be just as pleasing to our aesthetic sense but an infinitely more productive area, we would surely get support for our efforts. If we can convince people that our estuarine areas are a perpetual frontier, I know we will have success.

In the early days of this nation, our estuaries were a center for shipbuilding. The shipbuilder thought that white pine for masts, white oak for "knees," black walnut for trim, father-to-son knowledge would last forever. But we no longer measure the value of our estuaries in ship tonnage, by the number of bony herring consumed or for the salt hay to feed our cattle. These values remain-but esthetic values are growing ever more important.

There have been vast changes along the estuaries of New England: the scythe to the tractor; the gundalow to the motor boat; free shellfish to high priced shellfish which must reside in a purification plant before consumption; abundant land to house lots; washboiler to detergents; even the concepts of right and wrong. The estuary is not considered for potable water, therefore it is looked upon by some as an easy and cheap place to get rid of waste.

We would think the hard lessons we have learned in the past would make us far sighted. Just to look at the evidence proves they have not.

Scientific studies are needed on salt marshes, shellfish, finfish, birds and mammals. From the standpoint of marine fisheries resources, it is the tidal and immediately adjacent subtidal reaches of estuaries and coastal bays that are among the most productive areas of the world. In the 1963 Annual Report of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, we find these remarks:

"Biologists from the state of Alabama have assigned a conservation value of $150 per acre annually (and possibly $200 or more) to the estuarine areas of Alabama. Anderson (Anderson, A. A., 1960. Marine resources of the Corpus Christi area. Research Monograph No. 21., Institute of Marine Science, the University of Texas, 49 pp.) reported that the value per surface acre of the bays of the Corpus Christi area was estimated to be $370.18 for the year 1958. Certain coastal bay fishing grounds of Cape Cod have produced well over $300 per acre per year of shellfish alone. This is in decided contrast to the estimated $3.00 to $4.50 per acre per year for fish landed from Georges Bank, one of the chief offshore fishing grounds, or to the estimated $18.00 of annual growth per acre for productive forest land in Massachusetts."

In Massachusetts, the people tried early to put some controls on the depletion of fisheries. Some of these are described in a book written by William G. "Cap'n Bill" Vinal of Norwell, Massachusetts, entitled "The New North River Almanac." What it all boils down to is that, since 1639, we have had Act after Act passed which have not given our estuarine resources the protection they need and deserve.

In Massachusetts we have a long record of using salt marshes for community refuse dumps. Right in Boston Harbor, which is one of the most beautiful and interesting harbors in the world, we have used islands of scenic beauty and historic value for dumping and burning swill. Until recently, the glow from the fires on Spectical Island could be used as a navigational aid for boats. If there was thick fog, one's nose could be used as a sort of radar for guidance. A number of boats have been sunk or damaged in the harbor by running into floating debris which fell from barges taking refuse from the wrecking of old buildings out to the island dumps.

We realise that the problem of refuse elimination is complex. But why, when we are faced with a problem of this type, do our eyes turn to the ocean. We are now thinking of the sea in the same terms as we thought of the rivers—a quick, easy and cheap way to get rid of our spoils. We have not yet learned the lesson of short range thinking.

In 1837, a closed season was declared on the HEATH HEN by the state Legislature. Towns, however, had a right to suspend the law, which many did. This was the beginning of the extermination of the HEATH HEN. In 1911, a HEATH HEN reservation of over 2000 acres was set aside on Martha's Vineyard. By 1925, the Commonwealth had spent $56,912.07 to save the bird. But it was too late. It is unthinkable that the Striped Bass or the Herring or any other migratory fish will become extinct, but when the last Passenger Pigeon died in the Cincinnati Zoo in 1914, it proved that too often the unthinkable does happen. When an ordinary person passes an apple orchard, the value of the land is readily evident. The value of an estuarine area is not evident to the naked eye. We were not taught in school the role these wetlands play in the food chain, or that the food chain starts upland and has a direct bearing on our offshore fisheries.

In spite of this lack of knowledge on the part of the public, conservation organizations such as the Izaak Walton League and many others, were able to generate support enough to get important legislation aimed at protecting coastal wetlands through the legislature. In years past, it has been easy for our state lawmakers to put off conservation bills. Public sympathy never accompanied these bills to Beacon Hill.

However, on May 22, 1963, the Massachusetts Legislature passed Chapter 426 of the Acts of 1963, which amends Chapter 130 of the General Laws to include section 27A. This statute authorizes the Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries to impose conditions necessary to protect shellfish and marine fisheries on any project which involves the removal, dredging, or filling of any flat, bank, marsh, meadow, or swamp bordering on coastal waters. This law has proved invaluable in arresting the wholesale destruction of marshland that was gaining impetus along the coastline.

A significant event was the decision handed down by Judge Horace T. Cahill of the Massachusetts Superior Court on March 9, 1964, concerning the validity of the condition imposed by the Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries of the proposed project by a contracting firm on Broad Marsh, Wareham, Massachusetts. In the "Findings, Ruling and Order", Judge Cahill summarized: (a) The restriction "no fill" is a condition authorized under said Section 27A.

