Washington

IN PHYSICS, they talk about antimatter, the particles that supposedly are the opposite of the elements known in this world. The idea of winter navigation on the Upper Great Lakes may be an example of a congressional anti-issue.

Rep. Arlan Stangeland of Minnesota used his position as the No. 1 Republican on the House Public Works' water resources subcommittee to press for adding winter navigation to the committee's omnibus water projects bill. The lakes now are open to traffic about nine months a year. Although Stangeland was successful, and the committee has approved its bill for floor debate, Congress still has a long way to go before passing a comprehensive bill to authorize water projects. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has reported its own $8 billion authorization bill.

A longer season has been touted as a way to boost the shipping industry and attract more business to Great Lakes ports like Chicago. "The plan would help farmers and manufacturing workers by expanding exports, reducing transportation costs and by allowing farmers to sell when prices are best," Stangeland said after the House committee approved the omnibus bill.

There are estimates that a switch to winter navigation could cost $600 million, perhaps $1 billion, to modify navigation facilities with underwater dams, "bubblers" and other devices so they could operate during the winter and to buy 22 new icebreakers. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ran a demonstration project on winter navigation for several years during the 1970s.

The Canadian embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic note to the State Department last fall. It "informed the U. S. government of Canadian concern and serious reservations with regard to the navigation season extension proposed" in the House bill, according to a summary issued by the embassy. Canada wants a thorough environmental study before there is any change in the shipping season. Opponents to Stangeland's plan say he would allow the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the impact at the same time the new season goes into effect. One called that a "damage now, look later" approach.

It would be difficult for the United States to proceed without Canadian agreement since Canada is a co-owner of the Great Lakes.

The idea could founder long before it reaches the stage of international discussion. Foes started lining up soon after the bill cleared the Public Works Committee. A number of Michigan congressmen made their opposition well-known. "I will predict that very definitely that language will be taken out," Rep. Bob Davis (D-Mich.) said during the congressional recess. "It either will be negotiated [out] ... or it will be taken out with an amendment."

Opponents discussed the idea of trying to send the water projects bill to a more sympathetic committee, where they could strip the winter navigation language, or going to the House Rules Committee so they could attack it on the floor. And there still is the Senate. Its water projects bill is silent on winter navigation. Proposals generally have a better chance if they appear in both House and Senate bills.

Further, a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff member, asked to assess sentiment on winter navigation, said, "I don't think you'll get much from the committee on it.

"The Center for the Great Lakes, based in Chicago, is opposing winter navigation. "There is simply no evidence that year-round navigation would provide sufficient economic benefit to justify the costs and environmental risks of this program," said its chairman, former Michigan Gov. William Milliken. "One of our fears is that these costs [of winter navigation] may have to be recaptured by increased user fees and taxes. In that event, year-round shipping would end up hurting Great Lakes shipping rather than helping it."

The Lake Carriers Association, which represents 15 companies whose 111 ships constitute 97 percent of U. S. tonnage on the Great Lakes, would prefer to see the season extended by a couple of weeks. "We do not believe that year-round navigation is economically necessary in the Upper Great Lakes," said President George Ryan of Michigan. One spokesman also noted that a "fair amount of capital" would be needed to put the St. Lawrence Seaway into shape for a greatly extended shipping season.

Andy Gildea, Stangeland's press aide, said the congressman is "just trying to help farmers and people who work in factories and mines . . . and help people in the hard-hit Midwest."

One foe, however, after counting up the number of opponents and noting Stangeland's district does not even include a Great Lakes port, said, "It's difficult to know who Stangeland's constituency is."