404 would preven t them from digging a stock pond on the ir own 

property. It has been virtually impossible to lay those fears to res t because no 

federal agency or respected political figure has h ad the courage to speak the facts.
730

In my opinion, the facts arc th at the small farmers are being used as dupes for 

business interests who reject environmental regulation in the interest of a quick 

buck. This, I believe, explains the strange silence of many politicians on this issue.

I urge that your committe e address what problems may exist in Section 404 

by adopting th e Hart-Cleveland Amendment. Doing this would avoid “throwing 

ou t the baby with the b ath wa ter”. In the coming years as the oil and gas industries abandon Louisiana in search of more productive areas, Louisiana people will 

tur n more and more to the prod ucts of their renewable wetlands. If these wetlands 

have been turned over by the Congress of the United States to exploiters who 

have left them a ravag ed wasteland, a lot of people will suffer.

Many people in our sta te are beginning to rejec t the mentality th at tells us 

“If it makes money for someone, it’s good.” We are starting to ask the question 

“ Who is making the money and who is paying for it?” All too often we are finding 

out th at there are a privileged few making the money and the rest of us taxp ayers 

are footing the bill. It seems plain t ha t the Wright-Breaux Amendment is designed 

to favor certain priv ate interests while removing desperately-needed controls 

over resources which benefit all the people.

Sincerely,

J oan Osbor ne.

Washington, D.C ., Ju ly t l , 1976.

Hon. J enn ings R ando lph,

IJ.S. Senator, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Wash ington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I request th at the contents of this lette r be read 

into the record of the comm ittee hearings on the various proposals to amend 

Section 404 of Public Law 92-500.

I am writing as a New Mexico citizen concerned with the future of New Mexico’s 

wetlands. Before Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act became 

effective in New Mexico on Jul y 1, 1976, the people of New Mexico had no mechanism to insure the protectio n of wetlands. Since July 1, any deposition of spoil 

material in major tributaries of navigable waters and the ir associated wetlands 

requires a perm it from the Corps of Engineers. The Rio Grande, Pecos River, 

San Jua n River, and other river systems in New Mexico all have wetlands, 

altho ugh much diminished by man’s alterations.

The permit process has already been effective in slowing down the rate of wetlands 

loss. The first permit application, applied for by the New Mexico Highway Department, originally would have resulted in the filling of p art of a 14 acre wetland, 

and the cutting in two of the remainder. Several acres would have been destroyed. 

After consultation with the resource agencies, and public inp ut from citizens, 

the Highway Dep artm ent modified the project to include exchange of water 

between the two wetlands on each side of the proposed road, and purchase of 5 

acres to be managed join tly by the Highway Depar tment and Dep artm ent of 

Game and Fish.

The argument th at the Section 404 perm it program is causing or will cause a 

hard ship on farmers in New Mexico is completely unfounded. The perm its thus 

far reviewed in this sta te have not related to farming activity. Very few, if any, 

permits will relate to legitimate farming practices. The permit program will, 

however, be effective in controlling the drainage of wetlands simply to change 

the land use withou t examining the costs of such action to the American people.

The Corps of Engineers has been able to administer the program thus far with 

the minimum of delays. The program is manageable, as evidenced by the success of 

the program in New Mexico so far.

An amendment to Section 404 has been adopted by the House which would 

remove Corps jurisdiction from major tributaries of navigable waters. If the 

amendment were to be adopted by Congress, the protection presently afforded 

wetlands in New Mexico would be removed. Wetland destruction would continue 

una bated and the Congress would have to take the blame for it.

I urge you to consider the impacts of any amendm ent to Section 404 and vote no 

to any measure which would emasculate the only and best tool th at the people of 

New Mexico have for protecting their wetland resource.

Sincerely yours,

R obert D. P acific, 

Albuquerque, N. Mex.
731

P acker R iv e r T e r m in a l, I n c.,

Si. Paul, Min n., Ju ly 26, 1976.

Subject: Oversight hearings section 404 permit program.

S en a te P u b lic W orks C o m m it t ee,

Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.,

Washington, D.C.

(Attention Senator Jennings Rand olph, C hairm an).

G e n t l e m e n : The attached brochure generally describes the natur e of Pack er 

River Terminal’s proposed development in the metropolitan Twin Cities area. 

This multi-million dollar development has been regularly and system atic ally 

stymied by the m alad ministration of present Section 404 Guidelines by the Corps 

of Engineers Dis trict Head qua rters in St. Paul.

I will not bore you with the details of our relationship with the Corps, locally, 

except to s tat e th at they have done their utm ost to delay this su bject develo pment 

on the premise th at the “404 Guidelines” require the call for an EIS—this after 

negotiations and mitigation which dates back to Jun e 1974.

Packer has received app ropriate perm its and approvals from all other affected 

agencies, save two: EPA and the Corps. Approvals include: Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency; Minnesota Dept. of Na tural Resources; Minnesota Historical 

Society; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; City of South St. Paul, Minnesota ; and 

Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.

Packer has agreed to dedicate some 30 acres of its 120-acre tr ac t to the public, 

and to improve this area for public use.

The City of South St. Paul is an Economically Depressed Area pursu ant to 

designation by the Economic Development Adm inistration (EDA) of the Depar tment of Commerce.

The site of the proposed development is the location of a former Boise Cascade 

paper warehouse and term inal vacated in 1967. The facility has served no useful 

purpose since tha t date, and has been declared a blighting influence to the development of th e proximate area, by the City officials.

The Corps of Engineers (St. Paul District) and EPA officials (from the Chicago 

Regional Office) have draw n an arb itra ry “404 line on our site plan, and have 

ada mantly refused to negotiate its adjustm ents. This refusal on their pa rt is in 

spite of local and sta te approvals; in spite of Pac ker’s good-faith efforts to offer 

sound mitigatio n proposals; and is co ntrary to the very spirit and intent of their 

regulations.

I have indicated the Corps/E PA “404” line on the site map on the second page 

of the atta che d brochure. The solid line inked on the map indicates the EPA / 

Corps 404 line. The dashed line indicates our proposed mitigated 404 line. Pack er 

has already agreed to dedicate the 30-acre parcel, on the river, to the public, as 

noted on the site map.

Corps and EPA officials are using the EIS procedure as a means to delay and 

obs truct the project, after over two years of negotiations and meetings, and afte r 

having issued a Section 10 Permit to constru ct the barge slip.

It is this sort of situation which is causing the gradual erosion of the initiative 

of p rivate industry. We can find ways to deal with laws, guidelines, and regulations which deal with ma tters of the public inte rest—but it is an impossibility to 

deal with public officials who sub stitute ambivalence for decisiveness; and who 

render their own adaptations and inte rpretations of laws, regulations, and guidelines, to satisfy their personal whim s; to circumvent the need to make a decision; 

or to obstruc t or delay a project to the point of ultim ate b ank ruptcy.

I offer to discuss this ma tter, in detail, at the convenience of the Committee, or 

its staff. I genuinely apologize th at we must be forced to bring issues such as these 

to your forum; yet it is imperative th at you und erstand the ramifications of the 

404 Permit Program as p rese ntly administered. We ha ve expended over $600,000 

in our efforts and stand to lose alm ost half of our land in the process. If it happens 

to us, for a portion of our property which certainly serves no significant public 

purpose, now or in the future, then it will happen to others. There is no balance to 

such an approach, and the guidelines and regulations will be nothing more tha n a 

dictate to forestall economic development.

Respectfully yours,

T hom as J . M cM a h o n, P.E.,

President. Attachment.

76-161
732
Packet Rivet Terminal's 90 ac re site is loca ted a t mile 832 on the up per Mississippi and within the MinneapolisSt Paul Metropolitan area Your com mo dities can be transferred quickly and smoothly utilizing the following 

terminal services

2100' x 250 ba rge slip Utilities - water, gas. electricity

152.000 sq It building Direct access Io Interstate 494

2,500 sq ft m ain ten ance bu ild ing n . acres of su rfaced stag ing area

5 ton overhead crane Direct access to five railroads
CftN W

Pa cker River Terminal. Inc 

I So St Paul. M inn esota

Packer River Terminal's excellent river a ccess south of the Twin Cities provides yo u an unm atched opportunity 

for locatio n an d growth As a transfer point for your shipments into and out o f the Midwest, our facility also 

connects you to terminals lo ca ted throu ghout the entire mid-c ontinent river system
735

Packer River Terminal's over-riding ob jective is to deve lop a plan ne d river oriented facility to serve you. 

Whether our site Is a p lace to loc ate your facilities or our services a re used to receive an d ship your com mod ities. we invite your Ideas a nd partic ipation in de ve loping our m ultiple use terminal and distribution c om plex
Packer River Terminal, Inc., a subsidiary of Twin City Barge & Towing Company, is developing 

a multi million dollar general commodity transfer and distribution center on the upper Mississippi 

River, gateway Io the Midwest agricultural community The chosen site in South St. Paul will have 

lacilities tor complete iritermodal exchange of commodities and freight between rail, truck, 

barge an d pipeline We will acco mm odate various cargoes including energy products, grains, 

tertilizors. salt, buildirrg materials, mine products, steel and steel products, and pap er products 

We invite you to pin with us in the deve lopm ent of this facility to assure the accom modation of 

your needs us a prospective user or tenant.
737

Winter Haven, Fla., Ju ly 21, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

(For the record of th e hearing of July 27-28, on Section 404 of the Clean \V ater 

Act.)

Please try to preven t any changes to this Act until all three phases have been 

tested. There has not been time to see how it works. We m ust p rotect our water.

Thanks. Ira A. Parks.

Winter Haven, F la., July 21, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

(For the record of th e hearing of July 27-28 on Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act.)

I urge the Committee to 

amendments.

reta in ‘404’ in it ’s present form without weakening 

Evelyn C. Parks.

Cedar Crest, N. Mex., Ju ly 21, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

U.S. Senator,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am writing this lette r on the occasion of your 

comm ittee hearings on t he various proposals to amend Section 404 of Public Law 

92-500. I requ est th at the contents of this lette r be read into the record of the 

hearings. .

It is my strong conviction th at Section 404 as it now stands is the best single 

piece of legislation in existence for the p rotection of our nation’s wetlands. None of 

the other federal or state legislation has a credible record of slowing the rapid 

destruction of w etlands going on at this very minute around the country .

I have had th e privilege of participating in the administration of Phase II of th e 

Army Corps implementa tion of Section 404. So far there have been abo ut ten of 

these permit applications in the Sta te of New Mexico which have required inputs 

from various agencies and individuals. To my knowledge none of these have crea ted 

unadministrable problems for the Corps or undue hardships on the applican t. 

Furtherm ore, I do no t know of any circumstances in New Mexico where implementation of either Phase I I or Phase I II would adversely affect the normal operation 

of farms or ranches. I think these fears both here and elsewhere in the nation are 

grea tly exaggerated.

I, therefore, would strongly oppose any change th at would weaken the effectiveness of Section 404.

Sincerely, „ „ John C. Peterson.

Baltimore, Md., July 20, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: This statem ent is with reference to recently passed 

H.R . 9560, now renumbered S. 2710, hearings on which are to be held J uly 27-28. 

This bill app arently guts several sections of the Clean Wate r Act, and contains 

the Wright-Breaux Amendment th at excludes most wetlands from protection 

under Section 404 and cuts back controls over the n ati on’s waters und er the 1899 

Rivers and Harbors Act.

May I respectfully urge your support of the Har t amendment to the Clean 

Water Act and your opposition to S. 2710, especially to the Wright-Breaux 

Amendment contained therein. .

With all the Democratic emphasis on the restoration of the quality of life m 

this country and the protection of its invaluable resources, it would seem strange 

th at a bill should be passed by a Democratic Congress th at does neither.
738

Kindly consider this statem ent as testimony to be included for the record of 

the hearing of Ju ly 27-28, 1976, on Section 404 of the Clean Wate r Act.

Sincerely and respectfully,

J ames C. Pine.

Linville, N.C., July 24, 1976. Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Pub lic IForks Committee, 4&02 Dirksen Senate Office Build ing,

W ashington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: Wetlands are too valuable to waste. They are 

valuable in many ways, not the least of which are recreational and aesthetic. 

Even more imp orta nt, wetlands provide vital spawning and feeding areas for 

many species of sport and commercial fish. They provide nesting, feeding, and 

resting areas for millions of migratory birds, including game birds. They provide 

filtering actio n which removes many organic and industrial pollutants which 

would otherwise contribute to contamination of drinking water supplies, and they 

disperse an d store flood waters, build land by trapping sediment, and by dissipating 

the destructive force of storm-driven waters they provide an irreplaceable buffer 

against shoreline erosion.

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act 

Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500) provides vital protectio n to the wetlands of 

the United States. The House Wright-Breaux Amendment (H.R. 9560, now 

S. 2710) excludes most wetlands from th at protection. It is clearly in the public 

interest to continue the 404 program withou t such amen dment. The proposed 

Senate Hart-Cleveland Amendment, which would clarify existing provisions of the 

bill which have been widely misin terpreted , is a preferable alte rnative .

I sincerely urge th at the House Wright-Breaux Amendment be rejected as not 

in the public interest, and th at extended funding be authorize d for the Clean 

Water Act for the period necessary to impleme nt the full three-phase program of 

Section 404, and furthermore th at no additional amendments should be considered until the full program has gone into effect and can be evaluate d according 

to its merit.

Yours Truly,

Mrs. J ames E. Plymire.

J uly 27, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am writing to urge your committe e to defer

ame ndment of Section 404 of th e Clean Water Act.

I am a property owner in Bethany Beach, Delaware and I would much rather

see pollution control of the waters arou nd there in the hands of the Corps of 

Engineers tha n in the hands of the state, where so often political considerations 

outweigh ecological considerations.

I hope you will include this letter in the record of your current hearings. 

Tha nk you.

Sincerely,

Kirk R ankin.

Spokane, Wash., Ju ly 15, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Pub lic Works Committee, 4%®% Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I am requesting th at the following four points be 

included in the record of the hearing of July 27-28, 1976, on section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act.

(1) it is premature to amend Section 404; no hearings should be held nor 

amendments considered until after the full three-phase program has gone into 

effect.

(2) the proposed Senate Hart-Cleveland Amendment is preferable to the 

Wright-Breaux House Amendment since it would address those issues mistakenly 

raised by those who oppose further regulations under the section; it would write
739

into law the exemptions and general permit program already set for Phases II 

and III in th e regulations, and it would provide a progress report for the Congress 

to review at the end of the next year.

(3) wetland areas are valuable for the ir capabilities to break down and remove 

quantities of pollu tants such as inorganic nutrie nts and organic wastes from the ir 

tributaries, to store flood waters and to feed and nurture the lower end of the 

food chain.

(4) the House amendm ent would stop the Section 404 program from controlling 

the discharge of polluted dredged materials into tributaries of drinking water 

supplies th at do not happ en to fall within the House’s narrowed definition of 

“navigable waters.”

Tha nk you, Senator Randolph, for this opportunity to express my views on 

this very impor tant legislation.

Sincerely yours

Thomas L. Rector.

Rivers Unlimited, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, J uly 23, 1976.

Re for the record of the hearing of July 27-28, 1976, on section 404 of the Clean 

Wate r Act.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, 4%02 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: We respectfully request th at your com mitte oppose

any and all attemp ts to make substantive changes in the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act and specifically in Section 404 as proposed in S. 2710.

Rivers Unlimited is a state-wide coalition of thirty-four (34) organizations 

concerned with the preservation of natura l, free-flowing rivers and streams in 

Ohio. It seeks to preserve the social, economic and en vironmental values associa ted 

with rivers as natura l, ecological systems. The member organizations are composed 

of farmers, landowners, and others equally concerned with the conservation of 

our natural resources.

Our membership is deeply concerned abo ut several provisions of S. 2710. As 

it now stan ds, this bill guts several sections of the Clean Water Act. It contains 

the Wright-Breaux Amendment th at excludes 85% of this natio n’s wetlands 

from protection under Section 404 and reduces necessary controls over the na tio n’s 

waters under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act.

More specifically, S. 2710 would negatively imp act the goals of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act as follows:

(1) The Breaux Amendment would exclude from federal protection all wetlands, 

including rivers and ocean inlets, above the mean high water mark, leaving onehalf of the coastal wetlands and 85% of the tota l wetlands, completely u nprotected 

by law. Uncontrolled dredging and filling would have far-reaching negative effects. 

Wetlands serve as important sources of food for commercially valuable fish an d 

shellfish; as vital nesting areas for birds and fur-bearing anim als; as water purifiers 

and as aids in retarding flood waters and recharging water supplies.

Fur ther, recent studies at th e Institute of Ecology a t the University of Georgia 

quantify the many values of marshland in term s of dollars per acre including:

(a) Commercial and sport fisheries_________________________________ $100

(b) Aquaculture poten tia l_______ ______ __________________ _____ 630

(c) Ter tiar y waste tre atmen t poten tial__________________ _____ _____ 2, 500

(d) Life su ppo rt value (wildlife habitat, oxygen production, storm protectio n) ______________________________________________________4, 100

Tota l value per acre of m arshland________________________ 7, 330

(2) The Wrig ht-Breaux Amendment would delegate the massive municipal 

sewage tre atm ent facility construction program to the states. The amend ment 

would authorize the Adm inistrator of the Environ men tal Protectio n Agency to 

delegate to the states $35 billion in federal funds and would give the states the 

exclusive right to approve applications for local construction grants. The bill 

does not provide for effective EPA review, and criteria and safeguards were not 

included to ensure th at only states with adequa te programs are given this a utho rity. Most imp orta nt, this amendment does not protect the requiremen t for 

environmental impact statem ents or the right of citizens to sue.
740

In summary, we oppose any weakening amendments to the Clean Water Act 

and respectfully request tha t your comm ittee support the Hart-Cleveland Amendment. The Hart-Cleveland Amendment would make law the exemptions and 

general perm it program already set for Phases II and II I in the regulations and 

it would provide a progress report for the Congress to review at the end of next 

year. This report would summarize the Army Corps/EPA progress in the implementation of Section 404 and, when considered with the final rep ort of the National 

Commission on Water Quality, should provide the direction needed for amendment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

We ask th at this statem ent be included in the record, and we appreciate your 

consideratio n of our views.

Sincerely,

Bruce A. R eiley, Director.

For the Record of the Hearing of J uly 27-28, 1976, on Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act

1. The Wetlands of America are a national resource of extrao rdin ary significance. 

Wetlands are critical to the marin e food chain, fish and wildlife, flood control, 

pollution aba tement and navigable waterways.

2. W'etlands are being dredged and filled a t an alarming rate . A large pa rt of 

the nation’s wetlands have been lost forever.

3. State a nd local governments have for the most pa rt failed to protect wetlands 

from this increasing threat.

4. In 1972 Congress acted to provide this essential protectio n by providing for 

an extended federal permit program, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

5. The Army Corps has gotten a good start in implementing the permit program. The program has not been in effect long enough, however, to determine 

what refinements may or may not be necessary. The program should be given a 

chance to prove its value.

6. False issues raised by certain interests may be pu t to tes t by writing into 

law the exemptions already set by the Corps regulations.

7. Section 404 should otherwise be left intact, so th at the nation’s wetlands 

may survive.

Laurance R ockefeller,

New York, N.Y.

Norman, Okla., July 26, 1976.

Re section 404 of Public Law 92-500.

Hon. J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works, 4%O2 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. R andolph: Please include this letter in the hearing record of J uly 

27-28, 1976 on Section 404 of P.L. 92-500, the Clean Wate r Act.

I feel th at it is premature to amend Section 404 of the Clean Water Act before 

the full three phase program has gone into effect. The Corps of Engineers is doing 

a commendable job of implem enting the 404 Perm it Program in Oklahoma, and 

I am not aware of any major problem s th at have been encountered in the initial 

phase of th e implementation process.

Since there is some ambiguity in the current wording of Section 404, I would 

sup port amendments to clarify th at section. Such clarifying amendments should 

exem pt normal farming, ranching, and commercial forestry operations, and 

sanction the implementation of the second and third phases of the 404 Permit 

Program. I think th at it would also be helpful to require the Corps of Engineers 

and Environm ental Protection Agency to submit a progress report on the Permit 

Program to be considered in the next session of Congress.

The current 404 program provides a method of considering and protecting the 

great recreational values of many eastern Oklahoma stream s. The public notices 

required under the permit program facilitate this, and are not procedurely complex 

or time consuming. I therefore think th at it would be a mistake to eliminate this 

program from Oklahoma.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

R. F enton R ood.
741

Save Our Seashores of Delaware,

Bethany Beach, Del., Jun e 21, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: Save Our Seashores of Delaware, an organization of 

400 families, urges your Committee to defer ame ndm ent of Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act.

In our opinion, Phase II and Phase II I regulations of the Corps of Engineers 

should be given a chance to work. If you must legislate, we urge sup port for the 

Hart amendment to S. 2710 which'writes into law the exemptions and the p erm it 

program already set for Phase II and III.

Here in Delaware, we have several cases of serious pollution in tribu taries which 

under the House’s narrowed definition of navigable water would be beyond the 

reach of the Corps of Engineers’ permit program. State regulation is freque ntly 

subject to political considerations to the detriment of the environm ent.

Please consider this sta tem ent as testimony to be included in the record of t he 

Hearings of July 27-28, 1976 on Section 404 of the Clean Wate r Act. We urge th at 

additional environm ental organizations be given the o ppo rtun ity to testify in the 

July 27-28 series of hearings.

Sincerely yours,

R oberta Leib, Codirector.

Save San Francisco Bay Association,

Berkeley, Calif., Ju ly 19, 1976.

Re oversight hearings of July 27-28 on section 404 amendments.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, J^SOS Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The Save San Francisco Bay Association is an organization of 20,000 members dedicated to the protection of the long-run values of 

the San Francisco Bay. The Association is concerned with the Wright Amendment 

to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 now being considered by the Senate Public Works Committee as an ame ndment to S. 2710. The 

statem ent of our Association is offered as public testimon y to be entered into the 

record. The attach ed exhibits indicate our concern over a period of months.

The Association opposes the Wright Am endment and requests t ha t no change be 

made to Section 404 as included in the 1972 Federal Wate r Pollution Control Act.

In San Francisco Bay, the existing 404 section includes jurisdiction over significant wetlands which, because th ey are behind dikes, would no t be given ade quate 

protection under the Wright Amendment. On the edge of the Bay 160,000 acres of 

impor tant wetland areas are involved. These are valua ble for many economic, 

social and environmental reasons. They significantly affect air and water quality 

and moderate the climate of the Bay Area. They provide throusands of acres of 

flood plains. Commercial and sport hun ting and fishing valued in the millions of 

dollars per yea r are dependent on this wetland hab itat. These wetlands are also 

resting and feeding areas for millions of m igratory birds.

Some of th e diked areas will provide needed mitigation oppo rtunities to enlarge 

the tidal prism of the Bay by breaking the dikes if economic and social factors 

require Bay fill in the futu re. These opportu nities could be lost if urban development is no t regulated.

Because of the importance to the Bay Area, we urge th at the proposed Wright 

Amendment be deleted from the bill.

Sincerely,

William E. Siri, President.

Enclosures: 2.

Save San Francisco Bay Association,

Berkeley, Calif., April 27, 1976.

Senator Alan Cranston,

462 Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Cranston: Your urgent sup port is needed to preserve wh at 

remains of the nation’s marshes and wetlands.

H.R . 9560, authored by Congressman Jones of Alabama, has had an amendm ent 

atta ched by Congressman Breaux of Louisiana in the House Public Works Com-
mittee. According to our latest inform ation, the bill will be introduced on the 

floor of the House by the end of April.

The Breaux amendment would severely limit the autho rity of the Corps of 

Engineers under Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 to 

regulate filling and dredging activ ities in wetlands. It has been estimated th at 80 

to 90% of the wetlands and marshes in the country could be used as dredge 

disposal sites or landfill areas if this legislation were enacted. In the San Francisco 

Bay Area the corps has provided im portant protection for th e extremely valuable 

marshlands of the constan tly threatene d Bay. The salt ponds and managed 

wetlands here not only provide wildlife habitat of regional and national 

importanc e, they also con tribute to the water surface of the Bay which is necessary 

to maintain our moderate climate.

As you know, th e Senate passed a companion bill, S. 2710, on December 1, 1975. 

This version is not as restrictive of the Corps’ jurisdiction. The Association is 

extrem ely concerned th at if th e House version is passed and the two bills go to a 

Conference Committee the Senate bill would be compromised. We strongly 

oppose the weakening of the regulatory powers of the Corps of Engineers and 

urge you to help prevent this happening.

Sincerely,

William E. Siri, President.

Save San Francisco Bay Association,

Berkeley, Calif., Jun e 24, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

The 20,000 member Save San Francisco Bay Association is extremely concerned 

with current legislation which may limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. The Association opposes any amen dments to Section 404 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, such as the Wright Amendment 

contained in Senate Bill 2710, which would weaken the permit autho rity of the 

Corps.

The Association requests th at public hearings be held. Your support in the 

protectio n of our nation’s wetlands, 160,000 of which would be affected in and 

around the San Francisco Bay, is u rgently needed.

Respectfully,

William E. Siri, President.

Statement for the Record of the Hearing on Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act (P ublic Law 92-500), J uly 27-28, 1976

(Sub mitted on behalf of: CAO Canal Association, Bonnie Troxell, 

President; Citizens’ Coalition for St. Mary’s County, Jack Whitten, President; 

Committee to Preserve Assateague, Judit h C. Johnson, Chairma n; Izaac Walton 

League, Maryland Division, Jam es A. Thomas, Presiden t; Maryland 

Conservation Council, Ajax Eastma n, President; Maryland Wetlands 

Committee, Jud ith C. Skinner, Chairman; Maryland Wildlands Committee, 

Elizabeth Hartline, Chairman; Marylan d Wildlife Federation, Paul M. Breidenbaugh, President; Potomac River Coalition, Jack Whitten, Presiden t; Sierra Club, 

Potomac Chapter, Edwin F. Wesley, Conservation Committee Chairman; 

Southern Maryland Audubon Society, George Wilmot, Presiden t; Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, Inc.; Herbert Ward, President; Worcester Environmental Tru st, Joseph Fehrer, Chairman.)