(b) Broad Marsh is a salt marsh necessary to preserve and protect marine fisheries.

(c) Said Section 27A is valid and the condition imposed is not an unlawful taking entitling the respondent to compensation.

This case is now pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Although this was an extremely good step in the protection of marine resources, the Act did not provide the Division of Marine Fisheries with any funds or personnel to carry out the additional work resulting from this legislative action. In the 1963 Annual Report of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, I quote:

"In connection with notices from the Corps of Engineers a severe handicap was placed on Division personnel since statements or protests would be considered only if received by the Engineers within a specified time. In many cases the specified time was two or three weeks from the date the Corps sent out notices. A minimum of thirty days and in some cases forty-five days is required by the Division of Marine Fisheries to investigate and efficiently administer U.S. Corp of Engineers notices. An additional hardship was placed on Division personnel with the passage of Chapter 426, Acts of 1963."

On page 66 of the 1966 Annual report of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries it is stated:

"The administration of Section 27A, Chapter 130 of the General Laws, has continued to be a major problem for the Division of Marine Fisheries. Coastal alteration proposals submitted to the Division under direction of this law have mounted yearly since its initial enactment on May 22, 1963. A direct comparison of fiscal year proposals and their disposition follows:

"The Division has continued to investigate all coastal alteration applications on an individual basis. Although the same reasons for protecting our coastal areas apply to all of them, it is understandable that there are circumstances which change with time and effort. The Division is increasingly cognizant of the progressive attitude and awareness of the public towards pollution control and abatement, and its effect on present and future marine fisheries populations. The current national, state and local drives to remedy these situations are recognized and supported by the Division of Marine Fisheries, and their contribution has helped to strengthen the Division's decisions relative to Section 27A.”

On November 23, 1965, the Coastal Wetlands Protective Act was signed by the Governor of the Commonwealth.

Chapter 768 was designed to guarantee permanent protection of salt water marshland. It also provides appeal for the landowner who believes such Departmental restrictions constitute land-taking and for compensation from the Commonwealth as determined by the Superior Court.

Subsequent to enactment of Chapter 768, the Department of Natural Resources organized an Office of Resources Review, which is responsible for the assignment of applications and writing of final orders for Section 27A, Chapter 768, and Chapter 220 (Inland Flood Plain Act). Through this procedure, the Division of Marine Fisheries has been able to operate more efficiently and the Commissioner of Natural Resources has been better informed of developments.

In spite of these laws, there are several plans in the making in the Commonwealth which are not in the best interests of marine fisheries. One is the filling in of hundreds of acres of Boston Harbor, between several of the Islands. This plan has been advanced by people who want to bring a "World's Fair" to Boston. It is presumed that after the Fair, the filled area would then be developed for housing and industry. Another plan is to use some old "Liberty" ships for burning refuse and dumping the ashes at sea. Both of these plans are in the form of Bills currently before the Massachusetts Legislature.

Natural laws may remain stable, but local and state laws change.

It would be easy for me to say, after all this, that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has done its part to protect our coastal areas and that we need no interference by the Federal Government. The problem, however, doesn't effect our state alone, or even just the coastal states. With the dependence the nation is going to place on the ocean to provide more and more nutrition for our people, it has national significance.

Each state or community progresses at various speeds. I don't believe we can wait until all the states decide to initiate programs.

When one detergent, DDT, or the waste from one car wash become the subject for endless debate, the margin of survival becomes mighty thin. We must not be overly optimistic in our calculations.

Commercial and sport fishing interests alike are affected by what happens to fish which migrate to our waters. If Chesapeake Bay was to be destroyed by some cataclysmic accident, or if the waters off the shore of Rhode Island or New Jersey were suddenly to become lethal to the spring run of Striped Bass, the waters from Cape Cod to Maine would be devoid of fish, for few if any Striped Bass are spawned in our waters.

The record is clear that we believe in and have initiated aggressive State estuarine conservation programs. We will continue to press for action at the State level. Nevertheless, we wholeheartedly support enactment of H.R. 25. We recognize the Federal interest in the national estuarine resource just as we recognized the Federal interest in the national shoreline resource when we supported the Cape Cod bill several years ago. We endorsed the Cape Cod legislation for two basic reasons

First, because Cape Cod is an area of national significance;

Second, because it seemed to us that the job of preserving Cape Cod was one the State could not do alone.

Similarly, we believe there is an estuarine conservation role which can be filled only at the Federal level. And we believe that H.R. 25 will benefit Massachusetts in two ways

First, it will reinforce and assist the efforts of the Commonwealth in evaluating and preserving critical areas;

Second, the permit system established by H.R. 25 will assure the people of Massachusetts that their efforts to establish a sound State program will not be in vain. We can protect our marshes. But we, acting alone, cannot protect all the values of those marshes-many estuarine species, such as waterfowl and striped bass, are not full-time Massachusetts residents. In conclusion, I would say that although my State has enacted many laws, and although we seem to be making measurable progress, there is always a chance of backsliding. With the right of free petition and a sacred "home rule" heritage, it is entirely possible that any given estuary in the Commonwealth can be destroyed.

