dredging, the building of piers and other structures, or the deposit of refuse in navigable water without a permit from the Corps of Engineers. For many years the corps administered the act with primary or exclusive emphasis on navigation, issuing permits for landfills, piers, and dumping of refuse routinely, unless it foresaw some substantial interference with navigation. In 1968, however, the corps revised its regulations to state that it would evaluate all factors relevent to the public interest, in deciding whether to authorize permits for structures, fills, dredging, or dumping in navigable waters. The committee pointed out that there have been some gaps between promise and performance in the corps' execution of its new policy.

Section 11 of the 1899 River and Harbor Act (33 U.S.C. 404) authorizes the corps to establish "harbor lines *** beyond which no piers, wharves, bulkheads, or other work shall be extended or deposits made***." While the congressional intention in providing for harbor lines was to zone obstructions out of the navigation channels and maneuvering areas of harbors, a practice grew up over the years of regarding the lines as an implied invitation to the riparian owners to do what they pleased on the submerged lands shoreward of the harbor lines, even to the point of using them for the purposes wholly unconnected with navigation, such as junk yards and housing projects built on landfill.

The corps practice has been to call a public hearing before granting a permit for landfill, dredging, or other work in navigable water whenever there is even a slight desire on the part of the public to express views on the matter. However, in the case of applications for the establishment or modification of harbor lines, the corps' regulations stated a policy of keeping public hearings to a minimum. The result was that when someone wished to build a boat dock or do other insignificant work, a hearing was held; but when someone wished to make a really large landfill, as for an airport or industrial park, he could proceed by asking for a modification of harbor lines and avoid public hearing.

The 1899 act permits discharge of sewage into navigable water without a permit, but requires a permit for all other kinds of discharges, such as those of industrial wastes. The corps, in the past, did not require industries, and other applicants for permission to construct sewer out falls, to identify the components of the waste they planned to discharge.

The report recommends that the corps increase its emphasis on the total effect of the proposed work upon the public interest in determining whether to grant permits for structures, fills, dredging, and other work in navigable waters. It recommends that the corps require the applicant to bear the burden of proof that the proposed work is in accord with the public interest, rather than requiring the opponents to prove that it is not.

The report recommends that the corps revise its regulation so as to make harbor lines merely guidelines defining the offshore limits of fills and structures; and to require anyone planning to do work shoreward of a line to apply for and obtain a permit in the same manner as if no harbor line were involved. It recommends that public hearings be held on proposals to establish or modify harbor lines: that applicants for out fall permits be required to disclose the wastes

they propose to discharge; that the corps vigorously enforce the Refuse Act, prohibiting discharge of refuse into navigable waters and deposits of polluting materials on their banks; and that the corps increase its capability to promptly remove or clean up pollutional discharges and deposits and to seek reimbursements of the cost of such actions from those responsible for such illegal pollution.

(b) Benefits.-The Corps of Engineers accepted the committee's recommendations completely in the following series of regulations and policy statements: (1) Engineer regulation No. 1145-2-304, 35 F.R. 8280, May 26, 1970; (2) 1145-2-18, April 30, 1970; (3) regulation No. 1145-2-3, change 5.

The corps recently issued regulations requiring that applicants for dredging, filling, and disposal operations list, first, the type and quantity of solids to be removed or deposited; second, the proposed method of measurement; third, alternate methods of disposal; and fourth, the economic and environmental impact of alternate methods. Applicants for permits for outfall sewers from industrial and other plants and similar work "which may affect the ecology of a waterway are required to furnish data to identify the character of the effluent."

In the latter case, the applicant must include "data pertaining to chemical content, water temperature differentials, toxins, sewage, amount and frequency of discharge, and the type and quantity of solids involved and provide information on plans to abate pollution of solids." The corps regulations also encourage the holding of public hearings "whenever there appears to be sufficient public interest."

Finally, the "decision as to whether a permit will be issued will be based on an evaluation of the impact of the proposed work on the public interest," including such factors as navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, economics, conservation, esthetics, recreation, water supply, flood damage prevention, ecosystems, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

When the corps applies these new requirements, dischargers will either have to stop discharging wastes into our waterways or adequately treat the discharges so as to prevent pollution.