Honorable Chairman and members of the comm ittee: The groups here repre ­

sented wish to comm ent upon the question of possible delegation to the States of 

the Section 404 authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers for 

regulation of work in th e w aters of the United States, including tidal and non-tidal 

wetlands. We believe tha t the Army Corps’ regulations provide a workable program 

and an essential check on local political influence over the issuance of State wetlands permits. The “404” program should be allowed to proceed without f urther 

delay, and with out weakening amendments to the Federal law.

Nevertheless, if delegation of any such a uth ority is to be considered at all un der 

the sta tut e, strict Federal crite ria and standard should be written into the law 

in orde r to serve the overall interests of the American people.

As an example of a Sta te which has abused its own law, the Sta te of Maryland 

has brough t harm to its public trus t tida l wetlands and to the vita l non-tidal 

wetlands areas, while denying lawful recourse to those citizens actin g in the
743

public interest. If time allowed, copious documentation could be supplied to the 

Committee. However, the two specific examples below—Mattawoma n Swamp 

and Mystic Harbor—should suffice to illustrate the crying need for the Federal 

protections guaranteed under the Clean Water Act’s Sec. 404 permit process and 

Sec. 505 Citizen Suits provision (under which “any citizen” may bring a civil 

action) as well as for the rational decision-making process provided under the 

National Environmen tal Policy Act.

MATTAWOMAN SWAMP

In October 1975, the Maryland Depar tment of Natural Resources (DNR ) 

granted a waterway construction permit under its autho rity to regulate the 

appropriation or use of non-tidal waters, for a sewage tre atm ent plant in the 

Mattawoma n Swamp, one of the prime freshwater (non-tidal) wetland areas of 

the Potomac River estu ary. Ten Maryland citizens spent nearly $900 for legal 

fees trying to appeal the permit before the D N R’s Board of Review, bu t were 

denied a hearing on the merits of the case. Instead, the Board decided th at the 

appellants have no standing, even thou gh one is a commercial fisherman who 

fishes downstream waters, ano ther has been a life-long resident located a mile 

from the proposed site who hunts and fishes for recreation in Mattaw oman 

Swamp, and the others are Saint Mary ’s and Charles County residents and 

Maryland Sta te taxpayers.

Not only did the Sta te ignore citizens’ suggestions for alte rnate sites, bu t also 

it ignored its own Fisheries Administration and W’ildlife Adm inistration staff 

recomm endations, and proceeded to divert two vita l trib utaries of the M attawoman. Both streams had been pristine, gravel-bottomed spawning grounds for 

anadromous fish of the herrin g species.

The 123-acre sewage pla nt site is in a wooded swamp in an important aquifer 

recharge area within the 50-year floodplain of Mattaw oman Creek. It is the primary nesting grounds for wood duck in Maryland, and provides a wide diversity 

of species of wildlife. Because of its high environmental, recreational, asethetic 

and economic values, this same portion of the Mattaw oman Valley had been 

originally included in DN R plans for a proposed 4,730-acre N atural E nvironmen tal 

Area. Now the site is being cleared of shrubs and hardwood trees in preparatio n 

for filling and construction. In addition, an 8-mile long, 66-inch interceptor sewer 

is being laid in the bottom land for connection to the sewage plant, which will 

ultim ately tre at an average of 50 million gallons daily. (The attach ed clippings 

and the letter from the National Wildlife Federation to EPA Administrator 

Russell Train elaborate on the detrimenta l effects of this project.)

Only tidal wetlands are covered under Phase I of the Sec. 404 regulations. To 

assure protectio n of thou sands of acres of Ma ryland ’s inland wetlands like the 

Mattawoma n swamp, as well as to pro tect the people’s rig ht to due process, Phase 

II should no t be fur the r prevented from taking effect.

MYSTIC HARBOR

In October 1973, the Maryland Board of Public Works approved a massive 

mile-long canal system and filling p roject covering tida l wetlands on a 294-acre 

prop erty called Mystic Harbor on Sinepuxent Bay near West Ocean City. Under 

the Maryland Wetlands Law, the DN R makes recom mendations to the Board of 

Public Works, which issues licenses for a ctivities in tida l wetlands which are below 

mean high tide. The DN R issues perm its for activities in those tidal wetlands 

above mean high tide th at are periodically innund ated by spring high tides. The 

Board of Public Works comprises the Governor, the Sta te Comptroller and the 

State Treasurer, who meet in unadvertised sessions and to whose decisions none 

of the Sta te’s a dministrative or judicial appeal procedures apply.

The p roject was opposed in public hearing before th e B oard by many individuals 

and civic organizations, not only from Worcester County, bu t also statewide. To 

these citizens, State law provides no opportunity for appeal or redress of t heir 

grievances. After the hearings, the license was issued in the following manner: 

(a) without public notice or review, the original proposal was modified substantially 

to allow dredging on an adjacent property in tidal wetlands; (b) the Board failed 

to respond to any of th e numerous letters written offering viable alte rnative s and 

opposing the proposal; and (c) the Board postponed its decision indefinitely, and 

then, without notice to interested parties and withou t advertisement, made its 

decision four mon ths later.
744

Alerted th at the environmental stakes were high in this case, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers engaged the Mitre Corporation to write an environmental 

impact statem ent (the d raft of which has n ever been released) and in October 1975, 

held a public hearing. Opposition and testimony by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Depar tment of 

Commerce, and the U.S. Dep artm ent of the Interio r expressed at th at hearing 

appear to assure ultimate Federal denial of the proposed project, und er Phases I 

and II of Sec. 404.

Agency testimony emphasized the water quality degradation which canals 

cause. Because canals receive much storm w ater run-off and other wastes, and ex-

{

lerience poor flushing action, they tend to become anaerobic (having very low 

evels of dissolved oxygen) and host a diminishing diversity of species. D eva stating 

fish kills can occur at night when the dissolved oxygen levels drop even lower. The 

construction of canals reduces self-sustaining and productive ecosystems th at 

have adapted to periodic flooding. Such construction cuts off the tid al flow throug hout the marsh tn at washes out detritu s and wastes. The result is a redu ction of 

those lower organisms of the food chain th at are essential to the nurtu re of all 

forms of wildlife.

A project like Mystic Harbor requires the full and open review and evaluation , 

by citizens, experts and public officials alike, which Phases I and II of Section 404 

provide.

We object to the consideration being given in some qua rters to delegating activities u nder Section 404 to the States and we must reite rate our stro ng opinion 

th at rigid Federal sta nda rds and criteria would have to be set by law for ev aluatin g 

a State ’s capability to operate such a program. Further, Federal performance 

audits and reports should be required on an annual basis to assess th at State’s 

continuing effectiveness, with provision for public hearings. Ultimate responsibility for any perm its issued by a State und er a delegated Section 404 program 

should remain with the Army Corps and the U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency, 

in order to preserve citizens’ rights under both the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the Sec. 505 Citizen Suits provision of the Clean Water Act. Lastly, a 

procedure should be spelled o ut in th e law for the Army Corps and EPA to revoke 

the delegated autho rity in the case th at a State has been shown to be violating 

water quality stan dards, or has been incapable or ineffective in conductin g the 

wetlands protection program.

[From the Princ e Georges’ Jou rn al , Oct. 30, 1975]

Dec eit Suit on P lant E yed

(By Kay Miller)

Thomas McKewen, director of Marylan d Environm ental Service (MES), 

deliberately withheld inform ation showing the site of the proposed Mattawoman 

Sewage Treatment Pla nt unsuitable, according to Kenneth S. Kam let, Natio nal 

Wildlife Federation counsel.

The regional Mattaw oman plant to be built in Charles County will serve it 

and Prince Georges.

But the site selected for the p lant lies in a flood plain. During th e rece nt Hurricane Eloise, much of the site was hip-deep in flood waters.

Based on McKewen’s advice and believing it to be the result of MES staff 

reports, the Environ men tal Protection Agency (EPA) approved award of plant 

construction contracts, Kamlet said.

EPA Region II I staffers in Philadelphia, whose office has jurisdiction over 

Mattawoman, told Kam let in an Oct. 17 conversation they felt the y were “led 

down the garden pa th” by McKewen, Kam let said.

The fede ration plans court actio n is necessary to stop plant construction at the 

planned site.

Bu t before suing, federation director Thomas L. Kimball first appealed in an 

Oct. 16 letter to EPA Adm inistrator Russell Train to issue a 45-day stop work 

order on the plant.

This, Kimball said in his letter, should be followed by an EPA order terminating 

the project until an environmental imp act statem ent investigating the site and 

assessing altern ate locations is prepared.

Absent an “a cceptable response or proposal” from EPA by Oct. 30, Kimball’s 

letter indicated, the federation will ask a federal district c ourt to issue an inju nction blocking construction.
745

The 5 million gallon a day (mgd) pla nt is scheduled for eventual expansion to 

50 mgd.

But 104 acres of the 123-acre Mason Springs site selected by Charles County 

Sanitary Commission for the plant are in a 50-year flood plain.

One-fifth of the site is wooded swamp wetland, fostering irreplaceable fish and 

wildlife which, the federation said, would be endangered by a sewage tre atmen t 

plan t.

After a visit to the site, federation represen tatives reached the conclusion 

Mason Springs is “the worst possible location” for the plant.

Kamlet said it was n ot among th e 13 sites designated as suitable by con sultant 

engineers hired in 1958 by Charles County to assess locations.

The Chapman’s Landing site, on the banks of the Potomac River, was named 

by consultant as most appropriate was abandoned in 1970 because Baroness 

Margot Besseyneg, a wealthy and influential resident with land near the site, 

objected, he said.

“Once in a great while, projects are called to our attention that, are so ill-advised 

th at they cry out for correctio n,” Kimball said in his letter to Train.

“I believe based on the inform ation available to us,” the let ter continued, 

“tha t the Mattaw oman sewage tre atmen t project fits in this cate gory.”

Kamlet said the federation has many concerns abo ut Mason Springs. As tha 

lowest point in the e ntire 50,000-acre Mattaw oman Drainage Basin, it undergoes 

serious floods every 50 years.

It is likely, Kam let said, the pla nt will undergo flooding in th at time span 

which will wash raw sewage from plant holding tan ks into the Potom ac.

In addition, if floods temporarily knocked the pla nt out of operation, millions 

of gallons of raw sewage would have no place to go bu t into the river, he said.

Flooding could be worsened, he added, after trees in the surrounding area are 

removed and paving for pla nt facilities is done. Increased water runoff would 

raise flooding potential, he said.

Current pla nt plans place some sludge disposal nea r the tre atm ent site. Flood 

waters could also carry sludge “co ntamin ants and noxious things for which the 

sewage was originally tre ate d into the rive r,” he added.

All these problems were explored in a report done by MES and given to 

McKewen, Kam let said. It was McKew ei who advised Green Jones, director of 

EP A’s water programs division, to give Charles County the go-ahead on the 

initial 5 mgd plant at Mason Springs.

“What McKewen very carefully forgot to tell Jones was a large num ber of 

problems his staff uncovered,” Kamlet said, adding EPA was not furnished with 

a copy of the repo rt.

At an Oct. 24 meeting held in -Secretary Jam es B. Coulter’s Depar tment of 

Natura l Resources office, Prince Georges and Charles County principals to the 

Mattaw oman project discussed why the site was selected and chances the suit 

would succeed.

“W’hen EPA approved it (Mattaw oman plan t) it said all laws a nd regulations 

pertainin g to this have been met. Go to it,” said Daniel L. Geller of EPA’s Region 

II I office.

“I haven’t been to the site ,” Geller said. “ When we approved this we op erated 

on the assumption it would be a suitable site for a waste tre atm ent plant.

“I ’d like to get an opinion from everyone here ,” Geller said to others at the 

meeting, which included McKewen, “w hether this is the ‘worst possible site 

(for th e plan t)’.”

Coulter warned, the National Wildlife Federatio n’s formidable legal staff has 

succeeded in blocking construction of waste tre atmen t plan ts in the past.

Coulter was uncertain abo ut effects of the lawsuit. “Unless something new is 

uncovered in this,” he told Col. Louis H. Cummings, chairman of Charles County 

Sanitary Commission, “I don’t think the sta te or federal government will tak e 

away approval.”

At the same time, Coulter said he had only recently learned—from a late n igh t 

phone call Oct. 22 from an EPA official—th at the Mattawoman site was in a 

flood plain. This, he said, is the most immediate problem faced by project 

proponents.

“If there is a law suit,” Geller said, “we’re (EPA) the ones that will be invo lved .”

If a suit is filed, he added, it would not auto matically halt pending con stru ction unless an injunction is allowed by the court.

“To assume the cou rt would find aga inst us is just an assumption,” Geller 

said.
746

[From the Times Crescent, La Plata, Charles County, Md., Oct. 8, 1976]

Site for Sewage Plant Flooded

Fears of Charles C ounty members of the Public Advisory Council on the Lower 

Potomac River Basin were confirmed when the heavy rains from Eloise flooded 

the Mason Springs sewer plant site.

The Charles County Sanitary Commission’s controversial plan to locate a 

new pla nt there to handle as much as 50 million gallons per day has long been 

criticized by members of the Council, a state-created citizens advisory body.The 

proposed site lies in the Mattaw oman flood plain.

Th at Friday, after days of torrential rain, Council Member J. Willard Dutton, 

a farm er and watermen’s leader who lives on the Mattaw oman had to take a 

boa t to get into the site off Rte. 225. Another member, physicist George Wilmot 

of Bryans Road, waded in as far as he could, bu t had to stop when the water was 

waist high.

Joseph Olcott, the Council’s ch airman and a well-known business leader in the 

county, says th at the site was a poor choice. It could probably be used for another 

purpose by the State, with the pla nt constructed on higher ground nearby without 

great financial loss.

Olcott is particula rly irat e over the tre atm ent given the Council by state authorities. The Council was established with a mandate to advise broadly about 

water quality, pollution, and similar matter s in the lower Potomac basin. But it 

now appears, Olcott said, th at the State was only going thro ugh the motions of 

complying with federal requirements.

The Council went to Annapolis last week to appeal to the DN R (Dept. of 

Natural Resources) Board of Review the decision by DNR’s Wate r Resources 

Adm inistration (WRA) to give a waterways construction permit for the sewage 

plant at Mason Springs. They did so after WRA refused to reconsider its permit 

decision.

The Council members were confronted by an attorn ey from the Maryland 

Atto rney General’s office, who challenged their righ t to appeal, or to have any 

say about the Mason Springs plant. Attorney Jim Vance of Camp Springs who 

argued for the Council, is partia llv being funded in this legal b att le by the League 

of Women Voters.

Olcott complained th at the Sta te could have told them they had no righ t to 

appeal beforehand, so they would not have wasted their time with a whole day 

of legal wrangling. Wilmot said th at the State is in an embarrassing position: 

it set up a citizens advisory body, and now refuses to let them appeal.

The attorneys on both sides have been asked to present their briefs on whether 

the board should allow an appeal.

Olcott says the posture take n by the Attorney General’s office tha t the M attawoman is outside the purview of the council is absurd, as the Council is concerned 

with the entire lower basin of the Potomac River.

National Wildlife Federation,

Washington, D.C., October 16, 1976.

Re Mattawoma n, Maryland Sewage T reatme nt System.

Hon. R ussell E. Train,

Adm inistrator, Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C.

Dear R uss: Once in a grea t while projects are called to our atte ntion th at are 

so obviously ill-advised th at the y cry out for correction. I believe, based on the 

information available to us, that the Mattawoman sewage tre atm ent project fits 

into this category. A local editorial-writer has described this project as “an instance where the wheels of bureaucracy are simply moving ahead recklessly, 

waiting for common sense to call a ha lt.” Russ, we appeal to you to apply the 

brakes long enough for a common-sense reappraisal.

The proposed project is a wastewater treatm ent facility with an initial capacity 

of 5 mgd and a planned u ltim ate expansion to 50 mgd. It will provide secondary 

tre atm ent and microstrainers, and will service developing areas in Charles and 

Prince Georges Counties, Maryland. The project includes an outfall line which 

runs from the plant site at Mason Springs abo ut four miles along Route 225 

thro ugh Potomac Heights to the Potomac River. Sludge from the 5 mgd plant is 

proposed to be disposed of on the site of th e t rea tment plant afte r aerobic digestion
747

in trenches. Cost of the project is $36 or $37 million, including a significant federal 

share.

One hundred and four acres of the 123-acre p lant site lie in the 50-year floodplain. About one-fifth of the site is wooded swamp wetland. Soils at the site are 

poorly drained and are subject to freq uent or seasonal flooding. During recent 

heavy rains several feet of water completely submerged the site which is at the 

lowest point in the more tha n 50,000-acre Mattaw oman watershed. According 

to the engineering consultant, locating the operation al units of the pla nt above 

elevation 16—which coincides with the 50-year floodplain delineation—would 

avoid Agnes flood levels. However, the Southern Marylan d Resource and Development Board and the Charles County Soil Conservation Dis trict do not believe tha t the historical flood record is relevant to what will happen in the future. 

This view is based on an expectation of increased flooding as presently wooded 

areas in the watershed (the watershed is now 50 perc ent wooded) are developed 

and rendered impervious to drainage, and as a result of th e dam-like effect of the 

treatm ent facility itself on floodwater.

According to biologists with the Maryland Fisheries Administration and the 

Maryland Wildlife Administration, wildlife and fisheries values at, above, and 

below the site are extrem ely high. Fish spawning areas in the Mattaw oman 

watershed are described as possibly the most important in the Potomac estuary 

in term s of variety of spawning species. The Depar tment of the Interior regards 

the Mattaw oman’s wooded swamps as being the most extensive wood duck 

nestin g area in Maryland, and has identified the Creek as first of thirty-one 

“key areas [in the Potomac estua ry] . . . having exceptional value for insuring 

wildlife habit at, protecting natur al bea uty of the estuary and realizing its enormous recr eational poten tial.” Among the approximately 200 species of birds 

which nest in or otherwise freq uent the area are mallards, red shouldered hawks, 

great blue herons, eagle, and osprey. The ha bitat is also of value to beaver, otte r, 

mink, muskrat, deer, and other mamm als. The 123-acre pla nt site also direc tly 

intrudes into a 4,730-acre Natural Env iron ment Area (encompassing Myrtle 

Grove Wildlife Refuge) being planned by the Ma ryland Depar tment of Natural 

Resources. Construction of the plant and associated stru ctures at the Mason 

Springs site will adversely imp act these fish and wildlife resources thro ugh the 

direct loss of 123 acres of prime bottom land and stre am bank habitat. Indirect 

losses from sedimentation are also likely (unless string ent and costly control 

measures are taken) . Additional adverse impacts can be expected if the pla nt is 

flooded (both throug h release of raw sewage if floodwaters over-top the elev ated 

pla nt and through removal of sludge disposed of on-site, even if no overtopping 

occurs), and as a resu lt of groundwater contam ination by sludges placed on illsuited soils.

In short, it is difficult to imagine a worse location for this project.

On the other hand, a num ber of preferable altern ative locations are readily 

available. One area th at has been suggested, for example, is th at adjacent to 

Rou te 225 and up land of the railroad trac k. Not only is this area above flood level, 

bu t it lies between the term inus of the interceptor line (already laid) and the 

outfall point on the Poto mac River. According to a staff evaluation by the Maryland Environmental Service (a Maryland Sta te agency), “[t]here appea rs to be no 

engineering reason why this location would be unfeasible.” Another preferable 

site would seem to be one located on the Potomac River n ear Chapm an’s Landing 

which was the site recom mended to the Charles County Commissioners in 1966 

in a consu ltant’s repo rt which investigated some 13 altern ative sites. It was this 

site, and not the Mason Springs site, for which various project concurrences and 

approvals were obtaine d in 1967, 1969, and 1970 from the Regional San itar y 

Advisory Board, the Metro Washington Council of Governments, the Charles 

Countv Planning Commission, and the Maryland Sta te Health Departme nt. 

(The Chapm an’s Landing site was discarded in 1970 because the land was held by 

an “influential landowner,” Baroness Margot Besseyney, who was vehemently 

opposed to the location of the pla nt at th at site.)

While these, or other alte rnatives would not totall y eliminate damage to 

Potom ac estuary fish and wildlife, they would minimize direct destruction of 

wetland and eliminate the severe problems associated with construction in a 

floodplain. They would also eliminate much of the high cost associated with 

elevating the tre atm ent system above historic flood levels and erecting adequate 

sedim ent control stru ctures. According to the Maryla nd Environ men tal Service 

staff, the selection of an altern ate site could mean a delay in construction of the 

Mattawoman facility of one or two years. In their view, such a delay “will not 

mean delay in improving the q uality of the w ater in Mattaw oman Creek.” It will

76 -1 61 O— 76----- 48
748

mean some delay in “major development plans in both Charles and Prince 

Georges Counties’’, however. We believe the environmental and economic 

benefits of sound planning far outweigh any potential economic impact th at 

might resu lt from taking the time to thin k this project through.

Specifically, we request you to d irect tha t an Environmental Im pact Sta tem ent 

be prep ared forth with by EPA in connection with its funding of this project, as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 11514, and 

applicable EPA regulations. Although planning for this project may have been 

begun pre-NEP A, final EPA grant approval did not come u ntil August 26, 1975, 

and essentially all of the construction work for the project remains to be done. 

Our atto rne ys inform me th at under these circumstances an Environmental 

Impac t Sta tem ent is clearly required. Indeed, several Marylan d officials have 

themselves urged such a review. For example, the Marylan d Wildlife Administration recommended to the Water Resources Administration on April 22, 1975 

th at no Sta te permit be issued until: “ (1) an exhaustive search for alte rna tive 

sites is und ertaken and (2) an environmental impact assessment is made of the 

selected sites” . And the Maryland Environmental Service’s Basin Plan Manager 

for the lower Potomac concluded in an April 14, 1975 memorandum “t ha t an 

Environmental Imp act Statem ent for this project should be prepared by the 

Environmental Protection Agency imm ediately.”

If the kind of considered analysis dictate d by NEPA were ever sorely needed, 

this is such a case. We strongly urge th at you initiate the steps for conducting 

such a review. In the interim, we believe a moratorium should be imposed on 

construction activities at the Mason Springs site.

Federation counsel inform me, moreover, th at in addition to the clear NEPA 

violation associated with this project there have prob ably also been violations of 

the legal requirements of, among others, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act, the Endangered Species Act, Executive Order 11296 (made applicable to 

EPA by 40 C.F .It. 30.402(b), and directing “all executive agencies [to], as far as 

practicable preclude the uneconomic, hazardous, or unnecessary use of floodplain s”), EPA’s “wetlands policy”, and EPA Program Guidance Memo #50 

(June 6, 1975).

Accordingly, we request a response from EPA, particularly with regard to its 

willingness to prepare an Enviro nmental Impac t Statem ent before allowing this 

project to proceed any further, within 10 working days. If an acceptable response 

or proposal has not been received at the expiration of this time, I have directed 

our counsel to proceed immediately to federal district court to seek appropriate 

inju nctive and other relief.

Russ, please pu t the brakes on this boondoggle.

Sincerely,

T homas L. Kimba ll, 

Executive Vice President.

Statement of R hea L. Cohen, Washington Repre sentative, Sierra Club, 

on Proposed Amendments to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

1. IN TR O D U C TIO N •

It is a pleasure for the Sierra Club to be able to comment on oversight hearings 

concerning the conduct of the Corps of Engineers perm it program for work in 

waters of the United States. This program is mainly authorized under Section 404 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and the 1899 Rivers and 

Harbors Act.

Since April, this program has come under a ttack in the House of Representative s 

withou t occasion for public testimony, and with out expe rt agency analyses. We 

therefore welcome this oppo rtun ity to point out as best we can those features of the 

existing program th at are of clear benefit to the public, and as well to present a 

case against modification of the program bv legislative means such as suggested 

by the W right-Breau x amendment to FWPCA as passed by the House on June 3, 

1976.

For many years, Sierra Club m embers and staff have had contin uing day-to-d ay 

experience with the Corps of Engineers p ermit system in many parts of the nation. 

Predominately, this experience has been gained in dealing with the processing of 

permit applications for work in navigable waters of th e United States under the 

1899 Act, bu t more recently under Section 404 of FWPCA as well.
749

The Club has commented in writing upon large numbers of permit applications, 

testified at many public hearings dealing with them, and performed detailed 

analyses of environmental assessments and impact statements (prepared under 

NEPA). As well, such matters have been the subject of litigation in which the 

Sierra Club has occasionally participated, both in concert with the Corps and in 

opposition to it.

Finally, the Club testified last year at the nationwide public hearings held by the 

Corps dealing with the drafting of regulations under which Section 404, the 1899 

Act, and some eight other federal statutes would be coordinated and applied to 

the permit system. As you know, the Corps on July 25, 1975 published ‘‘interim 

final” regulations for the permit systems as a result.

In light of the above noted interest and experience, the Club has taken particular pains to study with great care all amendments to Section 404 that have 

been recently proposed.

In summary, the Sierra Club strongly opposes the Breaux amendment, strongly 

opposes most features of the Wright amendment, and approves certain features of 

the Cleveland-Harsha or Hart amendments.1 Our detailed comments on these 

amendments are given below.

The primary interests of the Club in relation to the effects of alterations such as 

dredge and fill work in the waters of the United States relate to recreational, 

wilderness and wildlife values. Additionally, however, the Club is mindful of the 

values of wetlands and watercourses in a far broader context tha t includes their 

valuable natural functions in flood prevention, municipal and agricultural water 

supply, coastal storm protection, timber and cash crop production, and air and 

water pollution reduction.

The nation’s wetlands resources have suffered enormous losses since the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and as a result governmental regulation has 

become a necessary feature in our future. To be effective and accepted, regulatory structure must be even-handed and reasonably simple, yet capable of protecting the general welfare. The existing Corps regulations largely achieve these 

ends, and the Sierra Club seeks to defer their modification at least until next 

year when additional experience will be available, and the Senate will have held 

hearings on the final report of the National Commission on Water Quality.

2. T H E CO RPS P E R M IT SY ST EM

Under the 1899 River and Harbor Act, the Corps permit system for work 

proposed in navigable waters of the United States is a mature governmental 

regulatory mechanism tha t has been reviewed and revised over the years. The 

Corps has a cadre of personnel experienced in all aspects of the system including 

coordination with State and Federal agencies, public hearings, preparation of 

environmental assessments and impact statements, and enforcement actions.

