Final Research

Picture for a moment instead of a summer beach packed with smiling faces, one awash with used syringes, dead sea life and human feces. This vile scene may seem like something you see in a movie or a television program, however it was realty in the summer of 1988. An article published in the New York Times paints that picture of the hottest summer recorded in the East Coast for readers and after many beaches were shut down public outrage cause government officials to act (Specter, 1993). Understanding tragically that humans have used our beautiful oceans as one big garbage, a question that came to mind after reading that New York Times article is, did it take the United States until 1988 to take action against this? The Santa Clara Law Review reported that it took Congress until 1972 to pass the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, otherwise referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act. A concern with this policy is that in 1988 the beaches were still very polluted, so the question remains of how successful was the implementation of the Ocean Dumping Act? While the Ocean Dumping Act has had a positive, and its intended, effect on the environment it hasn’t fully solved this problem and continued research is still needed.

            As the thesis above indicates, there are many positive aspects agreed upon by stakeholders in this issue, both supporters and critics of this legislation. The Santa Clara Law Review lists many positive aspects of the Ocean Dumping Act including the permit process as well as prohibiting certain substances to be dumped all together (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978). While the permit process has been subject of much criticism, it allows for an evaluation to be made to determine if the substance will have a negative effect of human and marine life however the evaluation process still holds high standards (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978). Also addition positive aspects that have occurred from this legislation are the addition of a civil suit and the call for continuing research into the issue of ocean dumping (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978).  

            A criticism addressed in the New York Times articles touches on the subject that the Ocean Dumping Act doesn’t actually address the issue of trash and garbage that is washing up on the beaches and effecting human health (Specter, 1993). For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducted a study that found that deep-water dumping of sludge could safely hold a metropolitan region of sludge safely and “there would be no apparent threat to human health” (Swanson, Devine, 1982).

            Additional criticism has been raised over the enforcement of this specific policy. The National Wildlife Federation brought a suit against the Corps of Engineers, the agency in charge of dredged spoil in the Ocean Dumping Act, alleging the agency created the requirements to obtain a permit to dump dredged materials too easy (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978). In 1975 the Senate Commerce Committee also question the Corps of Engineers on the same accusation (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978). An additional criticism of enforcement has also been brought against the United States Coast Guard, whose duties are surveillance of ocean dumping. The Coast Guard had responded to the criticism that they did not receive enough funding to complete proper surveillance of ocean dumping, and after that Congress did increase funding for enforcement efforts to the Coast Guard (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978). A final criticism noted by the Santa Clara Law Review is that the legislative intent of the Ocean Dumping Act is unknown. The unknown aspect is whether or not this specific legislation’s goal is “to entirely phase out ocean dumping or to regulate it in order to ‘prevent adverse effects on health and the marine life’” (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978). The permit process is a large part of the confusion and the unknown effect of deep sea dumping and the effects to human and marine life. Also the research included in the Ocean Dumping Act has no priorities, which adds to the confusion over what issue the legislation is attempting to address (Kuersteiner, Herbach, 1978).

            Like most policies, the Ocean Dumping Act contains both valuable, important aspects as well as negative aspects. Positive pieces to this specific legislation include the high standards of the permit process, the outright ban of certain substances being dumped, the civil suit and the continued research. However, criticism exists that this policy is unnecessary, that the enforcement of the policy is not well orchestrated, and that the legislative and research intent of the policy is unknown. Foremost what we can learn from this issue is that the “United States needs to do a better job of the overall problem of waste management” (Swanson, Devine, 1982). We are an extremely wasteful nation and we need to consume less so we will have less of an environmental impact on the world. So again, this legislation has had a positive impact on the environment, it has not solved the problem and continued research is necessary.

Works Cited

Devine, M., and R. L. Swanson. "Ocean Dumping Policy." 24.5 (1982): 14-20. Web. 22 May 2014.

Kuersteiner, Richard L., and Etta G. Herbach. "In Pursuit of Clean Oceans - A Review of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act." Santa Clara Law Review 18.1 (1978): 157-82. Web. 22 May 2014.

Specter, Michael. "Sea-Dumping Ban: Good Politics, But Not Necessarily Good Policy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Mar. 1993. Web. 22 May 2014.