The committee's report was extensively quoted and heavily relied upon by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Zabel v. Tabb, 430 F. 2d 199, 1 E.R. 1449 (July 16, 1970). The court there ruled:

"When the House Report and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 are considered together with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and its interpretations, there is no doubt that the Secretary [of the Army, who normally acts through the Corps of Engineers] can refuse on conservation grounds to grant a permit under the River and Harbor Act." (c) Hearings.-This report is based in part upon the Hunting Creek hearings (see above), and upon hearings on San Francisco Bay held May 15, 1969, in Washington, D.C., and August 20-21, 1969, in San Francisco, Calif. All hearings have been printed.

9. "Phosphates in Detergents and the Eutrophication of America's Waters." House Report No. 91-1004, April 19, 1970. TwentyThird Report by the Committee on Government Operations. (a) Summary.-The report reviews the role of phosphorus in the overfertilization of algae and other aquatic weeds, which is filling many bodies of water with decayed vegetation, depleting their oxygen content and killing their fish. It states that about 60 percent of the phosphate in municipal sewage comes from detergents the largest single phosphorus input to America's waters. It concludes that eliminating phosphates from detergents would decrease phosphorus pollution more promptly and on a larger scale than could be obtained by any other means.

The report also details the deflection from its original purpose of the Joint Industry-Government Task Force on Eutrophication, organized at the behest of the Interior Department in 1967, to seek replacements for phosphates in detergents.

The report recommends that the phosphate content of detergents be reduced in phases, starting immediately, and that all phosphate be eliminated from detergents within 2 years. In the meantime, the committee recommends that the labels of detergents should disclose their phosphate content, and suggests that consumers, pending the availability of phosphate-free detergents, use as little phosphate as is necessary to get their clothes clean in water of the actual degree of hardness available to them. The report also recommended that the Joint Industry-Government Task Force be abolished and the Federal Water Quality Administration support research and demonstration projects to develop effective low-phosphorus or phosphorus-free detergents.

(b) Benefits. After the hearings, the Nation's largest manufacturer of detergents, Procter & Gamble, announced that it was reducing by 25 percent the phosphate content of its detergents and plans to go to 50-percent reduction as soon as sufficient supplies of the replacement material, sodium nitrilotriacetate (NTA), becomes available. However, on December 18, 1970, the Surgeon General announced that the Government and industry had agreed to withhold marketing detergent products containing NTA until its safety is established. Numerous phosphate-free or reduced-phosphate detergents have appeared on the market following publication of the report. The benefits of reducing the phosphate input to our lakes and streams will be both esthetic and economic. The esthetic benefits will be clear. algae-free, odorless water. The economic benefits are those which flow from clearer water, for example, lower pretreatment cost of municipal water supplies, and preservation or restoration of desirable fisheries, such as the whitefish and cisco fisheries of the Great Lakes, which have greatly suffered from eutrophication. The Federal Water Quality Administration has initiated a program of contracts for development of low-phosphorus, or phosphorus-free, detergents.19 It is not possible to estimate the monetary benefit of saving our lakes from eutrophication but it would undoubtedly be great.

1o On Jan. 25, 1971, the Federal Trade Commission issued a proposed rule (36 F.R. 1212) to require listing the ingredients of detergents, by percentage of weight and grams per recommended use level, on each detergent container, and to require a statement in all advertising and on the container of detergents that the phosphorus therein contributes to water pollution, that the detergent should no be used in excess, and that in soft water areas use of phosphates is not necessary.

(c) Hearings.-Hearings were held on December 15 and 16, 1969, and have been printed.

10. "The Environmental Decade (Action Proposals for the 1970's)." House Report No. 91-1082, May 13, 1970. Twenty-Fourth Report by the Committee on Government Operations.

(a) Summary. The report summarizes the testimony presented at two sets of hearings-one entitled "Effects of Population Growth on Natural Resources and the Environment," and the other entitled "The Environmental Decade (Action Proposals for the 1970's)"-in which the committee examined various proposals for developing new attitudes and new management techniques to help preserve a good environment. The report made no recommendations and did not express a committee position on any proposal.