As needed to keep pace with judicial determinations, Congressional directives 

and citizen interest, the Corps has responded through publication of both amended 

regulations and of definitions of its area of jurisdiction. Where Congress has 

passed new statutes such as NEPA, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the 

1972 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and others, the Corps 

has also managed to draft regulations that coordinate these diverse sta tutes into 

a logicaPand reasonably simple structure. In few instances only do there appear 

to be inconsistencies or areas where the permit program leaves authority or 

procedures in question.

The July 25, 1975 regulations (which superceded the April 3, 1974 version) 

are sometimes criticized as being excessively verbose or confusing. However, it 

is our view tha t the main problem is simply one of editorial and typographic 

defects such as indexing and headlining; a table of contents would help enormously. With a little help from Corps personnel, any applicant who takes the 

trouble to read appropriate sections of the regulations will have no fundamental 

trouble in determining his status a t any particula r point during permit processing.

Over the past two years (in Florida and California at least) a few Corps permit 

actions have been hotly contested and thus became highly visible in the news 

media. Understandably but unfortunately, such coverage has been employed as 

a device to bring the entire permit system under criticism. However, what is not

1

 I n th e Con gr es sion al Re cord of Ju n e 3, 197 6, th e Bre au x am en dm en t Is giv en on pa ge 

H5266, th e W ri ght su b sti tu te Is on pa ge H5 267, an d th e Cle ve la nd -H ar sh a am en dm en t Is 

on pa ge H5266. Th e H a rt am en dm en t Is th e bill S. 3663, which Is pri nte d on pa ge S1 15 09 

of th e Con gr es sion al Re cord fo r Ju ly 2, 1976. Th e H a rt la ng ua ge diffe rs on ly sl ig htl y fro m 

the Cle ve la nd -H ar sh a am en dm en t.
750

generally known is the fact th at for each hotly contested application, there are 

hundreds or even thousands th at are routinely and efficiently processed and 

permits issued. In some parts of the nation at least, development in wetlands 

areas has proceeded, bu t mitigated through enhancement and preservation of 

im portant wildlife and other public values during negotiatio ns th at are pa rt of 

the perm it review process.

Time delays for permit application processing are sometimes cited as reason 

to eliminate Corps autho rity in w’etlands. However, the San Francisco Dis trict 

Engineer in a sworn affidavit filed recently estim ated th at if there are no unresolved objections and no EIS to be prepared, then “four to six months” is the 

processing time between application and perm it issuance. At the other extreme, 

where there are unresolved objections and an EIS is needed, the time required 

is “eighteen to twenty-four mo nth s”. These are reasonable figures as compared 

to times for processing state and local permits, and where concurrent processing 

takes place the Corps perm it should be no extra burden of consequence; unless, 

of course, the p roject is not in the public interest.

Sierra Club m embers’ experience indicates th at where a project is well designed 

environmentally, perm it processing times are generally kept to a bare minim um. 

Through prior consultation in the project design stage between the a pplican t and 

State and Federal agencies, oth er time economies are pot entially possible.

Furtherm ore, contrary to some impressions, applican ts do not always regard 

the permit process as an imposition. It can protect one riparian or littora l land 

claiman t against projects proposed by his neighbors, and additionally allows free 

consultation with Sta te and Federal wildlife and other experts th at could oth erwise be prohibitiv ely expensive. These are excellent services by government to 

the pub ic.

We are inclined to disbelieve the remark th at the Section 404 regulations 

“inflamed the sensitivities” of a “wide group of Americans” given in a recent 

Senate letter to President Ford. There exists a voluminous prin ted record obtain ed by the Corps during las t yea r’s nationwide hearings. Furtherm ore, ju st a 

year ago, the Corps stated in the Federal Register it had received “over 4,500 

comments” in response to its proposed May 6, 1975 regulations. To our knowledge, 

no committee of Congress has made a thorough public study of this written 

record in the hands of the Corps which formed th e basis of the July 25, 1975 regulations. We therefore request th at the Senate Public Works Committee stu dy the 

above record and include i t in the record of th e present hearings.

The same letter to Presiden t Ford also concludes th at U.S. District Court 

Judge Aubrey E. Robinson “er red” in interpreting the term “navigable w aters” in 

his judg ment of March 27, 1975 in the case: N.R.D.C. et al. v. Callaway et al. (392 F. Supp. 685). However, by simply reading the definition given by Congress in 

Sec. 502(7) of FWP CA and comparing it with Judge Robinson’s two-page published judgment, one immediately finds th at he quoted Congress precisely, and 

th at the term means “th e wate rs of the United States, including the terr itorial 

seas.”

3. THE WRIGHT AND BREAUX AMEND MEN TS

(

 Both the Wright ame ndm ent and the Breaux ame ndm ent would re-define 

“navigable waters” under a highly restrictive and archaic formula. They would 

replace several hundred years of judicial rulings and preceden t by a sta tem ent 

merely 76-words long th at seriously damages public rights in the nation ’s present 

and former waterways.

But even more, these amendments would p rohibit the Corps of Engineers from 

exercising jurisdiction under the 1899 River and Harbor Act beyond the same 

narrow definition of “navigable waters” . These amendments would eliminate all historically navigable waters from any federal listing of public waterways, unless 

they are now used or could by “reasonable improvement” be used “as a means to 

tra nsport interstate or foreign commerce.”

Such language in our view’ would do far more damage tha n to simply take 

Corps jurisdiction back to 1972. We believe instead th at it would conflict with 

many sta te and federal sta tutes as well as judicial rulings in the highest courts.

For example, the State of Louisiana w’as adm itte d to the Union in 1812 under 

the express condition: “. . . th at the river Mississippi, and the navigable rivers 

and waters leading into the same, and into the Gulf of Mexico, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said state as to the 

inh abitants of other states and the territories of the United States, . . .” (2 

Stat. 701, 703 (1812); emphasis added)
751

Many other states were admitted under similar conditions, and we can trace 

this same “common highways . . . forever free" language back at least to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and possibly further. “Forever”, it will be recalled, 

“for a limitless time” or “eternally” (Webster’s Collegiate Diet.).

Under the Wright and Breaux amendments, the extent of the loss of historically 

navigable waters can not be estimated without the most searching study, but 

could easily represent a windfall gain to land claimants in the hundreds of 

millions—if not billions—of dollars. A public give-away of public rights in unknown quantities of land and of unknown value would seem unthinkable in this 

nation.

Besides the above historically navigable waters above, the Wright and Breaux 

amendments would eliminate from Corps jurisdiction under Sec. 404 the major 

proportion of the nation’s remaining 70 million acres of wetlands. The serioueness 

of such wholesale relinquisment of federal authority can not be overstated.

Under the Wright amendment, federal projects or federally assisted projects 

approved by Congress would not require Corps permits if an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment has been “submitted to Congress”. 

Nothing is stated about which of the two would be used, and nothing is stated 

about the adequacy of either, or of review and approval by state and federal 

agencies or the public. Further, “federally assisted” projects are not defined 

through dollar value or percentage of federal assistance, and since a token federal 

contribution could make nearly any project “federally assisted”, there would be 

widespread opportunities for abuse and avoidance of environmental controls.

Also under the Wright amendment, the Corps could delegate its authority 

over “adjacent wetlands” to a state, but with no standards cited on the ability 

of the state to protect the federal, state or local interests. Furthermore, this 

delegation does not recognize the need for coordination across state boundaries, 

as, for example, in planning for migratory waterfowl habitat. A variety of stand ­

ards in the delegation agreements could arise, many of which could be within a 

single Corps District or Division. Administration of such programs can be a 

costly and time consuming nightmare.

The Wright amendment allows states to enter into revokable agreements with 

the Corps concerning protection of other wetlands t ha t both agree are important 

to protect. Again, no standards are provided for guidance, and even within a 

given state, the Corps could be faced with two different sets of marching orders.

The Wright amendment also includes language th at exempts “ normal farming, 

silviculture, or ranching activities” and certain “maintenance” work. Such 

language is discussed in the following section.

4. C LEVELAND-H ARSH A AND HA RT AM EN DM EN TS

These two amendments are virtually identical. They exempt from Corps 

permit authority certain “normal” farming, timber, ranching and maintenance 

activities both under Sections 402 and 404 of FWPCA.

Some concerns relative to these exemptions should be expressed:

(1) What is “normal” in agricultural activities will vary greatly within a given 

state and across the nation. The small farmer’s “normal” operations will be 

significantly different from those of corporate agribusiness, and differ in their 

effects upon the goals of cleaning up the nation’s streams and lakes as expressed 

in Sec. 101 of FWPCA.

(2) “Maintenance” work for serviceable structures is sometimes difficult to 

distinguish from activities that are in fact “new work” . It may prove awkward or 

impossible to draft a statuto ry distinction, but to leave the matter unresolved 

invites certain abuses.

(3) Even though Congress may desire to exempt certain activities under 

Section 404 of FWPCA, additional exemption under Section 402 may be unwise. 

The reason is tha t many “normal” dairy and livestock feedlot operations, for 

example, usually generate sizeable quantities of nutrition-rich wastewaters, the 

discharge of which is both properly and traditionally regulated.

These concerns can be addressed by Congress by adding language at the end of 

Section 404(d) as given by Senator Hart that gives the Corps District Engineer 

and the EPA Regional Administrator, discretion to determine if such “normal” 

and “maintenance” activities are either “new work” or would damage water 

quality if left unregulated. The Corps recognizes the need for discretionary 

authority relative to the nation’s wetlands and waters; see, e.g., July 25, 1975 

regulations, 33 CFR 209.120 (d)(2)(i), (40 Federal Register, page 31325).
752

Based upon the July 25, 1975 regulations, the Corps has already prepared 

draft public notices for some “ General Perm its” for certain activities. In California, for example, it is estimated that one General Permit for culverts and 

stre am crossings associated with tim ber operations will cover the estimated 15,000 

such operations performed annually in the state. Thus the General Permit program 

(which is also given in the Cleveland and Ha rt amendments) has the potential 

for sharply reducing the adm inistrative and citizen work load in achieving Congress’ clean water aims.

Because it is a new and u ntried concept, some uncertainties exist relative to the 

General Permit program. Indeed, it could prove to be the wiser course of action 

to defer passing sta tut ory authorization for it for a year o r two, when experience 

with the program would be available to aid in drafting such an authorizing 

statute perhaps even more concisely.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Sierra Club positions on various aspects of the Corps of Engineers perm it 

program under th e 1899 R iver and Harbor Act and Section 404 of FWPCA und er 

current discussion are:

A. The Corps program has achieved many imp ortant balan ced uses for wate rs 

and wetlands in th e United States in recent years. The program has th e personnel, 

regulations and coordinating stru cture to continue, refine and expand this 

im porta nt service.

B. The definition of navigable waters given in the Breaux and Wright ame ndments is particularly unacceptable. Under this definition, untold thou sand s of 

acres of formerly navigable waters and waterw ays would be removed from jurisdiction of the U nited States th at formerly enjoyed such protectio n. This amounts 

to a major revolution in the method of adm inistratio n of the 1899 River and 

Harbo r Act, and in many ways sets back the jurisdiction of the United States in 

waterways by over a century.

C. In addition, the Breaux and Wright amendments would delete from significan t federal protection a sub stan tial proportion of the nation’s remainin g 70 

million acres of w etlands. This is separate from the areas in (B) above, and represents a serious relinquishm ent of federal autho rity a ttaine d in 1972.

If these amen dments were to be approved, law in this area would for the first 

time in recent years diverge sharply from the direction of current progress in the 

state of scientific and engineering knowledge concerning the value of w etlands to 

the general public welfare. Section 404 should not be so amended.

D. Any exemption of “n ormal” agriculture or maintenance work as proposed 

under the Cleveland and Ha rt amendments should be sub ject to review throug h 

discretionary autho rity by local Corps and EPA officials in order that the basic 

Clean Water objectives of FWPC A will be met.

According to other amendments to FWPCA given in H.R . 9560 and S. 2710, 

federal control of purse strings on some $35 billion in Clean Water sewage plant 

construction funds would be given to the states withou t adeq uate controls. 

Further, the states would decide on spending priorities. The taxpay ers’ funds 

could thus go to projects using inferior technology, to clean waters of one stat e’s 

shore of a lake while the oth er shore is green with slime, and to construct interceptor sewers for subdivisions while the tre atm ent plants were not improved at 

all. These amendments are given in Section 12 of S. 2710, which would add 

Sections 213 et seq. to FWPCA. The Sierra Club opposes these amendments.

Supplementary Fact Sheet—R e : S. 2710

S. 2710 was passed by the full Senate in December 1975 as purely authorization 

legislation for EPA programs which had exhausted their funds.

In the House a number of amendments were added which are fiscally irresponsible and would weaken the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972 (P.L. 92-500). The most damaging amen dments are as follows:

8ECTION 16, 404 DREDG E AND FILL PERM IT PROGRAM (WRIGHT AMENDMENT)

This amendment would remove Federal protectio n from millions of acres 

of the nation ’s wetlands. The House held no hearings before adopting this amendment. The a mendment was n ot the produc t of ratio nal inquiry and debate b ut was 

passed in reaction to unfounded allegations th at the program—which is effectively 

protecting valuable national resources—was in unw arra nted intrusion into the
753

day-to-day activities of ordin ary citizens. In fact, the program, und er the regulations proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers, would exem pt activities of 

minimal importance and only require permits which have really major impacts 

on our nation ’s waters (example—the Marco Island decision prev ente d the filling 

of more t han 2,000 acres of oceanside mangrove swamp). If the Corps’ regulations 

are allowed to operate it will soon become app are nt th at there is little regu latory 

interference with the activ ities of the average farm, ranch, or forest prod ucts 

operation. However, if it is determined th at the Senate must make a legislative 

change to this program now, an approach similar to t ha t of the Hart amendment, 

which exempts particular activ ities bu t does no t alter the scope of the program, 

would be acceptable.

SECTION 12, SECTION 213—CERTIFICATION (CLE VELA ND/W RIGH T AMENDM ENT)

This would delegate from EPA to the states approval autho rity over applications for Federal construction grants. The record of the gran ts program (as 

established by EPA and GAO reports) indicates tha t the re are program differences 

in the quality of state performance. Since Federal grants have been available to 

cover 75% of the cost of tre atm ent facilities there nas been a tendency to overbuild to take adv anta ge of federal subsidies. Da ta on O&M reveal th at many plants 

do not m eet th eir designed perform ance levels. The Cleveland/Wright amendmen t 

lacks safeguards which would prevent unqualified states from obtaining the program or to ensure th at federal dollars are not spen t for p lants which are oversized 

and don’t work properly. Moreover, the ame ndm ent does not protect citizen sui t 

rights or NEPA requirements.

The Senate should hold hearings on the Sta te Certification issue and prepare 

a delegation ame ndment which contains safeguards to prevent unwise delegations 

and waste of federal funds.

SECTION 12, SECT ION 214, PRIO RITY OF CATEGORIES OF PROJE CTS (ROE AME NDM ENT)

This would free states to spend Federal funds for collector sewers, which 

stimulate unplanned growth and create pollution, rather tha n for tre atm ent facilities to clean up existing pollution problems. Federal funds should be earmarked for the ir prim ary purpose— pollution control—n ot the subsidy of low 

density residential development on vac ant land. This ame ndment is fiscally 

irresponsible and should be deleted.

SECTION 12, SECT ION 216, NO N-F EDER AL WAIV ER (ABZUG AMENDM ENT)

This would allow EP A to p ermit a municipa lity to build a treatment plan t without local matc hing funds (i.e. with 100% federal funding) if the m unicipality had 

exhausted its bonding capability. This could result in poorly planned plants and 

would encourage municipalities to manipulate their bonding capabilities in order 

to qualify for plants paid for entirely by the Federal government. This amen dment 

is fiscally irresponsible and should be deleted.

SECTION 19, RULE AND REGULATION REVIEW (LE VIT AS AME NDM ENT)

This would allow eith er cham ber of Congress to veto regulations issued under 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act if the cham ber acts within 60 days 

of the d ate the regulations were promulgated. The amendmen t upsets the balance 

between the legislative and executive branches of the government and between 

the two houses of Congress. It favors special inte rest groups which could mobilize 

quickly against regulations which they opposed. Representatives of the broa d 

public interest would be disadvantag ed because they w’ould be less able to rea ct 

quickly to come to the sup port of good regulations or to oppose bad ones. The 

amen dments would intro duce delay and uncer tainty into the regulatory process 

and divert congressional time and attention from the legislative process. The 

amen dment should be deleted.

The Senate should stic k to its original intention of passing only authorization 

legislation this session. It is planned th at the Congress will begin a major review 

of P.L. 92-500 next year when it considers the findings and recommendations of the 

Natio nal Commission on Water Quality. The Senate should defer, until th at time, 

legislation on the majo r substantive issues th at are raised by the House ame ndm ents 

to S. 2710.
754

Should the Sena te decide to accept substan tive amendments this session, they 

should not do so w ithout hearings. In addition to the hearings scheduled on Section 404, the Senate should hold hearings on State Certification and the other new 

sections proposed for addition to Title II of P.L. 92-500. Many of these sections 

were th e subject of only pro forma hearings in the House and have never been the 

subject of hearings in the Senate.

Sierra Club,

Washington, D.C., July SO, 1976.

Re H.R . 15, The Lobbying Act.

Hon. Walter Flowers,

Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law, House Judiciary

Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Flowers and Members of the Subcommittee: In your 

deliberations on the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act, we hope you will take 

into consideration the attach ed suggested amendments.

As we noted in our Jun e 7th lett er to Chairman Rodino, and as the att ached 

memoranda describe, the proposed bill would impose a nearly unbearable clerical 

and financial burden on organizatio ns such as the Sierra Club. Such legislation 

would discourage grass-roots response to proposed federal legislation and 

regulation.

Our suggested amendments would spare voluntary membership organizations 

from having to account for th e countless efforts of non-paid members who participate in the decision-making process at the Federal level. We suggest th at certain 

lobbying solicitations and communications by affiliates be excluded from the 

coverage of this legislation and we recommend deletion of the requirem ent for 

identification of contributors of $2,500 or more.

We urge you to consider these m atters in furthe r hearings, in order to evaluate 

possible inp airment of citizens’ rights to join together to petition their government.

Sincerely,

R hea L. Cohen, 

Washington Representative.

Attachments: 4.

Suggested Amendments to the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976

I. Insert the following new para graph Sec. 2(12) and redesignate paragr aph 13 

accordingly:

“Section 2(12). The term ‘voluntary membership organization’ mean s an 

organization composed of persons who are members thereof on a volunt ary basis, 

and who, as a condition of membership, pay regular dues, subscribe to one or 

more publications, or make contributions to such organization. Such an organization may choose to tre at its regional, sta te or local units either as pa rt of the 

organization or as affiliates for th e purpose of complying with this Act.”

This amendment would simply add to the definitions section a definition of a 

“voluntary membership organiza tion”, and specify th at such organizations may 

tre at their local units as affiliates.

II. Strike Section 3(b) (2) and su bstitute in lieu th ere of:

“3(b)(2) a comm unication or solicitation made thro ugh a speech or address 

which is open to the public, or through a newspaper, book, periodical, newsletter, 

magazine or circular published for distribution to the general public or to the 

membership of an organization, or through a radio or television broadca st.”

This definition should be amended for completeness, to protect Fir st Amendment rights.

III. Add a fourth paragraph to Section 3( b) :

“ (4) a communication or solicitation made by any non-paid chief executive 

officer, any principal operating officer or member of a cha pter, division or sub-unit 

of a volu ntary membership organization.”

This amendment would explicitly exempt an organiz ation’s non-paid members 

from the requirem ents of the Act. As i t is written, the House bill does not include 

them in its reporting requirements. However, the Lobby Act which passed the 

Senate (S. 2477) does cover non-paid members u nder its requirements.

The Sierra Club’s Controller, Allen Smith, has e stim ated t ha t it would cost the 

Club $250,000 per year to comply with eithe r the House or th e Senate bill. As the 

attach ed memoranda show, a large portion of t ha t cost would be attrib uta ble to 

registering and reporting the activities of “ affiliates” operated by non-paid mem-
755

bers. In addition, other non-monetary costs will also accrue and are likewise 

highlighted in the memoranda. Therefore, we hope the House will not adopt the 

Senate language and instead will insert a clear exemption.

IV. Section 6(b) amend to read:

“ (a) Each organization shall, not later than thirty days after the last day of each quarterly filing period . . . ”

This amendment would provide voluntary membership organizations with the 

needed additional time in which to prepare their reports. Fifteen days would be 

inadequate time in which to retrieve and process lobby data from the divisions 

of such highly decentralized grassroots groups as the Sierra Club.

V. Section 6(b)(2) add at end:

“ Any organization whose affiliates, if treated separately, would not have to 

register under this Act, may report the annual budgets of such affiliates and estimates of the proportion of such annual budgets expended in any fiscal quarter 

on lobbying communications and solicitations. The Comptroller General shall 

not require detailed record-keeping on the expenses of any such affiliate.”

VI. Section 6(b)(5) amend to read:

“ (5) a description of the ten issues concerning which the organization filing 

such report engaged in activities described in section 3(a) and upon which the 

organization spent the greatest proportion of its efforts, and a general description 

of any other issues engaged in such activities;”

This amendment would make this sub-section considerably less burdensome 

to comply with, while still providing the information Congress desires. Most 

organizations do not conduct lobbying activities on more than twenty-five 

issues in a quarter. Therefore, the present language would, in effect, require 

detailed descriptions of practically every issue “concerning which an organization spend the greatest proportion of its efforts,” and a general description of the 

other issues. To be useful, the A ct should require reporting of only tha t information 

which is necessary to reveal where excessive influence has come from. Limiting 

to ten the number of issues which have to be reported in detail, will tailor this 

legislation to more closely fit the needs of the Congress as well as decentralized 

voluntary membership organizations which would be hardest hit by this legislation.

VII. Strike Section 6(b)(6) and Section 6(c):

The first section requires lobbying organizations to include in their reports 

descriptions of solicitations which they initiated or for which they paid.

The second sub-section requires an organization which “causes an affiliate 

. . . to engage in a solicitation relating to an issue with respect to which the 

registered organization is engaging” in lobbying to report such solicitation.

Under both sub-sections it would be virtually impossible for many volunteer membership organizations to keep track of each lobbying solicitation that 

it makes. The expense of collecting materials and data, of processing reports 

and of postage costs, the uncertainty of even being fully in compliance plus the 

subsequent chilling effect upon First Amendment rights, would be odious to a 

free people.

Alternatively, we suggest the following amendments as a package:

Delete Section 6(b)(6) and substitute in lieu thereof:

"A description of the subject matter of solicitations initiated or paid for by 

such organization and the general means of distribution of such solicitations.”

And delete Section 6(c) and substitute in lieu thereof:

“ (c) If an organization which is required to register under this Act urges, 

requests or requires an affiliate which is not so registered to engage in solicitations 

relating to an issue with respect to which the registered organization is engaging 

in any activity described in section 3(a):

(1) the registered organization must report the identity, location and approximate number of members of the affiliate together with a general description of 

the nature of the activities in which the affiliates were requested to engage;

(2) if the affiliate expends more than $25,000 with respect to such issue, then 

the registered organization or the affiliate must report such activities of the 

affiliate pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section.”

VII I. Section 6(b)(8) and substitute in lieu thereof:

“6(b)(8) For purposes of this section, no member of an organization shall be 

identified in such report because of membership in such organization, but the 

organization itself shall be so identified.”

This amendment would eliminate a requirement to publish in the Federal 

Register all donors of $2,500 or more per year. Not only would contributions be 

discouraged by such a requirement, but also those donors would be handy subjects for nuisance solicitations.
756

T h e F in a n c ia l I m pa ct on t h e Sie r r a C lu b o f P r o po sed L obbyin g

D is c lo su r e L eg is la tio n

(By Allen E. Smith, Sierra Club controller)

The scope of both the House and Senate versions this legislation could reach 

as far as reporting requirements for all of the Club’s volunteer divisions, as well 

as paid national and division staff, particularly where solicitation to lobby both 

the Congressional and Executive branches are involved.

The Sierra Club has no built-in accounting system which is sufficient to 

encompass the proposed lobbying disclosure reporting requirements. A highly 

decentralized grass-roots organization largely run by volunteers and only partially 

staffed by a corporate organization, the Sierra Club comprises a national staff, 

plus: 10 regions, 50 chapters, 242 groups, and 165,000 members.

The regions, chapters, and groups—the Club’s divisions—are almost entirely 

run by 500 volunteer leaders. As many as 5,000 volunteers are actively involved 

in varying Committee and Subcommittee capacities. While the national staff is 

about 125 people, there are about 12 staff at the level of the larger chapters. The 

central accounting office of the Sierra Club does not manage nor control the 

finances of the chapters and groups except once a year, when we are provided 

with summary financial statements by them to consolidate with the national 

Club’s financial statement pursuant to filing our annual tax returns. In addition 

to funds raised on their own, the chapters are given quarte rly dues allocations: 

However, the disbursement of th at money is neither controlled by the national 

Club nor is it reported in detail to the national Club.

The burdens of either version of the proposed lobbying disclosure legislation 

would force the Sierra Club to adopt centralized reporting procedures which 

exceed our existing capabilities. It also could push us into centralized accounting 

to bring the 50 chapters with their 242 groups up to accounting standards not 

now possible with our present systems, and not otherwise deemed necessary 

under the present rules of accounting relating to the national Sierra Club’s 

financial statements.

We are thus faced with a minimum annual cost of $260,000.00 to provide some 

form of the following structure:

Estimated Ann ua l Budget Additive

10 Regional administrators/accountants:

Salary____ ______________________________________ ____ $12,000

Expenses, $3,000—$15,000 times 10_________________________ 150, 000

Increased data processing_________________________________ 25, 000

Increased central accounting office staff:

1 Accountant/administrator, 2 Clerical support:

Salaries (total)______________________________________ 35, 000

Expenses___________________________________________ 5, 000

Total____________________________________________ 40, 000

Increased external audit fee (to review regional, chapter and group

books)___________________________________________________ 35, 000

Total (minimum)______________________________________ 250, 000

There can be no argument, within either the accounting profession or the field 

of regulatory reporting, that any form of accurate reporting of transactions and 

financial data must be generated by a system which can support and substantiate 

the end result reported, and which can provide an audit trail to prove the authenticity of tha t reported. When regulatory/disclosure reporting systems are 

proposed by government, an assumption is often made that most reporting requirements can readily be met by slight modifications or additions to the existing 

accounting systems of the organizations involved. Without debating the presumptuous nature of such assertions, it is sufficient to point out tha t most often 

those reporting costs exceed the original scope and inten t of an organization’s 

reporting system.
757

The Chilling Effect on Citizen Participation in National Decisionmaking Under Both H.R. 15 and S. 2477, the Pending Lobby Bills

(By Carl Pope, Sierra Club Director of Political Education)

The provision of the Senate-passed lobbying bill, S. 2477, inevitably exert a 

substantial chilling effect upon the volunteer leadership of the Sierra Club. The 

most drastically affected individuals would be chapter chairmen and chapter 

conservation chairmen, who are also the key individuals in keeping a healthy 

grass-roots effort going.