Further, even though my State now has an advanced wetlands conservation program, we depend very much on tidal areas of other States along the Atlantic Coast for the fish and bird life which provide us with recreation and income. In the interests of Massachusetts and of the Nation, we fully endorse H.R. 25. Mr. Chairman we appreciate the time you have given us today. Mr. DENNIS. Our next witness is Mr. Sims, of Maryland.

STATEMENT OF IVAN SIMS, PRESIDENT OF THE MARYLAND DIVISION, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman, I have prepared and submitted a statement in quite a bit of detail and I will summarize it.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SIMS. I am Ivan H. Sims of Bethesda, Md., president of the Maryland division of the Izaak Walton League of America. As might be expected, many of our chapters are directly interested in the welfare of the State's estuaries.

One of our chapters, Talbot County chapter, is located in Easton, Md. Talbot County typifies Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Eastern Shore, widely known as "the Land of Pleasant Living." About 2 years ago, members of the chapter became acutely aware that the pleasant living of some of the people of the Eastern Shore is marred by problems of the Chesapeake Bay.

Since colonial times the bay has supported rich fisheries for shellfish and finfish, and the most famous of these has been the oyster industry. But an industry that had declined from a harvest of 71,900,000 pounds in 1880 to 30,800,000 in 1920 and to 8 million pounds in 1962-64, would appear to be in trouble, and that is what has happened to Maryland's oyster business.

Why? To find out, the chapter organized a public discussion by a panel of informed people representing biological research, oyster harvesters or watermen, oyster growers and packers, and the general public, to examine the oyster resource and industry so as to expose the problems for study and correction.

Plenty of problems were exposed-biological, economic, organizational, mechanical, and legal. The concensus was that the oyster resource could be restored to its original productivity, and could support a larger and more prosperous industry, by modernizing the methods of growing and harvesting.

Management and harvesting of seafood in Maryland is governed by, literally, hundreds of local laws passed by the legislature, reflecting the legal status of the resources and Maryland's legislative processers and traditions. As a result of the chapter's panel discussion, a special committee of the general assembly undertook a study of the seafood laws and has presented a program of recommended changes of far-reaching significance.

The recommendations have been incorporated in bills introduced into the current session of the general assembly. We are hopeful that most of them will be adopted.

This example of our activities illustrates, I believe, our interest in H.R. 25. We support H.R. 25 and urge favorable action on it by this committee and by the entire Congress. We urge this action because the estuary we know best-Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries-constitutes a major natural resource for Maryland, Virginia, and the en

tire Nation; because the bay is threatened with damage; and because we think H.R. 25 will aid in the protection and restoration of the bay's total productivity.

We hope that the bay or a number of its tributaries will be among those "selected parts of the Nation's diminishing estuarine areas which will be preserved, protected, developed, restored, and made accessible for the benefit of all the people for realization of their values for sport and commercial fishing, wildlife conservation, outdoor recreation, and scenic beauty."

Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest and most important bodies of water of its kind in the United States, and perhaps the world. It extends 200 miles in length and ranges up to more than 30 miles in width. Maximum depth is about 150 feet. There seem to be no reliable and precise estimates or measurements of the area and shoreline, but the area is in the magnitude of 6,000 square miles or 3,800,000 acres, and the shoreline of all its tributaries in the magnitude of 5,000 miles. The figure of 3,200 miles is commonly used as the length of the shoreline in Maryland alone. There are about 100 tributaries to the bay including the James, York, Potomac, Patapsco, Susquehanna, Elk, Chester, Sassafras, Miles, Choptank, Wicomico, and Pocomoke Rivers and many lesser streams. The bay is generally considered to be the drowned coastal mouth of the Susquehanna River system. It fits completely the definition of estuary in the bill, as do practically all its tributary estuaries.

The bay carries a large and lively commercial traffic to and from Baltimore, Washington, Cambridge, Hampton, Richmond, Portsmouth, Norfolk, and many smaller ports. Navigation is a major use of the bay.

Recreational navigation is likewise a major use of the bay and its tributaries. An exact count of the pleasure boats using the bay is probably impossible. Figures of the Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs for 1965 suggest that perhaps as many as 70,000 boats registered in Maryland may use the bay one or more times per year, including some 20,000 kept on trailers at homes.

In addition, there is a very large and growing fleet of sailboats in a wide range of sizes. Summer weekend traffic in the rivers and harbors rivals that on main highways.

Nearly all of the 5,000 commercial boats registered with the Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs are on the bay.

Fisheries are another exceedingly valuable resource or use of the bay. These include the shellfishery, the most valuable, and both commercial and recreational finfisheries. The dollar value of the Chesapeake Bay commercial fisheries of Maryland and Virginia has ranged widely in the last 25 years, from a low of $7,456,000 in 1940 to a high of $38,445,000 in 1959; in 1964 the total value was $29,786,000.

Part of the variation arises from differential success of finfish spawning in different years; part from declining productivity. In Maryland, oyster production has been dropping steadily partly because of parasitation and disease, but more largely because of failure in setting seed oysters.

In monetary terms this has been offset in recent years by the rapid growth of the clam industry which has increased fourfold between