(b) Benefits.-The report has been widely circulated and read, and has undoubtedly helped contribute to the education of many persons. However, it is impossible to evaluate its monetary benefits. (c) Hearings.-The hearings were held on September 15 and 16, 1969, and February 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, March 13, and April 3, 1970, and have been printed.

11. "The Potomac Edison Co.'s High Voltage Transmission Line and Its Esthetic Impact on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Monument," House Report No. 91-1083, May 13, 1970. Twenty-Fifth Report by the Committee on Government Operations.

(a) Summary.-The Interior Department granted a right-of-way to the company to construct a 500 kilovolt transmission line across the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument through an area designated by the Department Interagency Task Force on the Potomac in 1968 as a "recreation concentration area" because of its recreation and historic values. Before the Interior Department granted the crossing, the owners of the tract offered a scenic easement to the United States which would have immunized it from condemnation. The Department declined the offer, contending that it had no legal authority to accept a donation of a scenic easement.

The report points out that the Interior Department actually did possess the authority to accept the scenic easement and recommends that it should more readily exercise its authority to accept such easements. It further recommends that the Department require all applicants for rights-of-way for transmission facilities over park, monument, historic wildlife, scenic, and recreational lands to prove affirmatively that the proposed right-of-way is in accord with the public. interest, and that if it harms the environment there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the requested routing and that all possible measures to minimize the resulting harm will be taken. The report also recommends that the Department hold public hearings on applications for rights-of-way whenever there is a public interest in the proposed route or its environmental effect. Finally, the report recommends that the Department expedite its work toward developing adequate guidelines for the planning, location, construction and maintenance of rights-of-way over lands within its jurisdiction. The report noted

that the company and the Interior Department agreed to add another tower, lowering the profile of the line where it could be seen from the C. & O. National Monument. However the committee did not recommend that the Interior Department seek to prevent the company from constructing its line on the disputed routing.

(b) Benefits.-The hearings and report have resulted in an increased awareness of the environmental factors involved in transmission lines routings. Early in October 1970, the Interior and Agriculture Departments issued a joint publication entitled "Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems," which accords on the main points with the committee's recommendations. In addition, the Department has begun a review of its rights-of-way regulations affecting all lands it administers to incorporate these new concepts. It is not feasible to estimate the monetary benefits of this report.

(c) Hearings.-A hearing was held on January 14, 1970, and has been printed.

12. "Protecting America's Estuaries: The San Francisco Bay and Delta." House Report No. 91-1433, August 19, 1970. ThirtyFirst Report by the Committee on Government Operations. (a) Summary.-The committee reviewed the influence of the San Francisco Bay on the human environment of the surrounding region; and surveyed the extent of dredging, filling, and pollution of the bay, and its fish and wildlife resources. The committee emphasized that it is not and should not be its objective to cease or stifle development and growth in the Bay area. Rather, the committee's objective is to cause Federal agencies to conduct their programs in the bay area so as to protect our environment. The report contains 19 detailed recommendations to various Federal agencies for the purpose of slowing further harm to the bay.

(b) Benefits.-If carried out, the report's recommendations will help preserve a maritime treasure of the western United States which is currently being destroyed by needless pollution and filling, to the great harm of the environment of the surrounding region. For example, if carried out, our recommendations against building on landfill in earthquake zones will result in substantial saving of human life. Our recommendation for more enlightened solid waste disposal will contribute appreciably to enhancing the quality of life and protecting human health. Our recommendations for wastewater treatment aboard ships will have similar effect. Some of the committee's recommendations have already been carried out. For example, the Interior Department has announced plans for the definite establishment of the San Francisco National Wildlife Refuge. Regulations to implement the oil spill provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act were issued after repeated prodding by this committee. Although it is not feasible to estimate monetary benefits, the committee's report will help to stimulate action that may save the San Francisco Bay as a living body of water.

(c) Hearings.-Hearings were held in Washington, D.C., on May 15, 1969, and in San Francisco on August 20 and 21, 1969. They have been printed.