The chapter chairman would be considered the chief officer of an affiliated 

organization. There are an average of 4 to 6 groups under a chapter, and these 

groups would also qualify as affiliates. The groups, with rare exceptions, have no 

paid staffs, but in many cases their chief executive and operating officers engage 

in sufficient volume of communications tha t their activities would have to be 

logged.

Since in most cases principal responsibility for conservation work lies with the 

chapter or group conservation chairmen, they too, would qualify as principal 

operating officers, as well as the chairman. This means tha t in addition to paid 

staff, if any, the chapter chairman would be responsible for ensuring tha t the 

activities of 8 to 12 volunteers—none under actual supervision—be logged; that 

all telephone calls made from the chapter or group offices (or members’ homes, if 

there is no office) soliciting members to call their Congressmen, comment on an 

environmental impact statement (if it involved a contract or lease), or appear at a 

wilderness hearing, must be kept track of so th at the total expended on the solicitation, could be reported. Where, as is often the case, the group chair and conservation chair conduct independent solicitations of members, and submit telephone 

bills, those bills would have to be logged, separated into issues for purposes of 

determining the ten most important, and separated as to direct lobbying and 

lobbying solicitations.

In some cases, chapters cover two, three, or even four states. The degree of 

contact between the chapter chairman and the groups is minimal—lobbying 

solicitations by the groups originate directly with the Washington office or the 

San Francisco office. The groups and chapter budget books are maintained by 

volunteers, also not under the direct supervision of the chairman and not normally 

at nearly the level of sophistication required to comply with the provisions of the 

Senate bill. Some volunteers who make telephone calls and who later request 

reimbursement do not do so on a quarterly basis, nor do they keep track of which 

issues on which they made the calls.

The chapter chairman sees this dilemma: to the extent that he would pressure 

his volunteers to keep records of each phone call, force them to break down and 

allocate the costs of each issue alert publication, and insist chapter members 

working with other groups keep track of how many individuals are reached and 

what costs are involved, two unwanted results could occur. The response by many 

of his volunteers would be to ignore the reporting requirements, placing the chairman in the position of being unable to comply with the law. Alternatively, many 

volunteers, already overburdened by their activities would cease engaging in 

those Federal issues rath er than to suffer the bother, hassle, and sense of legal 

threat involved in federal lobbying under this legislation.

It is conceivable, of course, that some volunteers will continue to put in the same 

number of hours on federal matters as before, but a significant part of those hours 

in the case of the group chairman (probably 30-40%) will be spent on paperwork 

trying to comply with the reporting requirements, diminishing the total effort of a 

critical link by that 30-40%. The 30-40% figure is based on the need, at the end of 

the quarter, to call each of the active volunteers wrho responded to solicitations 

and collect data of further solicitations, number reached, copies of material, 

expenses and allocation of expenses to each issue.

Since in all too many cases it is easier for the volunteer to relate to a local or 

state issue, since the offices involved are likely to be closer to the volunteer and 

physically more accessible, the net effect would be to cripple the chairman's efforts to

keep his volunteers working to influence federal decision-making.
758

T he R ec or dke eping Bu r d en: L ob by ing Sol ic itat io ns by “ Affil ia tes” 

U nd er H.R. 15, th e P ro posed L ob by ing Bil l

(By Eugene Coan, Sie rra Club Nationa l Issues Director)

The natio nal Sierr a Club and all of its divisions (“ affiliate s”) th at engage in 

efforts to influence Congressional or adm inis trative decisions b y means of ge nera ting public response would have to keep track of each such lobbying solicita tion, 

including:

(1 ) The extent of coverage of these federal issues in each medium of communicatio n, including natio nwid e specialty newsletters, regional as well as all 

cha pte r and group one-time issue “a lerts” , telephone campaigns, and oth er ou treac h efforts. Each medium would have to be analy zed—n ot only to comply with 

the comprehensive companion bill, S. 2477, bu t also to substan tia te the lesser 

reporti ng required by H.R . 15—in terms of its audien ce—geographic sprea d, 

num ber of persons, and sta te- by -st ate breakdown if an y one s tat e received 50 0 or 

more.

(2 ) Each mailing the Club or its affiliates made would have to be itemiz ed, 

including description of the issue involved, num ber of persons who received the 

mailing, and states which received 500 or more.

(3) Each telephone call or in-person effort, whet her by employees or v olunte ers, 

to elicit grass-roots sup port on federal issues would have to be tallied.

(4 ) Copies of each natio nal, regional, cha pter and group wri tten solicitatio n 

would have to be filed for five years in the Club ’s cen tral accounting office to 

sub sta nti ate the reports.

(5) The tot al expenses involved in each solicitation would have to be logged.

(6) Finally, for each solicitatio n designed to reach affiliates there would have t o 

be a break down of the affiliates reache d and the num ber of person s reac hed in each.

Considering th at the Sierra Clu b’s vol unteer members watch -dog many federa l 

agencies’ con trac t activ ities—tim ber sales, park concessions, minera l and offshore 

oil and gas leases—it would be a nearl y hopeless effort to keep accurate and 

comp lete records wit hou t to tally transform ing the Club from a sp irite d grass-roots 

acti on base into a highly centr alized and probably demoralized organ ization.

Gre ate r F or t Wor th Sie rra Clu b,

Fort Worth, Tex., Ju ly SB, 1976.

Subject: Sta tem ent for the record of th e Jul y 27 -28 hearing on s ection 404 of the 

Fede ral Water Pollu tion Control Act.

S en at or J en ni ng s R an do lp h,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 420 2 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

The Gre ater Fo rt Wor th Grou p of th e Sierra Club believes th at i t is pre mature 

to consid er amendm ents to Section 404 of the Federal Wa ter Pollution Contr ol 

Act and t ha t the Senat e sh ould consider no ame ndm ents u ntil the full three -phas e 

prog ram has gone i nto effect and can be eval uate d completely and objectively.

The Section 404 per mit progr am, when fully implemen ted, will give legislativ e 

pro tect ion to most of our Na tio n’s formerly unprote cted wetlands. This is extrem ely im po rtant in view of the numerous values of we tland s. Wetlands are rich 

in p lan t and animal life an d are a mong th e most prod uctiv e of all ecosystems; the y 

purify wate r supplies, provide n atu ral floodwater storage , and rec harge the ground 

water; the y provide nurs ery area s for fish an d shellfish; and the y provide unique 

recreation oppo rtunities. In recognition of these values and to bring att ent ion to 

the ongoing r apid loss of this gre at natur al resource, the Nat ional Wildlife Fe der ation designa ted “Save Our Wetlan ds” as the t heme of th is y ear’s Nationa l Wildlife 

Week.

We feel th at th e Section 404 perm it progra m will have p arti cul ar impo rtanc e in 

saving wetlands in Texas. This sta te has the financial cap abil ity to develop large 

scale water projects , and many of the large st water developm ent projects now in 

existence in Texas are sta te, no t Fede ral projects. Sta te proj ects are usually single 

purpose and make no att em pt to miti gate or compensate environm ental des truc ­

tion . The 404 program will prov ide our st at e’s wetla nds with legislative safeguards 

by bringing sta te water developm ent proje cts under the purview of the National 

Env iron men tal Policy Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordina tion Act.
750

We urge the Senate Public Works Committee and the Senate to delay action on 

Section 404 until the program is fully operative and decisions can be based on a 

complete and objective review.

Jon R. Nickles, 

Conservation Chairman.

Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club,

Palo Alto, Calif., June 22, 1976.

Re S. 2710 (H.R. 9560) For the record of the hearing, July 27-28, 1976.

Senator J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club is 

most concerned about amendments to the Federal W’ater Pollution Control Act 

which will leave most of our nation’s remaining wetlands unprotected under 

Section 404.

We urge you to defeat the Wright-Breaux amendment, H.R. 9560, which has 

been added to S. 2710.

The proposed re-definition of “navigable waters” in that amendment is highly 

restrictive and considered a seriously retrogressive action in water resources 

management. This amendment would prevent the application of environmental 

controls on approximately 85% of the nation’s wetlands, and leave them completely unprotected.

We question the allocation of $35 billion to state governments for sewage 

treatment plant construction without adequate environmental and fiscal safeguards, and without EPA review, under such a “state certification” program.

It would be a crucial mistake in water resource management, under the proposed 

amendment, to prohibit the authority of the Corps of Engineers under the narrow 

definition of “navigable waters”. The Corps’ record in protecting our nation’s 

wetlands under the Act has been very good.

Further, this amendment would not protect the requirement for environmental 

impact statements, or the right of citizens to sue.

Additionally, we absolutely disagree with the proposed reduction of the maximum civil penalty for a hazardous chemical spill from $5 million to a mere $50,000 

under the amendment, which is a severe blow to the power of the Act.

We feel the amendment does not provide sufficiently for adequate environmental impact statements, and their conscientious review and approval on 

proposed projects in the wetlands.

We question the adequacy and accuracy of information to Congressmen on 

this wetlands issue. We are also concerned that the views and testimony from 

public interest groups have not been heard sufficiently.

We disapprove of the lack of opportunity, as yet, for submittal and hearing of 

testimony from EPA and the Corps of Engineers, and hope you will encourage 

and receive this testimony.

We urge you to pass a bill which will simply extend funding for the W’ater 

Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500), for one more year, rather than accept this 

grossly inadequate and premature revision. DO NOT approve in Conference or 

in Committee any bill containing substantive changes in the law.

Please protect our wetlands. Thank you for your support.

Respectfully,

Joseph Carleton, 

Conservation Chairman.

Sierra Club, Florida Chapter,

Gainesville, Fla., July 12, 1976.

Hon. J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 1+20Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph: The enclosed statement expresses the strong 

support of the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club for the three-phase program 

developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement Section 404 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Please include this statement in the record 

of the hearing of July 27-28 on Section 404.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan K. Lee, Chairman.
760

Statement op the Florida Chapter op the Sierra Club, for the Record

of the Hearing of J uly 27-28 , 1976, Regarding Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

The Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club urges the Senate Public Works

Committee to support the full three-phase program developed by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to implement Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act. We believe tna t the regulations developed by the Corps provide a 

sound basis for a program to protect our waters and wetlands from unwise dredge 

and fill activities.

Florida, with its long coastline and extensive wetlands, will be among the 

state s most affected by this program. Our wetlands are an irreplaceable natur al 

resource which, in their natur al state, are vital to the ecological balance of 

Florida’s inland and coastal areas. They are essential for the production of marine 

and inland wildlife, waterfowl, finfish, shellfish, and vegetation; for the maintenance of protective barriers against floods, hurricanes, and other storms; for the 

absorption of salts and pollutants; and for the recreation and aesthetic enjoyment 

of the people of Florida and t he nation.

For these reasons the Florida Chapter has long supported both state and 

federal action to protect inland and coastal wetlands, to prevent their destruction, and to manage necessary economic development in a manner consistent 

with their preservation.

The House (Wright-Breaux) amendment destroying the Section 404 program 

attac ks the principle t ha t effective pollution control measures must apply to all 

waters, not just narrowly defined ‘‘navigable waters.” The House amendment 

would stop the 404 program from controlling the discharge of polluted dredged 

or fill materials into most of America’s streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands.

We believe tha t this is not the time to amend Section 404. Changes should 

not be considered until after the full three-phase program has gone into effect.

However, if the Committee determines tha t it is necessary to amend Section 

404, the Senate Hart-Cleveland amendment is very much preferable to the 

House Wright-Breaux amendment. The Hart-Cleveland amendment would address directly those issues raised by opponents of Phases II and II I of the Corps 

program, while keeping the key features of the program inta ct. The Hart-Cleveland 

amendment would write into law the exemptions for farming, silvicultural, and 

ranching activities and the general permit program for projects having minimal 

environmental impact already set for Phases II and III in the Corps regulations. 

It would provide for a Corps/EPA progress report by December 31, 1977, on the 

implementation of Section 404.

A vote to destroy the Section 404 program would be a vote with a potentially 

greater negative imp act on Florida’s environment th an any other in recent years. 

The Florida C hapter of the Sierra Club urges the Senate Public Works Committee 

to give the 404 program a chance to operate. It will provide the kind of protection 

our waters and wetlands desperately need.

Sierra Club,

Potomac Chapter, Delaware Group,

Newark, Del., Ju ly 23, 1976. Hon. Jennings Randolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

4202 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Dear Sir: For the record of the hearing of July 27-2 8, 1976 on Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act.

Sierra Club, Delaware Group strongly supports Section 404 and feels it is 

premature to amend it. The full three-phase program has not been in effect to 

even consider any changes. If any amendments are to be considered the Senate Hart-Cleveland amendment is preferable to the Wright-Breaux House 

Amendment.

By amending Phase II, pertaining to permits of fill on the floodplain, an outside mediator would be eliminated. We have a perfect example in Delaware of a 

case involving a bridge on fill in the floodplain proposed by our highway depa rtment. The funds to be used are state only. Objecting to this type of construction 

and fill in the stream bed we went through all the necessary local governmental 

agencies. W ithout any satisfaction, our only recourse left was to request a hearing 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who must issue a permit. By allowing
761

the states to have the total responsibility for issuing perm its of this type we 

lose an outside objec tive review. Many times the political pressures envelop 

causing the economics in construction to override the environmentally sound. 

Cost of measures to correct adverse environmen tal impa cts would come from 

budgets of public agencies other than the highway dep artm ent.

Freq uently the Corps gets the end resu lt of bad construction and planning 

and must control the flooding in and out of navigable waters. This control shou ld 

be developed before the adverse effects are there to help prevent high costs of 

remedial repairs and destruction in our wetlands.

We suggest th at eith er the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, En vironmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be an outside 

non-political group to review such matter s.

Respectfully,

Mrs. Marguerite G. J ahn.

Statement for the R ecord of the Hearing of J uly 27-28, 1976, on Section

404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by the Rio Grande

Chapter of the Sierra Club

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) was adopted to prote ct 

the chemical, physical, and biological integr ity of the nation’s waters. Section 404 

provides an important aspect of this protection by helping to reduce the amoun t 

of silt. Silt is a major con tam inant of rivers, especially in the southwest.

It is important to recognize th at the intent of Congress in adopting PL 92-500 

was to pro tect all of the water of t he U.S., no t simply navigable waters. Appropriately, the courts and various agencies have defined “navigable waters” in the 

broadest possible context. It is entirely inappropriate for Congress to change t hat 

definition, which has been developed over a period of years, in one brief session, 

without the benefit of ade qua teh earings.

To protect the integr ity of the natio n’s waters, the Federal Wa ter Pollution 

Control Act mu st address all watersa n d wetlands.

Phases II and I II of the implementation of Section 404 are absolutely essential 

to the protection of the waters of New Mexico. If the definition of navigable 

waters recommended by the Wright-Breaux amendmen t prevails, none of the 

Rio Grande and its trib uta ries in New Mexico above Ele pha nt Bu tte Reservoir 

will be protecte d, nor will the Gila, San Jua n, Canadian and Pecos Rivers be 

protected from dredging and filling. This is essentially all of the surface water 

of New Mexico.

People in the Corps of Engineers in New Mexico, who h ave been in the process 

of implementing Phase II of Section 404 have indicated in personal conversations 

with us th at the implementa tion is running smoothly and is no t an excessive 

burden.

We have had several examples alre ady of the law functioning very well in 

facilitating excellent coordination and cooperation between the Highway Department, the New Mexico Game and Fish Depar tment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the Corps of Engineers, in mitigating damage to rivers a nd wetlan ds 

due to river crossing projects. This would no t have happened with out th e requirements of Section 404 and related regulations.

Citizens in the Albuquerque area are vita lly interested in protection of an 

oxbow wetland on the Rio Grande within the city limits. Section 404 of PL 92-500 

(with out amendment) will provide a means of mitigating damage to this area 

which migh t result from construction of an irrig ation drain and rela ted roa d 

which are proposed. Witho ut Section 404 the proposed work can proceed with 

no consideration being given to the effect on the river or the adjacent wetlands. 

The amended version of Section 404 being proposed would not apply.

The San Juan Riv er in northwestern New Mexico is probably the finest trou t 

strea m in the southwest. Without Section 404 of PL 92-500, and specifically 

phases II and II I of the implementation regulations, this stream will be un ­

protected from dredging, filling, and siltation.

I have had considerable experience in the implementa tion of PL 92-500 in 

the past 3% years. We are just beginning to see the fruits of these efforts. We 

urge you to strongly resist any efforts to amend Section 404, or any o the r section 

of PL 92-500, at this time. Any consideration for ame ndment should be done 

in the context of the entire law, since all sections are interrelated with the ultim ate 

goal of protection of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the 

nation’s waters.
762

San F rancisc o B at C ha pt er Sie rr a Clu b,

Oakland, Calif., Ju ly £3, 1976.

Hon. J en ni ng s R an do lp h,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Reque st th at the following s tat em ent be included in the record of the hearing 

of Ju ly 27-28 1976, on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club is deeply concerned abo ut 

the fate of wetlands in San Francisco Bay and its connecting waterways. The 

imm ediate source of our concern is th e hasty amending process being carried out 

on Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is premature 

in view of th e total review of the Act and its implementation programs scheduled 

by the Senate for next session.

As a result of this amending process to supposedly make the job of cleaning 

up our Na tion’s waters easier, a significant portion of these wate rs (everything 

no t big enough to float a barge) have lost protection a gainst discharge of polluted 

dredged materials under the House Wright-Breaux Amendment. We requ est 

acceptance instead of the Senate Hart-Cleveland Amendment which would 

clarify the existing 404 regulations by exempting from regulation all normal 

farm ing, silviculture, and ranc hing activ ities and authorizing a general permit 

prog ram for projects having minim al environmental impact, bu t would still 

include under its protectio n vital marshlands and smaller tri bu tary waterw ays. 

As any student of biological systems recognizes, our wate rways form an interconnected network, and it is n ot possible to withdraw some portion of this system 

and allow certain things to happen there (i.e. dumping of polluted materials) 

without having it even tually effect the entire system . In addition, we emphasize 

th at fresh and sa lt water marshlands are extrem ely valuable for the ir capabilities 

to utilize quantities of polluta nts such as excess nutrie nts and organic wastes 

from the ir tributaries, to store flood waters, and to nurtu re the young of many 

fish, birds, and other wildlife, some of whom we in turn rely on for food. As such 

these wetlands are in critical need of protec tion from pollution and the wholesale 

filling which is a prim ary concern for unprote cted bay-edge marshlands.

Please support implementa tion of the full three -phase program of the Water 

Pollution Control Act prior to any consideration of su bst antial changes.

Thank you.

P au la C ar re ll , 

Conservation Coordinator.

Sie rra Clu b,

Sou th er n P la in s R eg io na l C on se rv ati on C om m it te e,

Norman, Okla., J uly 14, 1976. Hon. J en ni ng s R an do lp h,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 4&02 Dirksen Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C.

D ea r Sen at or R ando lp h: I am writing you in order t hat these comments of 

mine can be included in the h earin g record of yo ur comm ittee concerning section 

404 of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. I und erstand th at 

this hearing will ta ke place on the 27th and 28th of July, 1976.

While I am certain th at you are aware of the Sierra Club’s position supp orting 

the present “404” program I felt th at it might be useful to include some of my 

personal experiences and views dealing with the implementation of PL 92-500 

in the region of the nation in which I live.

For the past two years I have been closely involved in the public participation 

portions of the impleme ntation of this vital act of Congress. First, I att ended a 

three day workshop on water qua lity sponsored by the EPA along with many 

citizens and state and local officials trying to learn more about what this 1972 

law would mean to them locally. Then I direc ted a sta te workshop to get this 

message out to citizens and local officials (also under the sponsorship of EPA). 

Later I helped develop a tape-slide show to be take n to small towns in Oklahoma 

to present these same facts before audiences unreached by the earlier workshops 

(this was also sponsored by EPA). This past year I have been appointed to two 

advisory committees to provide technical oversight on the development of the 

“208” planning process requ ired in the 1972 act. One of these committees covers 

metropolitan Oklahoma City and the other covers all the sta te of Oklahoma 

minus the metropolitan areas. This is a very rewarding a nd challenging experience 

because the ma tter of areawide waste water man agem ent is the key to meeting 

the long range goals of P.L. 92-500.
763

This brings me to section 404. I have on my desk, copies of the House version 

(Wright-Breaux Amendments) passed last month. I also have the alternate 

amendments (Cleveland-Harsha Amendments) that were not incorporated in 

the final House version. Speaking as a professional geographer, it seems clear to 

me that what the House did violates the entire purpose of the original 1972 act. 

That purpose (although not actually stated in those terms) was to make it national policy to begin treating our waters from a systems perspective and to abandon the clearly ineffectual past policies of trea ting the nation’s waters as though 

they did not constitute a true physical and biological system. Perhaps the House 

did take the action it did because it (section 404) deals with the less dramatic 

portions of the nation’s water system, the out of sight wetlands and the thousands 

of small tributary streams and rivers draining into the major rivers. Increasingly, 

the evidence demonstrates that the quality of streamside vegetation and the 

condition of the stream channel itself provides—or is capable of providing—

f

reat potential for filtering undesirable elements out of the waters passing through.

n short, a focus of our efforts on main rivers alone will not do the job, we can 

manage the tributary streams under the present provisions of section 404 to 

insure that high quality water enters the main channels of the nation’s rivers.

I think tha t it is premature to drastically alter the law regarding section 404. 

The Corps of Engineers has published its guidelines for the three phases of implementation of the existing law (reluctantly it seems) and these guidelines 

appear to be workable and not an undue burden—either on the small agriculturalist or the demands on the regulatory agency. If problems develop after phase 

two and three are underway then Congress should review the situation but not 

now.

If the features of section 404 will provide further protection of our wetlands and 

streams and in so doing bring us the benefit of enhanced water quality with no 

dollar outlay for structures or maintenance, letting nature do it all for us, then 

we should see the process through. Learning to work with nature rather than 

against it seems to be the path of wise management and retaining the current 

elements of section 404 would be following this philosophy.

Sincerely yours,

Marvin W. B aker, Jr., Ph. D., 

Regional Vice-President and Chairman.

Sierra Club—Tennessee Chapter,

Knoxville, Tenn., July 21, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: We would greatly appreciate the inclusion of our 

statem ent, enclosed, in the hearing of July 27-28, 1976, on Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

William Skelton, Chairman.

Statement of the Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club for the II i: Mfixos of J uly 27-28, 1976, on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

The Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club, representing the four local groups 

in Tennessee (Volunteer Group, Memphis; Middle Tennessee Group, Nashville; 

Harvey Broome Group, Knoxville; Chattanooga Group, Chattanooga) of the 

Sierra Club, feel t ha t at the present time it is premature to be amending Section 

404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, presently in Phase I of the three 

phase program. The entire program, as it is presently defined, should be allowed to 

proceed into effect before hearings are held and amendments taken up. However, 

as amendments are being considered we feel we m ust speak up at this time.

Our wetland areas are extremely valuable to our nation for their capabilities 

to break down and remove quantities of pollutants such as nutrients and organic 

wastes from their tributaries, to store flood waters and to help maintain the lower 

end of the food chain. We are deeply concerned about the impact the WrightBreaux House Amendment will have upon our nation’s wetland areas if its provisions become law.

70 -161—76 9
764

We find the Senate Hart-Cleveland Amendment preferable to the WrightBreau x House Amendment because it would write into law the exemptions and 

general perm it program already set for Phases II and II I in the regulations and it 

would provide a progress rep ort for th e Congress to review a t the end of next year.

We feel we should po int out a dditionally th at the House amen dment would stop 

the Section 404 program from controlling the discharge of polluted dredged materia ls into tribu taries of drinking w ater supplies t ha t do n ot happ en to fall inside 

the House’s narrowed definition of “navigable waters.’’

In conclusion, the present wetlands protection under Section 404 has proven to 

be an excellent program to pro tect our wetlands a nd all efforts should be m ade to 

sup port and continue this program.

Sierra Club—T ennessee Chapter,

Knoxville, Tenn., Ju ly 21, 1976.

Senator Howard II. Baker, Jr .

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Bake r: Enclosed is a copy of our sta tem ent which we have 

sent to Senator Randolph for inclusion in the July 27-28 hearings on Section 404 

of the Clean W ater Act before th e Senate Public Works Committee. We are sp eaking for the four local groups (Volunteer Group, Memphis; Middle Tennessee 

Group, Nashville; Harvey Broome Group, Knoxville; Cha ttan oog a Group, 

Chattano oga) that comprise th e Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club, numbering 

approximate ly 930 members, in the interests of protecting our wetlands.

We would be most appreciative of any help you migh t render in insuring th at 

our statem ent be included in the hearing record.

We also urge th at you, in the interest of protecting our natio n’s wetlands, 

sup port the Hart-Cleveland Amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act.

Sincerely yours,

William Skelton, Chairman.

(The statem ent referred to precedes this lette r.)

Statement by the Southern F orest Products Association in Support of

Wright Amendment to Water Pollution Control Act of 1972

The Southern Fore st Products Association is an organization of forest products 

manufactu rers w’ith operations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and 

Virginia. SFPA members represe nt almost half of the total Southern Pine lumber 

productio n, which is nearly one-third of the total U.S. domestic softwood lumber 

outpu t.

The Association is concerned with the court-mandated regu latory program of 

the Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with Section 404 of the Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1972 because of its potentially calamitous effect on 

forest m anagement and timb er supply in the South. The probable consequences 

of the program with respe ct to forestry can best be understood from analysis of 

forestland ownership in the region and att en da nt problems and needs.

Ninety-three perc ent of the South ’s 192 million acres of commercial forestland 

is privately owned, 20 perc ent belonging to industry and 73 percent to nonindustria l private owners. The latte r category embraces almo st two million individual ownerships, mostly in small individual tracts. The nonindustrial priv ate 

lands provide two-thirds of the raw material for softwood lumber and plywood 

manufactu re in the region.

The Association fears th at implementation of Phases II and II I of the Corps’ 

404 program would grea tly diminish if not destroy the incentives of the nonindu strial private owners to grow trees and practice forestry. This concern arises 

from the fact th at the definitions of “navigable waters” and “we tlands” under 

Section 404, as interprete d by the courts and the Corps, have been broadened in 

such incredible fashion as to include v irtually every body of water, however small 

and insignificant, in the U.S. This, in turn, would project the Corps’ perm it 

autho rity into vast areas of commercial forestland in the South.

For example, Section 404 permits would be required for fill activities from forest 

road, culvert and bridge installatio ns, fills at industrial sites, construction of water 

supply and log ponds a nd construction of drainage ditches or canals. Such permits
765

would be costly, difficult, and time consuming to obtain. T he system would almost 

surely stifle the forestry incentive of small priv ate owners.

The projected 404 program would greatly aggravate what is alread y a tenuous 

situation insofar as timber sup ply is concerned. While enormous in aggregate, the 

nonindustrial private holdings are indiv idually small. Few of the nearly two 

million owners have the money or knowledge to prac tice forestry unassisted. As 

a result, the net annu al rate of tim ber growth on their aggregate holdings is less 

than half of potential.

Improvement in this performance is an urgent national need, as indicate d by 

disclosures of the Fore st Service of the U.S. Depar tment of Agriculture. The 

agency predicts th at demand for forest prod ucts will double by the year 2000 

and predicts fu rther th at th e South will become the m ain source of supply because 

of its grea t potential for timber growth. To be able to fulfill these anticipated 

needs, the South must achieve corresponding increases in timber supply—mainly 

on the nonindustrial private forestlands.

In recognition of this, forest prod ucts companies have been donating seedlings, 

the service of professional foresters, and equipment to small landowners. Moreover, a 1973 Act of Congress created the Federal Forestry Incentives Program, 

authorizing the investm ent of $25 million annually in cost-sharing arrangements 

to help small landowners get s tarted w ith tree planting and timber stand improvement practices.

While these programs have gotten off to an excellent sta rt, all the good work 

will be undone and forestry incentives of the small landowners destroyed, should 

the Corps’ 404 permit pro gram be implemented and enforced.

If th at should occur, the inevitable results would be timb er shortages, limited 

supply and higher prices for lumber and plywood, and catastrophic inflationary 

trends in housing and oth er areas of th e economy th at are heavily dependent on 

wood products. Moreover, timber shortages in the private sector of forestland 

ownership would almost surely increase cutting pressures on the public sector— 

primarily the National Forests of the West.

The Association believes t hat the c ourts and th e Corps have overlooked the fac t 

th at extensive forest m anagem ent and tree growing have a highly favorable effect 

on water quality. This is well documented by the experience of the South between 

1950 and 1970, when the in ven tory of standing softwood sawtimber was increased 

by 50 percent w'hich brought corresponding improvement in e nvironmental benefits. Planting and growth of trees is one of the most effective safeguards against 

soil erosion and the depo sit of sediment in streams.

Those are the reasons w’hy the Association strongly urges approval by the 

Senate Public Works Committee and by the Senate as a whole of Section 16 of 

S. 2710, as passed by the U.S. House of Rep rese ntatives in overwhelming fashion.

Section 16 (the so-called Wright amen dment) would amend Section 404 of the 

Water Pollution Control Act to restore the legitim ate a nd meaningful definitions of 

“navigable waters” and “wetlands” to the Corps’ permit authority. Legitimate 

wetlands would be thoroughly protected and the states would be encouraged to 

proceed w'ith coastal zone planning. By the same token, forestry and farming 

activ ities in areas th at do not remotely imp act navigable waters or wetlands 

would be exempt from unnecessary regulation and control.

The Association, in conclusion, believes th at the Wright amendment restores 

sanity and reason to an irra tional situ ation affecting crucial sectors of the economy, 

and therefore is very much in the public interest.

The Senate Public Works Committee is thanked for the o ppo rtun ity to present 

this statem ent.

Sp o r t F is h in g I n s t it u t e, 

Washington, D.C., July 19, 1976.

S e n a to r J en n in g s R a n d o lph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 5121,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

D ea r M r. C h a ir m a n : This Organization is pleased that on July 27 and 28, 1976 

the Senate Public Works Com mittee will hold the first Congressional hearings on 

the Wright-Breaux Amendment (section 16) to S. 2710 th at would drastically 

change the thrust of Section 404 of P.L. 92-500. We are, however, dismayed 

with the paucity of organizatio ns being permitted to testify th at oppose the 

Wright-Breaux Amendment.

The Sport Fishing Ins titute recognizes a nd a ppreciates the value of this N ation’s 

w’etlands. The unique ha bitat represented by w etlands is an integral pa rt of m any
766

fishes spawning requirements and the reproductive ha bitat req uiremen t of various 

aqu atic organisms th at are pa rt of the diet of many fishes t ha t eventually enter 

spo rt and commercial fisheries. In addition, wetlands thro ugh their purifying 

qualities significantly con trib ute to improved water quality. There are no substitut es for wetlands; they can not be mitigated. Because of the great value of 

wetlands this organization feels th at they must be afforded the protectio n of a 

National treasure. The Wright-Breaux Amendment does n ot provide tha t protection. It delegates protection to the various states with only a few s tates having 

sufficient laws to protect wetlands. What will protect th at irreplaceable resource 

until the states gear up to furnish th at protection! We subm it th at nothing will 

protect them.

The sound, comprehensive three-phase Section 404 permit program promulgated 

by the U.S. Corps of Engineers on July 25, 1975, in the Federal Register is working. When phase three of th at three -phase program goes into effect on July 1, 1977, 

all waters of the U.S. will be protecte d by the p ermit system. Modification of the 

permit system th at would exclude certain agricultu ral and forestry practices 

th at have minimal adverse environm ental impact is acceptable. To th at end, the 

Sport Fishing Insti tute sup ports Senate bill 3663 that would amend section 404 of 

P.L. 92-500.

Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying to know th at the Senate will n ot act precip itously 

on so imp ortant a ma tter as the fate of this nation’s wetlands as did the House of 

Representatives. Your Committe e will give the hastily-conceived Wright-Breaux 

Amendment its first public hearing. We are confident th at the hearing will impress 

upon your Committee th at wetlands are worthy of federal protection. Fur ther, 

we are confident th at Government witnesses will demonstrate to the Committee 

th at the existing perm it system, with modification as called for in S. 3663, does and 

will allow both protection of wetlands and an orderly development of wetland 

areas th at is compatible with th e resource.

It is respectfully requested th at this letter be made pa rt of the record of the 

Public Works C omm ittee’s hearings on Section 404 of P.L. 92-500.

Sincerely yours, Gilbert C. R adonski,

Executive Secretary.

San R afael, Calif., July 22, 1976.

Re S. 2710.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, 4202 Dirksen Office Building, U.S.

Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear M r. R andolph: I hope you will oppose the Wright-Breaux am endmen t to 

S. 2710. Our remaining wetlands are vita l in protectin g the quality of our a ir and 

water as well as wildlife habit at. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act’s 

Section 404 gives some overall protection to our nation’s wetlands. These waters 

and tidelands are interrelated, and piecemeal legislation by different states without 

overall natio nal jurisdiction would offer no protection at all.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is doing a good job under Section 404 to 

consider environmental factors before the authorization of dredge and fill operations. Our wetlands need this special consideration. Please continue this protectio n.

I would like my lett er read into the record at the meeting on S. 2710 on Ju ly 27- 

28. Tha nk you.

Sincerely yours,

J ean Starkweather.

Spangle, Wash., July 17, 1976. Ho n. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

4202 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

My Dear Senator: Please make my comments a pa rt of the record of the 

hearing of July 28-27, 1976, on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

In my opinion, Section 40-1 is one of the most beneficial parts of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act and to gut this provision now as does the Wright 

amendment in II.R. 9560 would be a giant step back ward in the fight to clean up
the natio n’s waterways. As a geologist, I am keenly aware that wetlands are very 

imp ort ant for reducing the sedim ent and nu trient loads which streams carry to 

bodies of standing water. In my native Indiana, 90% of the original w etlands ha ve 

been destroyed, and consequently eutrophication and its concom itant choking of 

lakes w ith undesirable vegetation is destroying the aqua tic resources of th at sta te.

If the public, thro ugh its taxes, is expected to build elaborate sewage tre atmen t 

facilities to protect the nation’s waters by removing nutrients, how can the 

destruction of our remainin g wetlands, the most impor tant natur al nutrientremoving agent, by special interests be justified?

I sincerely hope th at th e Senate will do nothing to weaken the p resent form of 

Section 404.

Yours very truly, W. K. Ste el e.

Mill Valley, Calif., Ju ly 21, 1976.

Re hearings on Wright-Breaux amendm ent to Water Pollution Control Act of 

1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Sir : We have just been informed by the Wildlife Managem ent Insti tute th at 

your committee has limited the n umb er of witnesses wishing to oppose the above 

amendment to two organizations who will appear on Ju ly 28th. We wish to pr ote st 

this as being an attempt to destroy remaining wetla nds in the United States by 

stacking hearings with friends of developers.

Conduct like th e above when preceded by the lack of congressional debate du ring 

the Wright-Breaux fiasco when only 20 minutes was allotted for debate, does 

nothing to enhance fa ith in the legislature and this administration.

It is n ot too late to pitc h in and save our wetlands and the valuable fish harvest 

now needed more th an ever. Please do use your influence to reverse a most d estructive process. Please make this a pa rt of th e hearing record.

Sincerely yours,

Francic Strauss. 

Katherine Strauss.

Tennessee Conservation League,

Nashville, Tenn., August 10, 1976.

Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr .,

3311 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Bak er: Thank you for your lette r of July 26, 1976 concerning 

your inte rest in Section 404, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Enclosed you will find a sho rt sta tem ent th at we would apprecia te having 

included in the public record on the hearing on Section 404.

Sincerely,

Anthony J. Campbell,

Executive Director.

Enclosure.

Statement Prepared for Presentation to the Senate P ublic Works

Committee Relative to Section 404 Permit P rogram of the 1972 F ederal

Water Pollution Control Act

The Tennessee Conservation League is a broad based, statew ide, conservation 

organization th at prom otes the wise use of our renewable nat ura l resources.

The League would like to tak e this oppo rtunity to encourage th e Senate Public 

Works Committee to sup port Section 404 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act. The League feels th at the Wright Amendment, if passed by the 

Senate and signed into law would lead t o the de struction of much of the extremely 

valuable w etland resources found in the U nite d States. We feel tha t th e ClevelandHarsha Bill (H art Bill) would alleviate the unfounded fears of ma ny of those who 

oppose the Section 404 program.
768

Although we feel th at the 404 regulations as prom ulgated by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers may not yet be perfect, we do feel th at Congress should give 

the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency an opp ortuni ty 

to work o ut the problems associated with the regulations before t akin g legislative 

action th at would emasculate the original intent of the law and any Federal 

effort to preserve our extrem ely valuable wetlands.

The Tennessee Conservation League would like to take this opp ortunity to 

tha nk the Public Works Committee for the opportu nity to provide input into th ese 

deliberations.

Tennessee Association of Conservation Districts,

Moscow, Tenn., Jun e 28, 1976. Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr .,

U.S. Senator,

8311 Dirkscn Building,

B ashington, D.C.

Dear Senator Bak er: I talke d to Rick Iler rnd on Friday, June 25th, concerning the direction the Senate may take on the modification of Section 404 of the 

Federal Water Quality Control Act.

Those of us in conservation districts and in local government feel th at the 

Corps of Engineers’ autho rity to admin ister permits for dredge and fill activ ities 

far exceeds the bounds of good government and authorities necessary to maintain 

a duality environment.

In order to document this I will in a brief narrative give you the efforts of local 

government to obtain emergency flood control funds to repair damage on Wolf 

River in Fayette County, Tennessee.

On March 12, 1975 over 8 inches of rain fell on Tennessee. Many rivers and their 

tributaries flooded various parts of the state causing extensive damage. The Wolf 

River was out of its bounds closing all north-south roads in Fay ette County except 

one in the eastern section. Flood waters were in m any homes and businesses in th e 

towns of Moscow and Rossville. The channel of the river was partially blocked 

with sediment and debris prior to this flood. After this flood several portions of 

the main channel were completely blocked increasing the hazards from future 

flooding.

At this point a request was made to the USDA Soil Conservation Service for 

emergency assistance und er Section 216 of the Emergency Flood Control Act of 

1950.

The request was made join tly by the Fayette Cou nty Court and the Fayette 

.Soil Conservation District. It was su pported by the towns of Moscow and Rossville and the local s portsmen’s Association. The requ est was given further sup port 

by the Chickasaw Environmental Association and individual members of other 

regional environmental groups.

The Congress, in the Fall of 1975, passed a suppleme ntal appropriation bill 

providing funds for this type of work and in Janu ary 1976 the Fayette Cou nty 

Court adopted a resolution assuming local sponsorship of the project and formally 

requesting th at the work be done. At this time the USDA Soil Conservation 

Service solicited comments from various other agencies and organizations as p ar t 

of the environmental imp act statem ent already prep ared for this typ e of work.

Ihese comments were incorporated in the work plan and the application for a 

404 permit from the Corps of Engineers was filed in March 1976. Twice-weekly 

checks were made by the Soil Conservation Service on the status of the permit 

application.

\\ hen, by mid May no action had been taken, the local sponsor (i.e. Fayette 

County Court) attem pte d to determine the sta tus of the perm it. The District 

Engineer would not respond to the requ est for information. Conversation with 

other employees of the Corps office in Memphis indicated th at the Corps was 

processing its own projects first and others would be done at an undeterm ined 

lat er date. Contacts by the offices of Senator Brock, Congressman Beard and 

Congressman \\ hitten failed to significantly change th e st atu s of a permit application for emergency work.

As of this date no action has been take n by the Corps on the applicatio n by the 

Fayette County Court for emergency channel restoration work on Wolf River.

It is abu ndantly clear to me, Senator, th at the Corps of Engineers is not presently complemented with the manpower nor the expertise to handle the volume 

of 404 permits here. It is quite probable th at simila r situations exist throug hout 

the country.
769

I urge you to investigate the reason for the delay in this particular request and to consider legislation which would return the Corps authority to its original jurisdiction, exempt certain dredge and fill activities and delegate the responsibility for others to state and local government.

Sincerely, .,

Steve Brunson, President.

Department of the Army,

Memphis District, Corps of Engineers,

Memphis, Tenn., Ju ly 19, 1976.

Hon. H oward W. Baker, Jr.,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Baker: This is in response to your letter of July 1, 1976 requesting comments on a letter that you received from Mr. Steve Brunson of the Tennessee Association of Conservation Districts. Mr. Brunson s letter out­ lined the difficulties and delays tha t the Fayette County Soil Conservation Dis­ tric t has experienced in obtaining a Section 404 permit for deposition of dredged material in connection with channel restoration work on th e Wolf River. The jurisdictional extent of Section 404 of Public Law 92—500 was greatly expanded with the publication of interim final guidelines in the Federal Register on July 25, 1975. As agencies and the public became aware of this expanded jurisdiction the volume of applications for Section 404 permits increased greatly. The complexity of information required to properly process an application also increased with the publication of the guidelines. At the onset of the expanded jurisdiction, the Memphis District was not adequately staffed with personnel that had all of the expertise required to gather, evaluate and process the infor­ mation at the same rate that applications were being received; consequently a backlog of applications developed. Manpower restrictions dictated tha t the district utilize personnel on-board. Personnel have been reassigned within the district in order to give a timely response to permit applications, but there is some delay in this method due to the need for these reassigned personnel to 

develop the necessary expertise. Since applications for permits were being received faster than they were being processed the district initiated the system of processing these applications in the order in which they were received. We have concurrently initiated the procedural requirements of 33 CFR 209.145 on those applicable Corps of Engineer projects in the same systematic order. The processing of the Corps projects is not given priority over applications for permits by other agencies or individuals; rather, the fact is that the District’s projects are processed based on the date tha t the required data and determinations are completed relative to the date tha t this same information on permit applications is completed. The Memphis District does have a number of authorized federal projects on which the procedural re­ quirements are being delayed just as the applications from other agencies and 

individuals are. ,

The application for a permit was received from the Fayette County Soil Con­ servation District on March 5, 1976. As stated in Mr. Brunson’s letter to you, we have been in frequent contact with the applicants. We have, in every instance, given them the status of their application, as well as information on other permit work tha t has impacted on the delay in processing their application. Some of the information and projections given to the applicant proved to be overly optimistic, due to delays on applications tha t were already being processed. One such delay is on applications received from the Obion-Forked Deer Basin Author­ ity, about which I wrote to you on June 11, 1976. I can assure you tha t the District has, and will continue to furnish the best available information to the 

applicants at their request. An initial on-site contact has already been made with officials of the Conser­ vation District. We are currently scheduled to begin an on-site wetlands inventory for this application this week. I anticipate tha t the inventory will require about one week and we can hopefully issue a public notice for the requested permit 

shortly after tha t time. As you are aware, President Ford recently directed a deferral of implementation of Phase II of the Section 404 permit program for a period of sixty days. The deferral may, however, offer some immediate relief to the Fayette County Soil Conservation District, since all of the activity proposed by them is on streams that will be under Phase II or I II jurisdiction. I will explain the options available 

to them within the next week.
770

Again, let me assure you th at I am striving to reduce the backlog of action on 

permit applications so th at delay to work will be minimized or eliminated. I will 

also be glad to furnish any app lica nt all available information at his reque st. If I 

can furnish you auy additional information or be of further assistance, please let 

me know.

Sincerely,

R obert W. Lockridge, J r.,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers,

Distr ict Engineer.

J uly 20, 1970.

Re For the record of the hearing July 27-28 on section 404 of the Clean Waters 

Act.

Hon. Mike Gravel,

Senate Public Works Committee,

Sena te Office Building,

14 ashington, D.C.

Dear Senator Gravel: We are very much concerned about Section 404. As 

the whole three-phase program is not y et in effect it is really too soon for holding 

hearings or considering amendments. If we do have ame ndments the Ilar tCleveland is by far the better one as it would write into law the exemptions and 

general permit program already set for Phases II and III, would provide a progress 

rep ort for Congress to review at the end of the year, and would clarify the issues 

mistake nly raised by those who were made needlessly anxious by the early press 

releases of the Army concerning 404. These claims were so paten tly false th at the 

Assistant Secretary of th e Army l ater disowned them as “ false” and “misleading.” 

404 would protect our health by controlling the discharge of polluted dredge 

materials into drinking water supplies and would protect our wetlands which we 

now realize are worth m any thousands of dollars for flood control, pollution control, 

ha bitat of commercial and other forms of animal life and save us money.

We believe th at the original intent was to pro tect all waters of the U.S. as they 

all need this for survival.

The Wright-Breaux Amendment is nothing new bu t only a rehash of the 

1899 Rivers and Harbors Act which has proven to be so unsatisfactory. Besides 

th at it was adopted by the House Public Works and Trans por tation Committee 

without testimony by EPA, the Engineers Corps, Dept. of Interior, or citizen 

groups. Neith er was it referred to the subcommittees whose members and staffs 

have much expertise and experience in such matters. It is difficult to obtain good 

legislation when it is steamrolled through in this fashion.

Please do not consider amendments to other sections of th e Act un t;

l after the Senate has held hearings next year on the Rockefeller Commission which will be 

the final Rep ort on Water Quality.

Yours truly,

Ethel W. Thorneley.

Mr. and Mrs. R. Poland, Mr. and Mrs. R. Angst, Mr. and 

Mrs. J. LaBerge, Mr. and Mrs. A. Lombard, Mr. and 

Mrs. D. Doerr, Mr. and Mrs. C. Butcher, Mr. and Mrs. E. Park.

Trinity River Authority of Texas.

Hon. E dmund S. Muskie,

145 Russell Senate Office Build ing,

Wash ington, D.C.

Arlington, Tex., Ju ly 23, 1976.

Dear Senator Mus kie: It is my wish to have the attach ed statem ent of the 

Trinity River Authority of Texas included in the official record of the hearings 

by the Subcommittee on Environ men tal Pollution of the Senate Public Works 

Committee on Amendment of Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 th at will be held on 

Jul y 27 and 28.

With highest personal regards and best wishes, I am,

Yours very truly,

David H. Brune.
771

Statement of the T rinity R iver Authority of Texas on Amendment of

Section 404 of Public Law 92-500

The Trinity River Authority of Texas is a conservation and reclamation distric t 

created by the Texas Legislature in 1955 for the purpose of managing the soil and 

water resources of the Trinity River Basin. The Basin itself conta ins 6.4 p erce nt 

of Texas’ lan d area and is the home of 20 percent of th e state’s population.

The Authority is gravely concerned with the impact of the cou rt ordered 

inte rpretation of Section 404 of P.L. 92-500. We most firmly believe t ha t if ap plied 

in its curre nt strin gen t form, Section 404 will have a de structive impact on hum an 

endeavors in such areas as water supply development, agriculture, industry, 

transp ortation, housing and recreation throug hou t the country. We also believe 

th at when P.L. 92-500 was passed, neither the interp retation of Section 404 nor 

the resulting impact were intended by the members of the House and Senate.

Section 404 is a totall y unrealistic and abrasive program for the following 

reasons:

—I t is tota lly administered by the federal government, despite the fact it has 

a tremendous impact down to the grass roots level.

—I t focuses on the preservation of fish and wildlife and the maintenance of 

water quality to the complete exclusion of any other considerations, and in effect 

amounts to an unworkable back door approac h to federal land use planning.

—Will result in eith er the creation of another monolithic bureaucracy or will 

sta nd as a classic example of another unkept federal promise as a resu lt of the 

massive scope of ac tivities i t has the responsibility for controlling.

The Sta te of Texas is faced with an urgent requiremen t to develop additional 

water resources. With the extension of the Corps of Engineers Section 404 pe rmit

S

rogram to cover almo st every flowing stream and body of water in t he st ate, we 

ave been placed in a position where both our existing and futu re water requirements may not be fulfilled. I t is the opinion of the Trinity River Authority th at the 

Wright amendmen t of Section 404 included in S. 2710 provides for a more equitable 

and realistic approac h to the dredge and fill perm it program. By limiting the 

application of the Section 404 permits to truly navigable streams and adjace nt 

wetlands, a major step will have been taken toward the protection of delicate 

ecosystems and at the same time local government will retain the responsibility 

for local actions.

The Trinity River Authority and the citizens of the Basin fully u nde rstand and 

share the concern for environmental protectio n. We ask you to und erstand and 

apprecia te our pressing requirement for additional water supplies and the un ­

necessary delays th at the current Section 404 in terpre tation will cause in satisfying these requ irem ents/ The Wright Amendment is the voice of reason and responsible change as documented by the 339 to 5 vote it received when it passed the 

House. We interp ret this showing of massive sup por t as agreement with our 

position that the attentio n of federal agencies should be directed at problems more 

deserving of their time. The Trinity River Authority fully supports the Wright 

Amendment and respectfully requests th at it be pu t to a Senate vote at the 

earliest opp ortu nity .

Uppe r Colorado River Commission,

Sal t Lak e City, Utah, Ju ly 12, 1976.

Hon. Edmund S. Musk ie,

Chairman Subcommittee on Environ mental Pollution, Committee on Public Wor ks,

U.S. Senate, 146 Russell Senate Office Buildin g, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Mus ki e: Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the 

Upper Colorado River Commission at a special meeting on July 7, 1976.

This resolution is in sup port of the amendm ents to section 404 of P.L. 92-500 

as approved by the House of Rep rese ntatives in its ame ndment of S. 2710, The 

Federal Wa ter Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1976.

Sincerely yours,

I val V. Goslin, 

Executive Director.

Enclosure.
772

R esol ut ion of U ppe r Colorad o R iv er C om mi ssion

r e : AMENDM ENTS TO SECTION OF P.L. 92-500, THE FED ERA L WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972

Whereas, the House of Representatives of the United States Congress on J une 

3, 1976, by an overwhelming vote of 339 to 5, did pass H.R. 9560 cited as “The 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1976” ; and

Whereas, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 234 to 121, almost a two to 

one majority, did incorporate into said H.R . 9560 an amendment to section 404 of 

P.L. 92-500 by Congressman James Wright of Texas which defines the terms 

“navigable waters” and “adjacen t wetlands” ; limits application of the Federal 

permit program to navigable waters and contiguous or adjace nt wetlands; adds, 

in the inte rest of environmental quality, adjacent wetlands to be under the perm it 

process of section 404 of P.L. 92-500; allows Sta tes th at desire to do so to extend 

the Federal permit process to waters other tha n navigable waters or adjacent 

wetlands; and provides for administration of the perm it process of section 404 

of P.L. 92-500 by State s possessing specified qualifications; and

Whereas, the Wright ame ndment confirms what appears to be the original 

int en t of section 404 of P.L. 92-500; and

Whereas, the Wright am endm ent provides a practicable solution to th e seriously 

complex and unreasonably expensive problems created by the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Cal­ laway in its in terp reta tion of section 404 of P.L. 92-500; and

Whereas, the President has extended for two m onths the implementation of the 

second phase of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ regulatory program for disposal of dredged or fill materials to lakes with more tha n five surface acres, primary trib utaries of inland navigable waters and nearby wetlands which was 

scheduled to be initia ted on July 1, 1976; and

Whereas, the third phase of said regulatory program which will furth er expand 

jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers to regulate discharges of dredged or fill 

materials into other waters, generally upstream to the headw aters, is scheduled 

to be initiate d on July 1, 1977; and

Whereas, the Wright ame ndm ent to section 404 of P.L. 92-500 has nation-wide 

sup por t of many diverse organizatio ns interested in the prop er conservation and 

utilization of the natural resources of the United States in promotion of the social, 

economic, environm ental, and general welfare of its citizens; and

Whereas, enac tment of the Wright amendment as soon as possible will aid in 

prev enting the waste of money, manpower, and time by Federal, State, and local 

governments required to implement the second and third phases of the perm it 

process un der section 404 of P.L. 92-500; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Upper Colorado River Commission at a special meeting convened at

Jackson, Wyoming on J uly 7, 1976, Th at said Commission strongly supports the 

Wright amendment and hereby urges the United States Senate to approve S. 

2710, as amended by the House of Representatives, at the earliest practicable date 

in th e second session of the nine ty-fourth Congress; be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transm itte d to the Congressional 

delegations of the four member States of the Upper Colorado River Commission 

who are hereby requested to do everyth ing within the powers of their respective 

offices to carry out the spirit and objectives of this resolution, to the Honorable 

Jennings Randolph, Chairman of t he Committee on Public Works of the United 

States Senate, to members of the Subcommittee on Environm ental Pollution of 

the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate, and to other intere sted entities.

Certificate: I, IVAL V. GOSLIN, Executive Director of the Upper Colorado 

Riv er Commission, do hereby certify th at the above Resolution was adopted by 

the Upper Colorado River Commission at the Special Meeting held in Jackson, 

Wyoming on July 7, 1976.

Witness my hand this 9th day of July, 1976.

I val V. Goslin, 

Executive Director.
773

Lakeland, Fla., Ju ly 22, 1976.

Re the record of the hearing of July 27-28, 1976, on section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 4~02 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: Our country must maintain a balanced perspective 

in regulating the protection of our water resources; short-term consideration of 

industry profit and convenience must not be our national criterion for water use. 

Long-term effects of operations which to indu strial interests may seem perfectly 

harmless (such as dredge-and-fill) must be considered.

To the eye of a successful businessman, orien ted to producing higher qu antity 

and quality of prod uct and to efficient use of raw m aterial, a w etland may appear 

as an unused piece of real esta te, with perhaps some potential use. But th at wetland, as it exists, is valuable in t hat it can brea k down and remove pollutants from 

the water; it feeds and shelters a vital part of our own food chain, breeds fish; as 

well as providing an overflow area for flood waters. It is the governm ent’s job to 

protect all of us, especially tha t good businessman, from the hasty and ill-informed 

destruction of such valuable resources.

Please fight th e passage of Senate Bill 2710; Test all three phases of Section 404 

before considering any amendment.

Sincerely, Ann Dickinson Valk.

Virginia Forestry Association,

Richmond, Va., July 15, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: On behalf of th e Virginia Forestry Association and 

its 1100 members in Virginia, we would like to make known for the record our 

sup port for the Wright ame ndm ent as it was att ached to H.R . 9560, the Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1976 passed by the House of Representatives. It is my 

understanding that committee hearings are scheduled for July 27th and 28th with 

mark-up beginning July 29th. Inasmuch as we will prob ably not be able to attend 

these hearings, we would like to make known our strong support for the W right 

amendment throug h thi s letter and throug h our attached newsletter dated 

Jun e 9, 1976.

We believe it is of utm ost importance for navigable wate rs to be redefined in 

their trad itio nal sense, and we wholeheartedly sup por t the Presiden t’s action in 

delaying for sixty days P hase 2 of the Corps of Engineers regulations. We feel these 

regulations as structure d by the courts and the Corps of Engineers are utterly 

ridiculous from a standpoint of enforcement and common sense. To think th at a 

forestland owner would have to obtain a permit in order to ha rvest his tim ber and 

carry it across streams flowing five cubic feet per second, just boggles the mind. 

These measures are so obviously counterproductive, and frau ght with red tape 

and bureaucratic bungling th at we feel a very important resource of Virginia—its 

timber—would be significantly wasted. Our position is th at a grea t deal of tim ber 

would be taken off the ma rke t because many landowners will not “fool with 

government permits” in order to comply with these new Corps of Engineers 

regulations. We emphasize this very strongly because the land ownership pattern 

in Virginia is largely in small priv ate blocks, where timb erland owners make sales 

very frequently.

Again our position is summed up on the enclosed newsletter which we sent to 

our members Jun e 9, 1976. We do hope you will t ake these comments into consideration d uring y our hearings. Also atta che d is a copy of our legislative position 

statem ent as of May 17, 1976 when our Board of Directors met with our Congressional delegation in Washington. You will note item 3 includes sup por t for 

the Breaux ame ndment at th at time. Thank you for your attention in these 

matters.

Sincerely,

Charles F. Finley, Jr.
774

H o use Votes T o C urb C o r ps o f E n g in e e r s J u r is d ic tio n

Landowners, conservationists and the forest industry won a legislative battle 

last week when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to restric t the Corps 

of Engineers authority to those wate rs which are truly navigable. The vote 

came Jun e 3 and was 234 to 121 in favor of an amendment which re-defined 

“navigable waters” for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredge or fill perm it 

autho rity under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. 

The amendmen t was attach ed to II. R. 9560, the Water Pollution Control Act 

of 1976, which passed by a vote of 339 to 5. The Virginia Forestry Association 

supported this amendment (see item #3 on the enclosed Legislative Bulletin). 

As drafted, it was known as the Breaux amendment, bu t at the last minute on 

the floor of the House Rep. James C. Wright (D-Tex.), ranking majority member 

of the Com mittee on Public Works and Tran sportation, offered a sub stitute to 

the Breaux amendment. The Wright compromise, which Breaux supported, was 

necessary to insure defeat of an ame ndm ent introduced by Reps. James C. 

Cleveland (R-N.II.) and William II. Harsha (R-Ohio). The Cleveland-Harsha 

ame ndm ent would have locked existing Corps regulations into law and was 

opposed by farming and forestry interests.

The Wright proposal preserves the Breaux ame ndment’s definition of navigable 

waters as “all waters presently used, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement,” and would: include protectio n of wetlands lying adjacent and contiguous 

to “navigable waters, ’’which is almo st the same as the current Corps jurisdiction 

under Phase I of the current Section 404 regulations; (2) allow, at the discretion 

of the sta tes and the Corps of Engineers, joint agreem ents on regulation of ad ditional waters, with the st ate or Corps of Engineers having the righ t to revoke the 

agreement at any time; (3) authorize issuance of general permits, bu t specifically 

exem pting normal farming, forestry, and ranching activities, which include the 

construction and maintenance of forest roads and drainage ditches; (4) exempt 

federally financed projects for which environmental imp act statem ents have 

been submitted; and (5) allow the Corps to delegate autho rity to the states 

to issue dredge or fill perm its if a s tate is capable of carrying out the program and 

it is in the public interest.

The Senate has already approved S. 2710, a bill similar to II.R . 9560 bu t it 

does not contain a provision to correct Section 404. Thus, our Senators must be 

shown the importance of this issue. Chances to achieve final passage of the Wright 

amendment are greatly improved because of the expanding sup por t from farm, 

forestry, ranching and road construction groups, and most states. However, if 

the Wright amendment or similar corrective action is not taken by the Senate, 

Phase II of the Corps interim final regulations will go into effect on July 1 this 

year. Phase II moves the Corps permit program into all prim ary tributaries of 

Phase I rivers, all lakes five acres and larger, and all wetlands adjace nt to those 

waters. Phase II I, which includes all smaller streams flowing 5 cubic feet per 

second and their att endant wetlands, would go into effect on July 1, 1977. This 

would expand the Corps’ jurisdiction over rivers from 50,000 miles to over 3.5 

million miles, and from approximate ly 50,000 miles of lake shorelines to 4.7 

million miles.

LUMBER GRADING WORKSHOP

The VPI Cooperative Extension Service is sponsoring a 4-day workshop 

Jun e 15-18 on hardwood log and lumber grading. The sessions will be tau gh t at 

Dabney S. Lancaster Community College at Clifton Forge. The workshop is 

designed to provide a working knowledge of hardwood log grades and their relatio nship to lumber grades and pro duc t utilization. Cost of the course is $50 

per person. The Virginia Fore stry Association, along with several other organizations, is helping to co-sponsor the workshop. Application blanks may be obtained 

from the VFA office.

MONONGAHELA: A COMPROMISE BILL

Following its hearings in March, the Senate Agriculture and Interior Committees have now reported out a bill which compromises some of the provisions of 

Senator Hum phrey’s bill S. 309 (supported by VFA) and Senator Ran dolph’s 

S. 2926, which was a very restrictive and proscriptive bill written by preservation ist groups. The compromise bill, called “H ump hrey’s amended S. 3091,” 

may be voted on by the full Senate within the next several weeks. VFA took the 

position earlier this spring th at S. 3091 provided for the greater amoun t of flexibility in supervision of our 155 National Forests in terms of forest m anag ement and
775

utilization of forestry research findings from the p ast 75 years. In short, we felt 

S. 3091 would allow the USFS foresters to practice forestry with a minimum of 

red tape and governmental hassle. Although very little “prescription” is w ritten 

into the amended S. 3091, it includes such phrases as “promulgate regulations,” 

“guidelines and sta ndard s,” and “guidelines which prescribe,” as well as provisions 

for a slower rate of harvest of old growth sawtim ber in the Northwest tha n some 

forest products companies would like. Clearly, the bill considers more tha n ju st 

forestry economics, but the U.S. Forest Service says it can live with the amended 

bill. At the very least, the new bill does clear up the confusion created by the 

federal courts’ in terpre tation la st summer of the original 1897 Organic Act. if the 

amended S. 3091 is passed by Congress, it will be none too soon to save jobs and 

businesses in the Virginias and Carolinas affected by the natio nal forest timb er 

embargo. Ju st in time too, as homebuilding is finally climbing out of th e doldrums 

and again creating a demand for lumber. VFA is still urging, however, that the 

bill be fu rther amended before passage.

VFA BOARD SPON SORS CON GRE SSIO NAL LUNC HEON

On May 17 the VFA Officers and Directors met in Arlington for their spring 

board meeting and legislative briefing on national forestry issues. As a result of 

this meeting the VFA Board of Directors adopted positions on six items, which 

are summarized in the enclosed Legislative Bulletin. Following the briefing, the 

Board hosted a luncheon in the Capital for the Virgina delegation where the 

VFA positions were presented. We were pleased th at both Senators Byrd and 

Scott and 8 of ou r 10 Congressmen were able to attend .

TA X CREDIT FOR HOME INSULA TION

The Senate Finance Com mittee voted last week to allow Americans to su btr act 

from their income tax bill 30 percent of th e cost of in sulating their homes, up to 

$750. This would mean a maximum tax credit of $225 and would cost th e T reas ury 

$300 million a year. The tax credit was one of several energy-conservation measures 

written into a broad tax bill on which the Committee expects to complete work 

soon.

FALL MEE TING , ANNU AL MEETING DATES

October 1 and 2—mark it down now. Those are the dates of our fall meeting in 

Roanoke. This is for the whole family, jus t like last year. We’re getting our program togethe r now and will also be lining up some lively entertainment. In case 

you ’re a VPI or VMI football fan, both team s are playing on their home ground. 

Saturday, October 2, so you’ll jus t be a sho rt distance from eithe r Lexington 

or Blacksburg. Our meeting will end in time for you to make the game. * * * 

Also, the dates for our 1977 Annual Meeting are set— February 9-10 in Williamsburg at the Lodge. (All oth er organizations, please tak e note: Feb ruary 9 & 10 

are VFA dates!)

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION

A stat e study commission studying the organization of sta te government has 

issued a report containing recommendations th at would, if implem ented, bring 

abo ut rather sweeping changes in st ate governm ent. Some changes m ight increase 

the efficiency and effectiveness of sta te government, bu t many of them appe ar 

to raise some very fundam enta l questions relating to the industry of agriculture 

and its relationship with sta te government. For example, the present autho rity 

of citizen boards and commissions would be substantially reduced, shifting the 

regulatory and policy-making autho rity normally exercised by the citizens 

boards to the agency staff and agency heads appointed by the Governor and hired 

by the state. The question the agricultural industry must answer relating to this 

recom mendation is w heth er or not it wants such policy and regulatory autho rity 

to be vested solely in agency personnel, or continue to be vested in citizen boards 

and commissions such as t he Virginia Department of Agriculture Board, the W ater 

Board and others. Other recommendations call for the creation of a new Dent, of 

Commerce (which would absorb most of the Dept. of Agriculture). The Dept. 

of Agriculture would be renam ed the Dept. of Agriculture and Economic 

Development.
776

“ K E E P V IR G IN IA B E A U T IF U L ” AW AR DS

Each year Keep Virginia Beautiful, Inc. and Keep America Beautiful, Inc. 

recognize programs th at con trib ute substan tially to a cleaner environment. 

Awards are offered for outstanding achievement in the following program cate ­

gories: s tate , county, small comm unity (pop. un der 25,000), mid-sized comm unity 

(pop. 25,000-75,000), and large comm unity (pop. over 75,000). Any organization 

or group conducting an ongoing citizen educ ation/action program to eliminate 

litter as an integral part of an environmental improvem ent effort is eligible. 

Entries m ust be received by Jul y 31, 1976 in the office of Keep Virginia Beautiful, 

Inc., 110 Eas t Fran klin Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Telephone 804-648- 

3776. Please write for the application form. First place winning entries in each 

category will be sent to New York to compete on the national level for the Keep 

America Beautiful Awards.

H O U SIN G FO RECAST DO WN

A slight dip in projected housing starts has been forecast by the National 

Association of Home Builders. NAIIB now foresees 1,588,200 sta rts this year, 

instead of the 1,605,600 units projected earlier. Starts for 1977 were also adju sted 

downward, from 1,758,500 to 1,739,800 units. The slight modifications, NAIIB 

explains, reflect a change in inte rest rate assum ptions. Still, the latest forecast 

for 1976 st arts are 36.9% over star ts recorded last y ear. NAIIB projects 615,800 

star ts in the South for this year.

WO OD I. D. K IT

What makes cherry wood different from walnut? Do you know what kind of 

wood is used for bowling alleys, your dining room tab le, baseball bats, or telephone 

poles? These questions are answered in a “wood identification kit” now on the 

market. The kit teaches identification for 20 different kinds of wood commonly 

used in furniture, housing, skis, fences, ball bats, railroad ties, and many other 

items. If you are a teacher, 4-II leader, interested in scouting, or a day camp 

direc tor you may want to use one of these kits. The wood samples are identified 

and stored in styrofoam compartments for safe keeping and easy handling. The 

mailing box is designed for use as both a display unit and storage container. The 

complete kit is available for $20.00, from Cabell Forestry Services, 2649 Jefferson 

Park Circle, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903.

T IM B E R C R U IS IN G SH O RT CO URSE

A two day sho rt course in variable plot (Bitterlich, prism) sampling methods 

will be held at the Germanna Community College, Fredericksburg, Tuesday and 

Wednesday, June 15-16, 1976. Germanna is between Culpeper and Fredericksburg off Route 3 in a wooded section on the banks of the ltap idan River. The 

course, which is being offered as a service to practicing foresters, will cover the 

basic principles of this sampling method including instrument selection, determina tion of “in” trees, determining plot radius factor, volume per acre and basal 

area per acre estimates, and other practical applications. A combination of classroom instruction and in-the-w oods exercises will be employed. Train ing sessions 

will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on both days. Equipment needed will include a 

hand compass, a pair of calipers, a 100' cloth tape, a clinometer or abney level, 

and a clipboard. Prisms will be provided. Further details from I)r. Harry Haney, 

Extension Service, Cheath am Hall, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

A U C TIO N S, EM PLO YM EN T

Wanted.— Pla nt Manager for furn iture plant in southwest Virginia; minimum 

of 3-5 yrs. experience. Address inquiries to Virginia Manufacturing Corp., Pennington Gap, Virginia 24277.

Auction.—Logging equipment, Sat., June 19th, 10:30 a.m., Cumberland, VA. 

Item s include Dr ott Model 40 BLC feller buncher, 24 in. cutter head w/collector; 

J. D. feller buncher 544B w/20 in. Rome cutter, head & accumulator (new in 

1975); Prentice loader; 4 Timberjacks, one w/grapple; 7 log traile rs; Low boy 20' 

deck; two 1976 Mack road tractors 10,800 mi. and 14,600 mi; other trucks and 

tractors. For descriptive brochure contact Ownby Auction and Realty, Hermitage 

Road, Richmond, VA—804-358-8493.
777

Auction.— Logging equipment, Sat., Jun e 26th. 10:30 a.m., Waverly, VA. 

Franklin logger 142XL w/grapple, 28" tires ; 3 Fran klin loggers w/grapple, 2 

w/28" tires ; AC HD6B bulldozer, 10' Angle Blade & Winch; Pren tice D100 

loader; four 1970 Chevrolet trac tors; 1969 Chevrolet tracto r; and many oth er 

tractors, trailers, chainsaws and equipment. All well-m aintained. Details from 

Ownby Auction.

V ir g in ia F o restry As s o c ia t io n : P oli cy St a t e m e n t on N a tio n a l L e g is la tiv e

an d R eg ula to ry I s su e s

PRE SENTED RY THE HOARD OF DIREC TORS TO THE VIRG INIA CONG RESSION AL

DEL EGA TION, MAY 17, 1976

1. Management of the National Forests {the Monongahela Issue)

Court actio n has led to the closing of the National Forests in Virginia for the 

cutting of timber. Without logging and the removal of timber, forest management cann ot be practiced . Since abo ut one-third of the counties in Virginia 

contain large acreages of National Fore st land, the curtailment of timber sales 

affects a large portion of the citizens in the western part of Virginia, particularly 

the smaller loggers and sawmill operators. Counties such as Bath, Highland and 

Craig depend heavily upon revenue from timber sales to support their school 

systems as t hey receive no other reven ue from federal land.

The Virginia Forestry Association recomm ends prompt Congressional action 

so th at the National Forests can be managed properly. The advances made in 

modern scientific managemen t techniques, proven sound by over seventy-five 

years of forestry research, should not be negated by court inte rpretation of a 

law passed in 1897. We would hope th at our Virginia delegation to Congress 

would supp ort extending past practices and timber sales until new and desirable 

legislation can be enacted.

2. Cooperative Federal Forestry Programs

We support the following levels of funding for fiscal year 1977. Sup port for 

these long-standing program s is essential and we believe consistent with the public 

interest.

Cooperative Federal program

Fiscal year Vir gin ia's share 

1977 ( million s) in 1976

Clarke -McN ary-2 (fire control and su pp re ss io n) ... ...................................... ...........................

Cooperative forest management__________________________________________________

Rural fire fu nds-------------------- ---------------------------------------- — --------------------------- --------—

Forestry incentives program______________________________________________ ____ _

Extension Servic e forest ry.............. .......................................................... ......................... .........

Mclntire-Sf ennis (forestry re se arc h). .._________ __________________________________

Titl e IV (genetic tree improvem ent)...........................................................................................

522. 6 5622,000

5.6 220,0 00

3.5 53,215

15.0 861,000

5.0 (»)

11.77 224, 000

1.5 56,000

1 New program.

S. Breaux amendment, redefining “navigable waters”

The Virginia Forestry Association supports the “Breaux Amendment” to H.R .

9560 which would limit the perm it autho rity of the Army Corps of Engineers in 

dredge and fill operations. Recen tly a Federal distric t court required the Corps 

to expand its autho rity far beyond traditional bounds. The results of this decision 

is tha t the Corps is regulating “in the public intere st” all forest road construction , 

drainage and diking activities in wet areas and all culvert construction involving 

fill in streams. The Breau x ame ndm ent (sponsored by Rep. Joh n Breaux of 

Louisiana) would res tric t the Corps to truly navigable waters as they have been 

trad itionally defined. The amendment was passed 22-13 by the House Public 

Works Committee last month.

4. Tax Reform Bill {Limitation of Artificial Losses)

Provisions in the “Tax Reform” bill, H.R . 10612, would raise taxes on timber

ownerships, and raise the top tax on capital gains from 35% to 42%. Also, the 

provision term ed “ Lim itation on Artificial Losses” (LAL) would disallow the 

dedu ctibility of timber managem ent expenses, except taxes and inte rest, an any 

given year where they may exceed timber income in th at year. These expenses 

would be deferred until such time as timber income may be large enough to 

offset them. The expenses th at would thu s be disallowed would include regular
778

maintenance costs such as fire, disease, rode nt control, thinning, fertilizing and 

any other management costs, apart from inte rest and property taxes. The pro- 

\isioa s of LAL apply only to individuals, family owned corporations, and Subcha pter S corporations with 10 or fewer stockholders. The Virginia For estry 

Association opposes these provisions because they would be a disincentive to good 

fore st management.

6. Clean Air Act Amendments

VFA opposes amendments (S. 3219, H.R . 10498) to the Clean Air Act of 1970 

which contain language affirming and stren gthening EPA’s regulations aimed at 

the “prevention of significant deterioration’’ of air qua lity in areas where the air 

qua lity currently exceeds national standard s. Congress has twice defeated a 

federal land use bill; VFA views the “non-deterioration” ame ndm ent as a covert 

attempt to enact a land use bill. By controlling the qua lity of air above the 

ground, this ame ndment would effectively control land use on the ground. We 

reel this exceeds the role of Congress in protecting hea lth and general welfare. 

We note Governor Godwin has indicated Virginia may challenge the con stitutionality of these amendments if they become law.

6‘. Family Farm Inheritance Act

VFA also supp orts the Family Farm Inheritance Act, Senate bill No. 227, 

which would encourage the continuation of family farms. The bill would incre ase 

the federal inheritance tax exemption on a farm from the present $60,000 to 

$200,000 provided it has been farmed by a family member for the last five years, 

and is farmed five years in the futu re by a family member residing on the farm . 

Along these same lines, we suppo rt II.R. 1793, which would increase the ma rita l 

dedu ction to $100,000, and provide for the farm to be value d at its cur ren t use 

as a farm or timb er tract, rat her tha n its highest, developed use.

[ Mailgram ]

Mountain View, Calif., July 25, 1976. Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 4202 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

W ashington, D.C.

For the hearing of July 27 to 28 on section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Senate Bill 2710.

The Wright-Breaux Amendment is a disastrous piece of legislation which 

should be dumped by the Senate. Redefinition of navigable waters of th e United 

States should proceed carefully and then only after due process of full formal 

hearings before both Houses. Because the entire Clean Water Act including 

Section 404 Perm it Program will be undergoing full review by both Rouses 

next year, wait until then so th at the full value of Section 404 Perm it Program 

can be adequately weighed.

J essie Vosti.

Water Resources Congress,

W ashington, D.C., July 27, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

U.S. Senator,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: One of the most serious problems facing our Nation today is the confused mess caused by court and executive agency interp retations of w hat Congress meant when it passed P.L. 92-500. Of pa rticular concern 

is the present interpreta tion of Section 404 of th is Law.

The House of Representatives has approved an ame ndment to help solve 

this problem. This is contained in the House version of S. 2710 which is now 

before the Senate Committee on Public Works. Water Resources Congress urges 

you to supp ort the so-called “ Wright Amendment” included in S. 2710 as passed 

by the House.

Water Resources Congress was not afforded an opp ortunity to testify before 

the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution during its hearings on S. 2710 

this week. For this reason, we are enclosing a copy of the brief statem ent we have 

asked Chairman Muskie to include in the record of th e hearings.
779

The regula tors and the court have overreacted to the app arent intent of Congress with regard to Section 404 and there seems little hope of a satisfac tory 

solution s hort of an Act of Congress. We hope you uill vote to adopt the “ Wright 

Amendment’’ or similar language which will resolve this serious problem this 

year. The moratorium declared by the President on impleme ntation of Phase II 

is abou t to run out and this is an issue th at cannot be pu t off much longer. 

Sincerely yours,

E. Michael Cassady, 

Executive Vice President.

Statement by the Water R esources Congress on Amendment of Section 404

of Public Law 92-500

The Water Resources Congress is a nationwide association of people and 

organizations concerned with every aspect of conservation, development, management and beneficial use of the w ater resources of the United States.

The Water Resources Congress has been deeply concerned abo ut the adverse 

effect on water resource conservation and development of the c ourt-ordered interpretation of Section 404 of P.L. 92-500, which required the Corps of Engineers to 

expan d its permit program for discharge of dredged and fill material so as to 

cover virtu ally every strea m, lake and pond in th e country. The Water Resources 

Congress first evidenced its concern officially by adoption of a resolution in 

February, 1976 urging th at the U.S. Congress amend Section 404 so as to limit 

its application to navigable waters in accordance with the app are nt inte nt of 

Congress when Section 404 was adopted. A copy of this resolution is atta che d.

Developments since adoption of th at resolution have borne out the worst 

fears of the Water Resources Congress with regard to the paralyzing effect of the 

court-ordered inte rpretation of Section 404 on the efforts of Stat e and local governments to proceed with co nstru ction of urgently needed wa ter resource conservation 

and development projects.

In the absence of the Presidents’ order delaying for 60 days impleme ntation 

of Phase II of the Corps of Engineer’s Section 404 regulations scheduled to go into 

effect on July 1, 1976, important water resource projects under construction by 

State and local governments would face imm inent shutdow n under provisions of a 

Water Pollution Control Act for reasons th at have no relationship to water 

pollution control.

For example, Lake Limestone, a water conservation and water supp ly project 

under construction by the Brazos River Authority, a governmental agency of the 

Sta te of Texas, is required to have a Section 404 p ermit as of July 1 of this year, 

even though the project was placed under construction prior to publication of the 

Corps’ regulations on July 25, 1975. The project had previously received all of 

the approvals, perm its and licenses then requ ired under Sta te and Federal law. 

A Section 404 permit was applied for in October, 1975, and the Corps of Engineers 

circulated the applica tion to other Federal agencies for their review and comment. 

In March, 1976 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended tha t th e Corps of 

Engineers deny the requested permit unless the Brazos River Authority purchases 

15,800 acres of land (in addition to the 15,000 acres of land required for the dam 

and lake) and tur n the land over to the Texas Park s and Wildlife D epa rtm ent for 

management as a wildlife preserve. Even if it could be dem onstrated to be in the 

best public inte rest to tak e an additional 15,800 acres of farm and ranch land o ut 

of private ownership for this purpose, the Brazos River Auth ority is unable to do 

so, because it has no source ot funds for this purpose (the Authority, although a 

Sta te governmental agency, receives no tax money, bu t finances its public works 

projects through revenue bonds paid from its operating revenues), and it has no 

legal authority to acquire land for wildlife manage ment.

Lake Limestone is urgently needed to supply water for energy productio n from 

lignite deposits in the local area of th e lake and to help meet water needs in the 

lower Brazos Basin and coastal areas downstream where land subsidence from 

pumping of groundw ater is emphasizing the need for additional surface water 

supplies. But Lake Limestone, although a S tate project placed under construction 

in full compliance with all p ertinent laws and regulations, is now facing potentially 

serious delays and possible complete stoppage because of requirements being called 

for by a Federal agency und er the provisions of a Federal \\ ater Pollution Control 

Act, although such requirem ents have no bearing on water pollution control. A 

number of similar projects now under construciton in the Un ited stat es facesimilar threats.

76 -1 61 — 76------ 50
780

Tnis example illustrates how water resource conservation and development 

•efforts by State and local governments can be delayed, hampered and even completely blocked by bureauc ratic actions unrelated to water pollution control, bu t 

taken under the provisions of Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972.

Another facto r warranting careful consideration is the trem endo us expenditure 

of time, effort and money involved in processing the thousand s of applications for 

Section 404 permits if Phases II and III of the Corps’ regulations are placed in 

effect, which must be done unless the law is amended by Congress. These regulations require a Federal pe rmit for almost anything done by anyone within the high 

banks of virtually every stream and every lake and pond in the country.

For example, a small city in Texas, needing to build a new sa nitary sewer line to 

serve its citizens, had to apply for a Federal perm it under Section 404 for each of 

five crossings by the sewer line of a small creek winding through the city. Some 

indicatio n of the amount of paper, time and effort involved in preparation of the 

application is given by the fact th at th e public notice alone contained nine pages, 

including plans and profiles, names of adjacent property owners, and the amoun t 

of earth (a to tal of 284.5 cubic yards for all the crossings) to be excavated at each 

crossing. Hundreds of copies of this public notice were distrib uted by the Corps, 

which invites review and comments by numerous Federal, Sta te and local governmental agencies and by priv ate individuals, companies, organizatio ns and associations of all kinds who might want t o comment. The to tal am oun t of paper, time and 

effort involved in accomplishing these reviews and sub mitting comments, and in 

reviewing and evaluating the comments, is impossible to determine, but trying to 

visualize it staggers the imagination, and all of this paper, time and effort is 

expended simply because a F ederal permit mu st be obtained for a sewer line being 

built w ithin the city limits of a town every time it crosses a small creek.

It is difficult to imagine the total amount of paper, time and effort th at would 

be involved in carrying out the provisions of Section 404 throug hou t the entire 

cou ntry as ordered by the Federal Court, bu t if one can imagine the amount involved in this one case, and then multiply it by several thousand, some idea can 

be go tten of the tremendous quantity involved.

A reasonable solution to this monstrou s problem has been offered by the House 

of Representatives in its proposed ame ndment (the so-called “Wright amendme nt” ) of Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 as included in the House version of S. 2710, 

which was passed by the House b y a vote of 339 to 5.

The Water Resources Congress feels th at th e Wright amendm ent does an excellen t job of bringing reason into a chaotic situation, th at it eliminates the problems 

which could result in completely paraly zing State and local government water 

resource conservation and development efforts, and th at it provides for effective 

water pollution control and oth er environmental protection as originally intended 

by the Congress in adop ting P.L. 92-500.

The Water Resources Congress respectfully urges the Subcommittee on En ­

vironm enta l Pollution and the full Committee on Public Works to tak e the action 

necessary to perm it th e Wright am endmen t to be brough t to a vote on the Floor of 

the Senate.

R esolution Unanimously Adopted by the Members of the Water R esources Congress at the Annual Meeting F ebruary 23, 1976, Urging

the C ongress of the U nited States T o Amend Public L aw 92-500 So as To Limit the Extent of F ederal Control of Water R esources Development Exercised Under Section 404

Whereas, in response to a Federal cou rt order interpreting Congressional intent 

with regard to Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendm ent of 1972 

(P.L . 92-500), the Corps of Engineers’ permit program for controlling the discharge 

of dredged and fill material in navigable waters is being extended and expanded 

to cover every river, creek and stream in the country with a flow normally in 

excess of five cubic fee t per second and every lake and pond w ith a surface area of 

five acres or more, and wetlands adjoining such streams, lakes and ponds; and

Whereas this will require th at Sta te and local governmental entities as well as 

private citizens and other non-governmental entities must obtain a Federal 

government permit from the Corps of Engineers before building any dam, levee, 

dike, channel improvement or oth er water resource conservation or development 

project involving the placement of fill materials in such rivers, creeks, streams, 

lakes, ponds or wetlands; and
7S1

Whereas the obtaining of such permits will involve inordinate additional effort 

and expense not only by the project builder a nd the Corps of Engineers bu t also 

by other Federal, Sta te and local governmental agencies with whom the Corps of 

Engineers must coordinate its review and processing of permit applications; and

Whereas the Corps of Engineers estim ates th at the time required for processing 

permit applications will vary from a minimum of three or four months to a maximum of a year or more; and _

Whereas extending and expanding the Corps of Engineers’ permit program 

und er Section 404 of Public Law 92-500 as ordered will unnecessarily and substantially delay, ham per and increase the cost of u rgently needed water resource 

projects, and in some cases p erhaps completely block such projects, many of which 

are und ertaken by manda te of Sta te and Federal laws; now, therefore be it

Resolved, T ha t the Water Resources Congress respectfully urges the Congress of 

the United States to clarify the definitions of “waters of the United State s” and 

“navigable waters” in P.L. 92-500 so as to make unm istakab ly clear the intent 

of Congress t ha t Federal control of construction of water resource projects through 

control of the discharge of dredged or fill m aterial be limited to waters which are, 

in fact, navigable and used as a means to transp ort inte rstate commerce.

Unanimously adopted by the Water Resources Congress this 23d day of 

Feb ruary 1976.

Atlanta, Ga., July 24, 1976.

Re Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (H.R. 9560)

lio n. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: This is to express my opposition to the Wright 

Amendment to the Water Pollution Control Act which would have the effect 

of reducing protected wetlands. If possible please make this letter a pa rt of the 

official hearing on this subject.

Respectfully, Grant H. Weaver.

[Mallgram]

Corte Madera, Calif., July 25, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, 5121 Dirksen Office Building, Washington,

D.C.

I strongly urge you to protect the country’s wetlands by supp orting the 

Section 404 Program, allow no restrictions, amen dments, or cutbacks. Section 17 

of II.R. 9560 and like legislation now before the Public Works Committe e dooms 

wetlands by removing them from the protec tion of Section 404 permit regulations. 

The consequences to food chains for fish are u nthinkable . Please make this message 

pa rt of the record for this week’s hearings. Larry W'eingath, 

Councilman,

Corte Madera, Calif., July 21, 1976.

Senator J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, 4202 Dirksen Office Building, Washington,

D.C.

Dear Sir : I ha ve ju st learned of the July 27, 28 hearings on amendments to the 

’72 Water Pollution Control Act, and I am writin g to urge you to fight any such 

att em pt to destroy this country ’s wetlands—r ather, the very little th at is left.

The Wright-Breaux Amendment was railro aded thro ugh afte r a dictatorial 

decision to limit deba te t o 20 minutes. I have this information from Congressman 

Pete McCloskey. A note from the Wildlife Managem ent Insti tute now states th at the roster of 

witnesses for the July 28 hearing was handpicked by the committee and is heavily 

freighted with friends of dredgers and developers. Only two organizations will 

appear to oppose the W'right-Breaux amendm ent.
782

I wish to st ate my disgust and opposition to this procedure. You and your committee should fight to save wetlands for the sake of a valuable food chain which 

insures fish for us all. I ask you to help.

Respectfully,

Su ir l e y W e st.

P.S. Please make this lett er a part of the hearing record.

W'est C o ntra C os ta C o nserv a tio n L ea g u e,

Richmond, Calif., Ju ly 15, 1976.

D ea r Se n a t o r: The West Contra Costa Conservation League urges you to 

oppose the Wright-Breaux amendment to the 1972 Water Pollution Control 

Act, or any similar type language amending the bill. The Corps of Engineersr

permit program is the only equitable way in the public interest we have had tosave San Francisco Bay from filling.

W'e urge th at this re quest from us be made part of the hearing record.

Sincerely,

J ean B. Sir i, P re sid en t.

Sta te m e n t of t h e W il d e r n e s s S o cie ty by M s. B u b b les P ie r c e

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, a few hu ndred years ago Americans took clean water for granted. Decade aft°r decade they added sewage, 

silt, industrial wastes and poisons to this natural resource. Finally, they realized 

th at the devastating destruction of this life-sustaining natural resource had to behalte d and a process of reconstruction and protection implemented. On October 

18, 1972, Congress comm itted the United States to a long range program to reclaim the purity of our waters. By 1985 our waters are required to be clear and 

drinkable.

Wetlands are a vital pa rt of the land-water forces th at keep alive our natural' 

bodies of water. Congress realized the importance of th e wetlands in relationship 

to clean water by providing for a federal perm it system (404), for dredge and fill 

material in the nation’s waters and adjace nt wetlands thro ugh the Wate r Pollution 

Control Act Amendments of 1972. Americans are still dredging, filling and developing 200,000 acres of these wetlands each year. Since 1776 our natio n has lost 

51,000,000 acres of its original 127,000,000 acres of wetlands. The destruction and 

loss of these wetlands means a loss of wildlife h abitat, loss of aquatic life, loss o f 

natural recreational areas, loss of sea foods, loss of cleansing areas for rivers and 

bays, loss of flood plains, and perhaps the most impor tant, loss of life-sustaining 

waters.

The 404 Program is a permit program to stop dredge and fill material from 

polluting our waters and subaqueous lands.

There are concerns from some th at the 404 Program infringes upon their rights 

or hampers operations in the natio nal interest. We can agree with those th at 

bought wetlands several years ago as an inve stment and feel they should be 

reimbursed for their inve stment if they cannot sell or develop th e land because the 

Corps will not grant them a permit. This problem can be solved by adequatelegislation.

As to the concern about infringement upon sta tes ’ rights, very few of our states 

have good permit program s for disposal of dredge and fill materials. Even those 

states that have implemented a permit system find their perm it agency knuckling 

under to extreme pressures from indu stry and developers. The implementation of a 

federal permit system (404), retains objectivity in gran ting the permits and ai 

uniformity of qualifications needed for obtaining a permit. A federal permit 

program could also implement general p ermit specifications tha t would remove the 

red tape of securing a perm it for projects t ha t would not damage the w ater or land 

environment.

It appears the point has been reached in the national inte rest of our nation’s 

water resources to place all remaining acres of wetlands under federal protection. 

Jap an in the past few years declared 50 feet on each side of their river banks 

federal lands. They planted marsh grasses on these 50-foot strips of federal lands. 

The marsh grasses are helping to clean up the rivers and river bottoms. Wetlandsserve as a filter system and play an important role in the necessary struggle tocombat water pollution.
783

This function of wetlands and many other functions, such as providing the 

bree ding and feeding grounds for shellfish, finfish and other marine organisms, a nd 

Also for migratory and resident birds and animals; serving to sponge up flooding 

wate rs and to protect water supply, project some of the cogent reasons for pre- 

■serving wetlands.

In the last few years Congress has recognized the importance and also the 

vulnerability and necessity for protection of wetlands. The 404 Pro gram provides 

tools to implement this protection.

The Wilderness Society, therefore, sincerely hopes Congress will allow the 

program a chance to work and protect the natural resources of our nation ’s wa ters 

an d wetlands. Thank you.

Wildlife Management I nstitute,

Washington, D.C., July 26, 1.976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works, Senate Office Building, Washington,

D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: We appreciate the time you provided us in your 

busy schedule to discuss the dredge and fill permit system and proposals to modify 

th e authorized program.

The enclosed state me nt and a ttachm ents are offered in response to your invitation to provide helpful suggestions on the confusing Wright Amendment. Kindly 

include this statem ent as p ar t of the hearing record.

Sincerely yours,

Laurence R. J ahn, Vice President.

Enclosures.

Statement of Laurence R. J ahn, for the Senate Committee on P ublic

Works on Oversight Hearings on Section 404

Mr. Chairman: I am Laurence R. Jah n, vice p resident of the Wildlife Management Institu te, one of the oldest conservation organizatio ns concerned with the 

improved managem ent and restoration of America’s natural resources. We are 

pleased to have this o ppo rtunity to provide c omments on the Corps of Engineers’ 

dredge and fill permit program.

Our principal concern with the complex Wright Amendment is with the language 

th at would strip protection from much of th e nation’s valu able aquatic resources. 

Objections to th at amen dment are shared by many other scientific and conservation organizations. Application of the permit system should cover a larger geographic area tha n called for in the Wright Amendment.

The Wright Amendment ignores many of the readily demonstrable economic, 

social, and cultural values of wetlands. It is unnecessary, since its major objectives 

have been anticipated by the Corps of Engineers in its guidelines for “ Permits for 

Activities in Navigable or Oceanic Waters” as published in the Federal Register 

•of 25 July 1975. Also, it threatens to undermine the long-standing 1899 Refuse 

Act which was developed three qua rters of a century ago to help prote ct the 

nation’s important aqu atic ecosystems. By restricting the legal definition of 

navigable waters, the Wright Amendment would remove federal protection from 

millions of acres of n ontidai wetlands essential to agriculture, industry, commercial 

and sport fisheries, municipalities, and wildlife.

Wetlands in the ir natural and seminatural states have numerous functions of 

vita l importance to many segments of the national economy. One of these is their 

still little appreciated value in stabilizing runoff from the land and minimizing 

floods. By doing so they reduce the need for investments of taxpay ers’ dollars 

in dams, levees, and other water-control stru ctures and sometimes staggering 

public expenditures for flood disaster relief.

Riparian marshes and swamps have amazing water-reten tion values. It has 

been demonstrated by scientific stud y t ha t te n acres of wetlands is equal in storage 

capacity to a man-made flood control reservoir with a capacity of 1.5 million 

gallons. In addition to storing flood waters th at might otherwise thr eaten downstre am properties and lives, wetlands play a major role in the produc tivity of 

coastal fisheries by maintaining the proper mix of salt and fresh water in the 

estuaries into which the y feed. Serious losses of oysters and other shellfish occurred 

in Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes when the influx of an overabund ­

ance of fresh w ater upset the salin ity balance of the bay.
784

Wetlands have important values as filters, silt traps, and purification agents for 

streams that flow through them. Many of these streams feed reservoirs th at are 

vital to agriculture, industry, and human habitation. A heavilv con taminated 

tribu tary of Alcovy Creek in Georgia was found by the Federal Wate r Pollution 

Control Administration to have been cleansed of all dangerous polluta nts afte r 

flowing through only three miles of swamp. After traversing another seven miles 

of swamp, the river’s waters were classified as “excellent” in quality.

Silt is among the most serious problems of irrigation and water supp ly agencies. 

The tendency of water-borne soil particles t o settle when they reach static bodies 

of water, such as lakes and reservoirs, creates sand bars and mudflats th at reduce 

the storage capacities of the downstream impoundments. Unless costly dredging 

is used to remove these silt deposits, all storage capacity may eventually be lost. 

Upstream swamps and marshes, by removing suspended particles from inflowing 

streams, greatly increase the longevity of the reservoirs into which they feed 

waters.

These and other important public values of wetlands are documented in Chapter 

2 of Inland Wetlands of the United States by Richard H. Goodwin and William A. 

Niering (National Park Service, Natural History Theme Studies No. 2, 1975} 

and in Our Cape Cod Salt Marshes by Dorothy Sterling (Information Bulletin 

No. 6, The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, Orelans, Mass., 1976). 

Pertinent exerpts from these documents are appended to this statem ent. All of 

these n atural values of our inland wetlands would be jeopardized b y enactment of 

the Wright Amendment.

Action on th e Wright A mendment in the House appea rs to have been motivated 

by fears of agricultural and forestry interests t ha t farmers and foresters would be 

required to obtain federal permits before carry ing out customary and usua l 

practices in any way affecting wetlands on or adjace nt to their properties. Yet 

the guidelines for “ Perm its for Activities in Navigable W aters or Oceanic Waters,” 

as published by the Corps of Engineers in the Federal Register of 25 July 1975, 

clearly exempts such fanning and sivicu ltural practices.

Paragraph (d)(2) exempts drainage and irrigation canals from the definition of 

navigable waters. Paragraph (d) (2) (ii) exempts stock watering ponds an d settling 

basins, other tha n those impounding navigable waters, from the perm it process. 

Para grap h (d) (4) states th at “ dredged materials . . . would not include materials 

produced in normal farming silviculture, and ranching activities, such as plowing, 

cultivating, seeding, and harvesting.”

These and other exclusions to agriculture and forestry in the guidelines appea r 

to give adequa te protection to farmers and foresters against governmental 

interference under the 404 program. For this reason the Ins titute feels th at the 

Wright Amendment is re dundant and unnecessary.

WMI endorses the protection to farmers and foresters written into the permit 

guidelines issued by the Corps. W’e would have no objections to legislation har dening those adm inistrative statements into law. Likewise, we su pport the concept 

of using general permits in a carefully designed manner, especially to cover 

recognized land m anagem ent practices. Our objections to the Wright Amendment 

are not to the provisions for protection to certain agricultural and silvicultural 

activities, bu t to the disastrous effects it would have on the maintenance of ou r 

priceless wetlands and the ir associated public values.

If new legislation is needed, the Cleveland-IIarsha Amendment or the Hart 

Amendment (S. 3663) to Section 404 of the W’ater Pollution Control Act is a 

reasonable approach. Either would accomplish the prim ary objectives of the 

W’right Amendment witho ut destroying the firm structur e of federal law that has 

been built in the last 75 years to protect essential aqu atic areas.

We feel th at some form of the present permit system regulating dredge and 

fill materials mu st be retained . We would support delegation of autho rity to 

issue permits to those sta tes clearly demonstrating th at they have the authority 

and capabilities to hand le such responsibilities. To att ain uniformity of performance among the states, transfer of autho rity for issuing permits should be 

made u nder guidelines prom ulgated by the Environmen tal Protection Agency, the 

Corps of Engineers, or both.

We respectfully urge this comm ittee to reject the Wright Amendment and 

exercise one of the several options open to it th at will assure the mainten ance 

of our irreplaceable aqu atic areas.
I nla nd W etla nd s o f t h e U n it e d St a t e s : E valua ted as P o t e n t ia l

R e g is t e r e d N a tu ral L a ndm arks

(By Richard H. Goodwin and William A. Nieriug, Connecticut College, New 

London, Conn.)

C H A P T E R 1.---- IN TR O D U C TIO N

The prim ary goal of this survey is to classify and invento ry the significant 

natur al inland wetlands of the United States, exclusive of Hawaii and Alaska, 

th at m ight be considered especially suitable for registry as N atural Landmarks by 

the National Park Service. The report is divided into four sections. The first 

briefly outlines the various values of these wetlands; the second deals with their 

classification; the third consists of a brief review of the many encroachments on 

these hab itat s th at are c urrently taking place across the co untry; and the fourth 

presents a state -by -state inven tory.

The classification developed for use in this report generally follows the one 

currently in use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, bu t the descriptions of the 

various categories have been somewhat amplified to include hab itats of relatively 

litt le importance to waterfowl. Some consideration has been given in the discussion to other schemes which place greater emphasis upon species composition of 

the dominant plants. It is clear tha t any program direc ted toward recognizing different habit at types must tak e into account the diversity th at rt fleets the many 

environmental variables encountered over a wide geographic range. By selecting 

represen tative wetlands from each sta te th at fall into the various categories 

recognized here, a good sampling of the diversity of wetland types should be 

achieved.

One of the significant by-p roducts of this study has been the broad overview of 

the manifold encroachments on the wetlands th at has emerged. Environmental 

qua lity makes it imperative th at as much as possible of these valuable hab itats be 

preserved. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been m aking a notable contribution in preserving and rehabilitating wetland ha bitat of particular value to 

waterfowl. Hopefully, the Natural Landmark Program of the National Park 

Service will expedite preservation thro ugh action in the priv ate sector.

The inventory itself is arranged alphabetically by states. A general description 

of th e w etland types, natur e of encroachm ents, sources of da ta, and recom mendations is followed by descriptions of specific areas on which we have been able to 

obtain information. Most of the da ta on these areas are based upon reports sent 

in by a large number of respondents who have been identified in each case. We 

would like to thank all these persons for their generous cooperation. The above 

information has been suppleme nted by published reports and some site visits by 

the authors. However, the magnitude of the project has precluded exhaustive 

lite rature search or thorough coverage where responses have been inadequate.

The auth ors would like to tha nk the personnel of the Natio nal Park Service in 

the Division of Special Plan ning Studies for providing the USGS topographic 

maps used in this report a nd Ellen Nelson Raynolds for her painstaking work on 

the manuscript.

C H A PTE R 2 .---- T H E V ALUE O F IN L A N D W E TLA N D S

The wetlands of the Un ited States represen t an extrem ely limited resource, 

comprising abo ut 3.5% of th e entire country, excluding Alaska. Although among 

the most productive ecosystems in the world, they have been subjected to widespread destruction and abuse. As a resu lt of dredging, draining, filling, and 

pollution they have been reduced to 70 million acres, which is slightly more tha n 

half of the original estima ted 127 million acres. These figures include all wetland 

types, inland and coastal.

Although the ecological role of th e coastal wetlands in supp orting the shellfish 

and finfish productivity of our estuarine waters is well documented, recent studies 

have also provided da ta on the significant ecological role of our fresh-water 

wetlands. Two c urrent studies are of special relevance. Wh arton’s analysis of the 

ecological values of southern river swamps keynotes four major values: water 

quality, water quantity, pro duc tivity, and potential educatio nal use (Wh arton 

1970). McCormick (1970) and Grant and Patric k (1970) have recently completed 

a study of the polluted Tinicum wetlands in the Philadelphia region which documents their high produc tivity and role in pollution filtra tion.

Hydrologic Bole

Wetlands are of majo r importance in the natio n’s hydrologic regime. Because 

of their water-holding capacity , they act as storage basins, lowering flood crests

r
786

minimi zing erosion, and serving to reduce the destructiveness of severe floods. In 

densely populated areas this is especially importa nt, since urbanization intensifies 

the rate of runoff. Buildings, concrete, and asphalt waterproof the land surface 

and ten d to concentrate large volumes of precipitation . Cities lack adequate 

soak-in areas and the runoff is usually rapid and in excessive amounts. Wetlands, 

and especially flood plains, act as c atch men t basins and tend to slow the speed of 

flood waters, thus minimizing flood damage. In 1955, when severe floods hit 

eastern Pennsylvania, many bridges were washed out along the stream courses. 

However, two bridges of the typ e destroyed elsewhere were still int act below the 

Cranb erry Bog, a Natural Area preserved by The Na ture Conservancy and 

recommended for landma rk status . Th at swamps provide na tural storage for flood 

waters has been dem onstrated on the Alcovy River in Georgia (Wharton 1970), 

also recommended for landm ark status.

It has been estimated th at a G-inch rise in water over a 10-acre w etland places 

more th an 1.5 million gallons of water in storage with no harm to the surrounding 

bio ta (Niering 1966). By slowing the velocity of flow, wetlands minimize erosive 

processes and simultaneously act as siltation basins. Wetland filling is often a 

combination of organic, plant-derived, and inorganic, stream-carried sediments.

Wetlands have been shown to play a significant role in ground-w ater recharge. 

In the Ipswich River basin of M assachusetts the USD I (1962) found tha t marshes 

and swamps functioned not only as water storage and discharge areas bu t also 

occasionally as ground-water recharge areas. In North Carolina along the Yellow 

River, Kilpatrick (1964) found an alluvial aquifer below the flood plain th at 

was hydraulically contiguous with the surface waters of the stream.

Productivity

Fresh-water marshes and swamps are among the most prod uctiv e biological 

systems. Eugene Odum (1959) estimates the gross produc tivity of southern rive r 

swamps such as the Alcovy and Altam aha bottomlands at 20,000 kcal/m2

 per year, which compares favo rably with a field of sugarcane (27,010),’ the most 

productive, intensively managed agro-ecosystem. Furthermore, wetland productiv ity is estim ated to be double the 20,000 figure on the most favorable sites. 

Hardwood production reaches about 12 metric tons/ha (2.4 acres) per year. The 

estimated timber prod uctivity on the 2300-acre Alcovy Riv er system is estim ated 

to be $1,578,720 per year ($686 per acre per year) based on a 100-year period 

and at present market value. Fish prod uctivity averages 75 pounds per acre bu t 

may reach 1300 pounds per acre in the backwaters and sloughs, according to 

the Georgia Game and Fish Commission. Wharton (1970) estim ates the total 

pro ductivity value of the Alcovy at $546,940 per year or $3,648,720 based on a 

100-year period. These monetary estimates do not include the value of prim ary 

prod uctio n in terms of food for wildlife or in term s of the animals, including 

furbearers, th at it supports.

Wetlands have long been associated with the production of waterfowl (Alexander 

et al. 1953; Linduska 1964). T hey are recognized as th e Nation’s “duck factories.” 

The pothole country, for example, which represents only 10% of our wetlands, 

produces over 50% of our ducks. Every year 300,000 ducklings fly off the western 

marshes along the Pacific Fly way. The 14 southern states add another 700,000, 

and the eastern coastal marshes add 200,000 more during the best years. Some 

wetlands are more important as t he actual breeding areas. Others are essential as 

winterin g grounds and as feeding and resting areas scatter ed along the major 

flywavs (Errington 1966; Niering 1966).

Studies of the primary producers in the Tinicum Marshes by McCormick (1970) 

provide insight into higher p lant prod uctivity. Among the eight vegetation types 

represented, common reed grass, wild rice, cattail, and mixed aquatic types were 

most imp orta nt. They produced a standing crop of 4.2, 6.9, 3.9, and 4.0 tons/acre, 

respectively.

In general, wetlands exhibit a distinctive flora and fauna ada pted to hydric 

conditions or to periodic flooding. Some of the p lan t species are of special interest 

for their unique features. These include the insectivorous plants, orchids, and 

ericads of the bogs and species typical of the vernal pools th at change morphologically with gradual desiccation of th e site.

Oxygen Production and Nutrient Recycling

Grant and Patrick (1970) found th at the 512 acres of w etland in the Tinicum 

Marshes produce a net increase of 20 tons of oxygen per day. This is the produc t 

of photosynthesis.

1

 Day net production plus night respiration.
787

Modern man has drastically modified the nitrogen cycle. The annual na tural 

turn ove r of nitrogen compounds in the U.S. has been calculated to be about 7 o r 

8 million tons (Commoner 1970). Currently our agricultural fertilizers add anoth er 

estim ated 7 million tons, and nitrogen compounds produced as by-products from 

our power plants and automobiles, ano ther 2 to 3 million tons. More than do ubling 

the nitrogen inp ut into the biosphere has resulted in a serious deterioration of 

environmental quality in various parts of the country. Denitrifying b acteria have 

the ability to tak e the deleterious nitrogen oxides th at are accumulating and 

convert them back into atmospheric nitrogen of which most of the atmosphere 

is composed. Most wetla nds support vast numbers of these micro-organisms and 

thus serve to reduce the load of dissolved nitrogen washed into them.

Another role of aqu atic ecosystems is th e recycling of organic sulfur-containing 

compounds by action of sulfate-reducing bacteria. As Deevey (1970) puts it: 

“ What follows, if R.N Hj.SII is to remain a renewable resource, is th at water, 

mud, air, and land are closely linked by oxidation-reduction cycles in which reduction is performed entire ly by organisms.”

Pollution Filtration

One of the most significant roles of wetlands is their ability to remove pollutan ts. 

Prelim inary studies in the Tinicum Marshes indicate th at this area receives 

sewage from three tre atm ent plants and th at a significant reduction in absolute 

amounts of pollution occurs by the time the water has passed thro ugh the 512 

acres of marsh. Grant and Patrick (1970) succinctly summarize this vital role 

as follows:

“I t is significant th at reductions in BOD, P-PO«, N-N IIj, and N-NOj, did occur 

in the excursion of the river water over the marshland in the time inte rval of 2 to 

5 hours. Tliis reduction occurred in 57% of t he BOD measurements, 57% of the 

P-PO« analyses, 66% of the N-N H3

, and 63% of the N-NOj analyses. Oxygen 

increases occurred in 73% of the analyses. It is difficult to determine from the 

information at hand why the decreases in pollution load were not always consistent bu t are probably due to irregular patte rn of flow and the variability of 

pollution load. If we take the approximate average value for each of these characteristics this would mean an approxim ate reduction of P.PO4 of 190 mg/ft3

 of 

water per day; BOD of 310 mg/ft3

 per day; N-N Hj of 176 mg/ft!

 per day; N-NOj 

of 3.2 mg/ft3

 per day and an increase of oxygen of 512 mg/ft3

 per day. Since the 

wet area of the marsh is abo ut 512 acres, this would amoun t to a reduction per 

day of approximately 7.7 tons of BOD, 4.9 tons P-PO4

, 4.3 tons N-N IIj, 138 lb. 

N-NO3, and an increase of 20 tons of oxygen. From these prelim inary results it 

is evident th at the marshlands play an important role in reducing the nutrient 

load in water and in increasing the oxygen content.”

In Georgia, w ater quality was studied along the Flint and Alcovy rivers to assess 

the value of river bottom land swamps in pollution reduction. In the Flint River 

system, the Georgia Water Quality Control Board reports a high degree of recovery 

by a very organically polluted stream within a distance of 6 miles, where there were 

extensive swamps. It was also observed th at the degree of recovery was directly 

corre lat 'd with the presence of the adjacent swamps. Along Moun tain Creek, a 

tributar y of the Alcovy River, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration found extreme pollution due to hum an sewage and chicken offal (Wharton 

1970). However, after passing through 2.75 miles of swamp forest along the 

Alcovy, the river water was designated as clean; and water quality was excellent 

after traversing an additional 7 miles of swamp. Da ta also suggest th at coliform 

counts, dissolved oxygen, and biological oxygen determination (BOD) all return ed to more favorable levels downstream from the swampy areas. In ano ther 

study of oil wastes on the Gothard’s Branch in Douglas County, Georgia, Turner 

and Ahern (1970:18) found th at the largest amount of the degradation of the 

pollutant occurs along the swampy portion of the stream.

The role of swamps in sedim ent removal has also been docum ented. Wharton 

(1970) estimates th at the value of the Alcovy R iver Swamp as a sediment accretor 

exceeds $3000 annually. This function would be destroyed by channelization, a 

potential threat to such wetlands. It has been found th at water velocity is 

doubled by channelization, while the s ilt load is tripled.

In conclusion, Wharton (1970) estimates the value of the 2300-acre Alcovy 

Riv er Swamp ecosytem from the sta ndpoi nt of water qua lity at $1,000,000 

annually.

Education and Recreation

Wetlands are outdoor educational exhibits and scientific laboratories. They 

serve as the resource base for scientific research and also as museums for teaching 

the dynamics and ecological role of these ecosystems. At the Connecticut Arbo-
788

return in New London, the perm anen tly preserved wetlands have been studied 

by Connecticut College stud ents. A red maple swamp, actually a bog, with its 

underlying 20 ft of peat, presented a challenging problem to an und erg rad uate 

stu dent as she unravelled the 13,000 years of post-glacial history revealed by the 

pollen preserved in the peat. At the Thames Science Center, closely affiliated with 

the Connecticut Arboretum, thousands of school children annually are given 

first-hand field experience and are being tau ght the value of wetlands. The 

Arboretum Guided Tou r (Emery 1907), used by the teachers, makes this poi nt 

abo ut the wetland along the route: “The swamp below this dam is roughly an acre 

in size. If flooded to a dep th of one foot it would hold 330,000 gallons of water. 

Thus whenever a swamp is filled or drained, ano ther large quantity of water is 

lost from the underground water supply and made to run off more quickly to 

aggravate flooding problem s downstream.” In these ecological settings one can 

also emphasize the basic ecological principles operative in natural ecosystems—- 

energy flow, recycling, diversity, and limited carry ing capacity. These concepts 

can also be directly related to man and the environm ental problems created by 

failing to recognize their applicability in human ecology.

Wetlands also provide many recreational outlets, such as fishing, hunting, birdwatching, and hiking. Twenty million Americans go fishing, two million hu nt 

waterfowl. Thousands hu nt the wetlands with binoculars and cameras, where an 

unparalleled diversity of waterfowl and spectacular marsh birds gives pleasure 

and inspiration. On S taten Island a unique fenway system has been proposed for 

incorporating the wetlands as pa rt of the open-space pattern. This represents a 

sound ecological use of resources and the recreation potential is very great. Such 

a mosaic of open space should be incorporated as an essential pa rt of any community development plan, as it serves an important social function and greatly 

enhances the quality of the environment (Hoffman 1S63; Thomson, 1970; USD I 

1962).

LI TE RA TU RE CITE D

Alexander, M. C., N. Hotchkiss, and W. S. Bourn. 1953. Classification of wetlands 

of the United States. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildlife No. 20. U.S. Departme nt of 

Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Commoner, B. 1970. Threa ts to the integrity of the nitrogen cycle: nitrogen 

compounds in soil, water, atmosphere and precipitation. In Global effects of environmental pollution. S. Fred Singer, ed. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 

New York.

Deevey, E. S. 1970. In defense of mud. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 51(1) :5-8. Emery, J. 1907. A guided tou r of the Connecticut Arboretum , Conn. Arboretum

Bull. No. 16, 32 pp.

Errington, P. L. 1966. Of men and marshes. Macmillan, New York, 150 pp. 

Grant, It. It., Jr., and It. Patrick. 1970. Tinicum Marsh as a water purifier,

p.p. 105-123. In Two stud ies of Tinicum M arsh. The Conservation Foundation, 

Washington, D.C.

Hoffman, L. ed. 1963. The conservation and managem ent of temperate marshes, 

bogs, and oth er wetlands. Proc. Project MAR Conf. Nov. 12-16, 1962. In ternational Union for the Conservation of N ature Publications, new series, No. 3.

Kilpatrick, F. A. 1964. Source of base flow of strea ms. Symposium—Surface 

Waters. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydro. Publ. 63:329-339.

Linduska, J. I’, ed. 1964. Waterfowl tomorrow. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 770 p.p.

McCormick, J. 1970. The natural features of Tinicum Marsh, with particular 

emphasis on the vegetation. Pages 1-104 in Two studies of Tinicum Marsh. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Niering, W. A. 1966. The life of the marsh—the North American wetlands. 

McGraw -Hill, New York. 199 pp.

Odum, E. P. 1959. Fun dam enta ls of ecology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 

Thomson, B. F. ed. 1970. Preserving our freshwater wetlands. Conn. Arboretum

Bull. No. 17, 52 pp.

Turner, W. E., and D. G. Ahearn. 1970. Effects of oil pollution on popu lations 

of yeasts in fresh water (Abstract). Bact. Proc. of the 70th Annual Meeting.

U.S. Department of Interio r. 1962. The value of wetlands to modern society. 

Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Proc. Project MAR 

Conf. Nov. 12-16, 1962. Intern ational Union for the Conservation of Nature 

Publications, new series, No. 3.

Wharton, C. II. 1970. The Southern River Swamp—a multiple use environment. 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research, School of Business Administration, 

Georgia Sta te Univ., Atlanta, Ga., 48 pp.
O ur C a pe C od'_Salt M a r sh es (B y D o ro th y Ste rl in g)

A PROPERLY PROTECTED TIDAL MARSH

CANNOT BE DEPLETED ITS PRODUCTIVITY

PER ACRE (UNAIDED BY FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS) EXCEEDS ALL OTHER AREAS ON

EARTH.

THE SUN IS THE SOURCE OF MOST OF

THE AVAILABLE ENERGY ON EARTH. 1%

TO OF THAT ENERGY REACHING THE

EARTH S SURFACE IS TRAPPED BY GREEN

PLANTS ANO PHYTOPLANKTON OTHER

FRACTIONS OF THE SUN S ENERGY WARM

THE LAND AND WATER AND CREATE THE

WINO CIRCULATION PATTERNS ALL

ENERGY IS EVENTUALLY LOST AS HEAT

IN SPACE.

00CO
790

As more and more people pump more and more water, volume and pressure 

of the water underground drops and there is increasing danger of salt wa ter 

intrusion. This has already happened in Provincetown and in scattered wells 

along the coast. A new stud y 1

 by Dr. Norton Nickerson, Tufts University 

biologist and Dennis summer resident, has found th at the thick layers of semipervious pea t in the marshes act as a barrier to the landward flow of salt water 

and the seaward flow of fresh water. Alteration of any pa rt of a marsh—even 

the digging of a mosquito control ditch—may allow’ fresh water to drain from 

the land on an ebb tide.

SOME NEW’ MATH

“The best investm ent in the world is waterfront property—th ey are no t 

making it any more,” said Will Rogers. The cowboy philosopher’s wry comment can be taken in two ways. To some people, a salt marsh is a piece of 

waterfront property which, if “im proved,” would bring immediate economic 

benefits to realtors, builders, and building trades people. An increasing num ber 

of others see a marsh in terms of its value to society as a whole, now and in the 

future—a value which will increase because “they are not making it any more.”

To resolve the conflict between these opposing views, ecologists and land-use 

planners have att em pte d to estim ate the actu al dollar value of a salt marsh. What is it worth, not in tod ay’s real estate market, bu t in terms of its total 

productivity? One way to arriv e at a figure would be to estimate the money 

which flow's into a region because of its marshlands. On Cape Cod where tourism 

is the ma’or industry, tou rist spending amounted to $164 million in 1974. How 

much of this comes from sports fishermen, duck hunters, birders, vacationers 

W’ho gather shellfish and city-dwellers seeking a refreshing change of scenery? 

If one took an arb itra ry figure of one-fourth, the marsh-depend ent income would 

be $41 million a year. Since the Cape has 13,184 acres of salt marsh, this would 

mean an annu al income of $3,125 an acre. Assuming an interest rate of five percent, an acre of Cape salt marsh w’ould be worth $62,500? To this one could add 

the value of the Cape’s commercial fish and shellfish exports as the y cross the 

bridge as well as the money spent by commercial fishermen and their families. 

The role of salt marshes in flood control, water supp ly protectio n and so forth 

should also be included in these computations. And how does one put a price 

tag on green meadows and blue water which reflects the sky?

No one has broken down Cape Cod’s income figures to get an a ccurate estimate 

of the value of its marshes, bu t scientists at Louisiana Sta te University’s Center 

for Wetlands Resources have computed the dollar value of southern marshlands? 

Adding the income from commercial fisheries which are depe ndent on marshes to 

an estim ate of the potential value of marshes for oyster aquaculture an d for waste 

water treatm ent, they have come up w ith a figure of $80,000 an acre. Because this 

did n ot include other functions of marshes—as barriers against floods, h abitats for 

migratory birds and so forth—the scientists then proposed a new and ingenious 

approach for determining the tota l “life-support value” of a marsh.

This approach translate s the work of n ature into m onetary terms b y comparing 

the energy produced in a marsh with other forms of energy consumed by the 

natio n. The scientists’ first step was to determine the ratio of the Gross National 

Prod uct—the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S. annually— to 

the amount of energy reported in the National Energy Consumption Index. 

Finding th at 10,000 kilocalories were consumed to produce one 1073 dollar’s 

worth of goods and services, they then compared this with the rat e of energy 

production in a marsh. Calorimeter m easurements have shown th at one pound of 

dried marsh grass is equivalent to 1850 kilocalories. In south ern marshes where 

the annual Sparlina crop averages 22,000 pounds per acre, an acre of marshland 

would produce 40,700,000 kilocalories annually—the equivale nt of $4,070. 

Capitalized at five per cent, the value of an acre of marshland would be $81,400.

The Sparlina crop on Cape Cod marshes is undoubtedly somewhat smaller tha n 

the crops in Louisiana and Georgia where the grasses grow year-round. However, 

the surpluses exported from Cape marshes which contribute directly to the s upport 

of one of the world’s largest populations of fish and shellfish may make u p somewhat in importance for the difference in u nit outp ut.

1

 N ick erson, No rto n H. , "S al in it ie s of Am bien t an d In te rs ti ti a l W at er of Som e Ca pe Cod 

Sal t M ar sh es ," 1975 (In p re ss ).

5

 Value = $3, 125-t-.05.

• G oss ellnk, .Tames G„ Eup en e P. Odu m, an d R. M. Po pe , “T he Va lue of th e T id al M ars h," 

Lou isia na S ta te U niv er sity , 1974 .
791

T he Wildlife Society,

South Dakota Chapter,

Pierre, S. Dak., Ju ly 19, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

'Chairman, Committee on Pub lic Works,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The South Dakota Chapter of. the Wildlife Society 

requests th at this letter he m ade pa rt of the hearing record regarding the WrightBreaux ame ndment to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

As an organizatio n of nearly 100 professional people dedicated to the wise 

management and conservation of wildlife a nd its natural environment, we oppose 

the Wright-Breaux ame ndm ent because it would not provide for adequa te control 

of dredging and filling operation s on our natio n’s dwindling number of natura l 

wetlands. Protection of n atu ral wetlands is necessary not only to provide habitat 

for wildlife bu t also to serve as a nat ura l water pollution control and silt rete ntio n 

system, a flood control or water rete ntion system, and a source of ground water 

recharge.

Natura l wetlands cannot be replaced and when their delicate ecological balance 

is upset by large-scale unnatural activities, such as dredge and fill operations, 

benefits of natura l wetlands are lost forever. Section 404 currently provides the 

best regulations established to date to ensure conservation of these natural 

wetlands.

Sincerely,

R on Fowler, President.

Wisconsin I nland Waterways Association,

Madiso n, Wis., Ju ly 22, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee,

4202 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: The Wisconsin Inla nd Waterways Association urges 

you not to make imp rud ent changes in the definition of “navigable w aters” found 

in Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as proposed by the 

Wright-Breaux Amendment. The implications of a more restrictive definition for 

the remaining wetlands and related watersheds of Wisconsin need the most 

careful evaluation. Moreover, states and local governments throug hou t the nation 

which will forfeit water qu ality if the definition is relaxed deserve to be heard.

In a letter dated July 7, 1975 to Lt. General William C. Gribble, Jr. of the 

Army Corps of Engineers, Governor Patrick Lucey stated :

“Wisconsin has a long tradition of protecting its waters from action s detrimental to the public welfare. For this reason I favor regulation of dredging and 

filling in a m anne r which will provide for the maximum protection of th e public’s 

inte rest.”

He concludes:

“In summary, I would support an expanded definition of navigable waters as 

proposed in Corps altern ative 1. if coupled with the adm inistrative delegation of 

responsibility outlined above. This approach would extend p rotective dredge-andfill regulations, while directly dealing with the problem of overlapping and concurrent Federal-State jurisd iction on public waters.” (letter enclosed)

Our governor’s comment is one of over 4,500 the Corps considered in formulating 

the ir July 25, 1975 regulation guidelines for the administration of Section 404. 

Ju st as notew orthy, the definition of navigable waters therein has evolved over 

nearly a century of legislative and court action. To abru ptly fashion an alter native 

definition is to be unaccou ntable to a prolonged public trust. It is to pu t the interests of a few above the interests of the many.

Serious review, open to the public, may reveal t ha t procedural changes in Section 

404 are appropriate. These might include:

(1) clarification of the Corps’ exemption (from permits) of normal farming

practices,

(2) the alleviation of perm it volume through a “general permits” provision, and

(3) greater sup por t for s tate protection efforts to minimize state-federal duplication, while extending cooperation.
792

Redefinition at the federal level, however, may actually withdraw needed 

support for (or even undermine) state efforts at protecting public waters and 

wetlands. Six states currently have sound wetland legislation, and momentum 

is gathering in Wisconsin to do likewise. This momentum will be lost if leadership 

in Washington turns its back on wetlands by passing the Wright-Breaux Amendment. We urge extended study of the redefinition issue, the inclusion of public 

opinion on the matter, and farsightedness by your committee as to the protection 

of remaining wetlands.

Sincerely,

Charles C. Geis ler ,

I t / WA Represe ntative/Mad ison.

State of Wisconsin,

Office of the Govern or,

Madison, WT's., Ju ly 7, 1975.

Re proposed alternative regulations concerning “ Navigable Waters Procedures 

and Guidelines for Dredged or Fill Material,” as printed in the Federal 

Register of May 2G, 1975.

Lt. Gen. William C. Giiibb le, Jr.,

Chief o f Engineers,

Wash ington, D.C.

Dear General Gribb le: Wisconsin has a long tradition of protecting its 

waters from actions detrimental to the public welfare. For this reason I favor 

regulation of dredging and filling in a manner which will provide for the maximum 

protection of the public’s interest.

Much of the area which would now become subject to Army Corps of Engineers’ 

regulation under an expanded definition of “ waters of the United States” has 

been effectively managed for many years under state programs. For waters 

found to be “ navigable” under Wisconsin law, aggressive application of state 

water regulatory laws and mandatory adoption of local flood plain and shoreland 

zoning ordinances provide a large measure of protection from filling and dredging. 

The need for additional wetland protection is recognized in a bill currently under 

consideration by the Wisconsin Legislature.

Programs administered at the state and local level have advantages not generally found in those which are federally administered. Opportunities for public 

education and involvement are far greater and misunderstanding can be eliminated when administrators are readily available to answer questions and listen 

to suggestions. Many potential conflicts can be avoided by working with individuals to resolve possible problems before making final regulatory decisions. 

Furthermore, state agency personnel have the advantage of being able to more 

readily evaluate the implications of proposed dredge and fill activities, particularly 

because of their knowledge of the characteristics of local waterways.

None of the four administrative alternatives proposed by the Corps address 

the problems of duplication of effort between the corps and state agencies, with 

associated public confusion and unnecessary delays. Regulatory agencies should 

respond in a timely manner to permit requests. Individuals who wish to undertake projects that are not detrimental to the public interest should not have 

to bear the burden of delay created by excessive bureaucratic review.

I am also concerned that a requirement placed on state agencies to prepare 

reports to the Corps, added to present permit review procedures, would require 

significant additional expense and manpower. This is of special concern during 

our current state budget problem. However, the review of the few additional 

applications generated in Wisconsin under an expanded definition of waters 

subject to regulation would likely create only a marginal work load increase 

if additional federal review were not required.

This suggests the need for a different, cooperative administrative approach. 

Such an approach could allow expanded regulation of dredge and fill activities 

under federal authority, yet minimize state-federal duplication. I believe a model 

for this kind of approach can be found in the cooperative administration of discharge permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972. The Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System demonstrates 

state administration of a permit system under federal and state law.

A similar cooperative program could be applied successfully to dredge and fill 

permits. After meeting federal requirements, states should be encouraged to 

qualify for authority to administer the permit system. States would then take 

over the program following federal guidelines. Individual actions could still be
793

reviewed by a federal agency when desired. If costs to sta tes increase sub stantially, 

provision should be made for fe deral/state cost sharing programs. This may require 

congressional action.

In summ ary, I would support an expanded definition of navigable waters as 

proposed in Corps altern ative 1, if coupled with the adm inistrative delegation 

of responsibility outlined above. This approac h would exten d protective dredgeand-fill regulations, while directly dealing with the problem of overlapping and 

concurrent Federal-Sta te jurisdiction on public waters.

I firmly believe th at this approach would provide the most effective and administratively efficient response to the Dis trict Cou rt of Columbia’s ruling.

Thank you for the o pportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

P atrick J. Lucey, Governor.

M et ai ri e, La., Ju ly 27, 1976.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Pub lic Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. R andolph: I realize th at this letter is late for being in the record of 

the hearings of July 27-28, 1976 on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, but I 

would like to express to you my deep concern over the Senate Public Works 

Committee Hearings on amending this Act.

My feeling is t ha t at this point it is untimely to amend Section 404. No hearings 

or amen dments should be considered until the full three phase program has gone 

into effect.

II.R. 9560 (now Senate 2710) excludes much wetland area from protection and 

cuts back the control provided by Section 404. Protection of our wetlands is of 

vital importance in Louisiana and it is deplorable th at our rep resentatives, Wright 

and Breaux would sponsor a bill or amendm ent guttin g several sections of the 

Clean Water Act.

Yours sincerely,

Betty Wood.

Worcester Environmental Trust,

Snow Hill, Md ., Ju ly 24, 1976.

Re the record of the hearing of July 27-28, 1976, on section 404 of the Clean 

Wate r Act.

Hon. J ennings R andolph,

Chairman, Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: Without giving the Section 404 program a chance, 

it is being amended—why? Is it because pollu ters are afraid of it? Will we ever 

be able to clean our streams a nd waterways from the wastes th at plague them?

We consider it premature to amend Section 404 before the full three-phase 

program has gone into effect.

We are alarmed th at II.R . 9560 (now renumbered S. 2710) excludes most wetlands from protectio n und er Section 404 and cuts back controls over the nation’s 

waters under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. In this respect we feel the proposed Senate Hart-Cleve land ame ndment is preferable to the Wright-Breaux 

amendment now included in S. 2710.

The value of wetlands for breaking down an d removing pollutants, for absorbing 

flood waters, and for providing food for fish and wildlife, is well known. Here in 

Worcester County, Maryland, thousand s of acres of wetlands have been destroyed 

for development. Many illegal dredging, filling and polluting actions have been 

stopped only as a res ult of Corps of Engineers investig ation an d intervention.

We find it distressing th at the House ame ndment would stop the Section 404 

program from controlling the discharge of polluted dredged materials into tribu ­

tarie s of drinking water supplies th at do not fall with in the House’s narrowed 

definition of “ navigable waters .”

The integrity of America’s waters is at stake . The Section 404 program gives us 

hope th at th e broad interests of all America will be served. We urge you to reject 

any amendment th at would significantly reduce the ability of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act to preven t pollution and pro tec t the nation’s valuable 

wetlands.

Sincerely yours,

J oseph W . F eh re r, Chairman.
794

WTAX R adio,

Sanoamon Broadcasting Co.

Springfield, III., Ju ly 16, 1976.

Hon . J ennings R andolph,

Chairma n, Committee on Public Works,

Senate Office Building,

Wash ington, D.C.

Dear Senator R andolph: I would like to express my opposition to the language 

of the Wright-Breaux amendmen t to section 404 of the 1972 Water Pollution 

Control Act.

Senator, any lessening of the permit program th at presently protects our wetlands will be a major setback in conservation. Land speculators, d rainage districts 

and conniving politicians have done enough damage to our bottomland s in this 

country during this centu ry to las t forever, because it will tak e tha t long to reclaim 

the losses we have suffered.

When the Breaux amendment came up in the House, Nathanial P. Reed, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, was quoted as stating, “Millions 

of acres of lakes, swamps and marshes and many thousand s of miles of s treams 

and rivers would lose federal protection under the amendmen t by Representative 

Breaux.” The fact th at some of this wording was changed by Mr. Wright and 

the term s “navigable waters” and “adjac ent wetlands” lessened the obvious, it 

did noth ing to offer protection to th e inland waters, the hundreds of small tribu tary 

streams and marshes not covered by this wordage. The term “navigable waters” 

is ambiguous, as any waterways map will show the inconsistency of this term . 

This terminology has been a sore p oint for years by those who have done ha nd-tohand combat with the “corps” since the early 1900’s.

There are hundreds of capable people and at least a dozen organizations who 

should be giving testim ony at your hearings on the 27th and 28th of th is mon th, 

but were not invited. Why not, Senator? According to information I have, 

the National Wildlife Federation and the Natura l Resources Defense Council are 

outn umbered on the 28th 5 to 2 in your witnesses box-score.

The midwest corn and soybean states right now are suffering the drvest year 

in th e memory of many farmers. The ywishrto hell the y had some sub-soil moisture 

th at their crops could draw from. With the “license to drain” t ha t this ame ndment 

will again offer, we m ay still see the day that this drought-like condition will be 

perman ent. Our children surely will see it.

Don’t open the drainage ditches for the selfish, money-hungry speculators and 

developers, large or small. Don’t change the present “co ntrol” we now have un der 

section 404. Do give others a chance to present the facts th at will protect the futu re 

of our coun try’s water resources and wildlife. At least be fair!

1 have not always seen eye to eye with the doings of the Corps of Engineers, 

bu t in this instance and in several others where the Corps has been working in 

conjunction with the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, I applaud them and 

cry “more” as I believe this sort of cooperation is the element we have lacked.

Please make this letter a p art of th e hearing record on J uly 27, 28, 1976 on the 

Wright-Breaux amendment.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Mahoney, 

Outdoor Writer!Broadcaster.

Atlanta, Ga., Ju ly 96, 1976.

lion. J ennings R andolph,

U.S . Senate Building ,

Wash ington, D.C.

Dear Sir : I would like to sta te my opposition to the pending Wright amend ­

me nt which will grea tly reduce wetlands under section 404. I urge you to vote 

against this amendment.

Piease make this letter a Dart of th e hearing record. Thank you.

Charles J. Zimmerman, Jr.

o