of such publicity and such interest as the suit and the pressure of such Federal activity as is contemplated with respect to this bill.

Mr. DINGELL. Are you aware of whether or not permits have been sought by this dredging company under the Flood Control and Navigation Acts?

Mr. ECKHARDT. Yes. I am not familiar with that particular dredging company but I do know that presently there is a Federal requirement for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and I understand a number of the dredging companies there are operating only under State permits from Parks and Wildlife without also having permits of any type from the Federal Government.

Mr. DINGELL. Will you submit the name of the dredging company and the places and times this company has dredged and this subcommittee will be happy to refer the matter to the Corps of Engineers for a further report to find out whether or not the applicable Federal statutes have been and are being complied with?

Mr. ECKHARDT. That would be extremely valuable. I would like to point out one other thing to the committee. Attached to my statement is a map of these reef structures that was prepared by the dredging companies in connection with a proposed 7-year program to completely dredge the reefs out of Galveston Bay.

This met with little favor in our State legislature so the dredging companies then immediately began to obtain favorable representation on a new commission and ultimately got permits to dredge in about the same areas as are shown here.

I think that the map here shows one of the most unique things I have seen in political history and that is that those who would exploit the public interest are first advertising precisely how they intend to exploit it, 7 years in advance.

Exactly the plan that was formulated here and was distributed to the Texas Legislature some 4 years ago is now being carried out under various permits granted from the local regulatory agency.

The area around Todds Dump which is just off Eagle Point, was to have been exploited and the reefs thoroughly destroyed within the first 3 years after the plan commenced.

We made checks as to the locations of the dredges during that period of time and they were around and about the Todds Dump area for that period of time.

Today, the sports fishing activities which used to be just off Eagle Point have had to move out here apparently because the destruction of the reefs has caused less favorable conditions with respect to sports fishing as well as adversely affecting the oyster crop.

After the 3-year period the dredges moved into the area shown here, which is the Hanna Reef structure, the bigger area which is to be exploited during the last 4 years of the program. As I pointed out, subsequent to pushing the lawsuit in the Austin court, and subsequent to complaints by persons holding leaseholds on the reef areas in this Hanna Reef structure, the dredges in order (perhaps to avoid the joinder of leaseholders in the lawsuit which would have been crucial to its success) moved into this area.

I judge that we have about 4 years of productive commercial oyster industry in the State of Texas in this bay area, and that is how much of an emergency the problem is at the present time.

Mr. DINGELL. What is the value of the oyster fishery in that bay area on an anual basis?

Mr. ECKHARDT. I don't have the figures before me but I can supply them.

Mr. DINGELL. I think it would be very helpful to have some understanding as to the amount harvested and the dollar value on an annual basis.

Mr. ECKHARDT. We have that and we also have scheduled a sort of seminar with persons knowledgeable in this area and in Government for the 22d of this month when we will have a number of persons of distinction in these fields and will gather considerable information that might be also of some use to this subcommittee.

Mr. DINGELL. It would be most helpful.

The Chair notes that you have a prepared statement. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement of Hon. Bob Eckhardt follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB ECKHARDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, the interests of my District in the matters dealt with by H.R. 25 compel me to appear before this Committee to testify concerning the imminent dangers to our bays if this bill is not passed in this session of the Congress. Furthermore, I feel that I may be of some aid in marshaling information which has become available to me through another committee, the Committee on Science and Astronautics, that bears upon the effect of dredging in estuaries as defined in this bill.

This photograph, showing a view of the Houston and Gulf Coast area of Texas and Louisiana as seen from the Gemini XII spacecraft, illustrates graphically the effect of dredging in Galveston Bay.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, this picture illustrates the extremely practical uses to which the products of our space program can be applied. Never before has it been possible so accurately to observe the precise movement of bay and ocean currents on a broad scale. Let me point out to you how this broad view from space can be tied down to specific evidence on earth.

On November 14, 1966, when this picture was taken, the Matagorda Shell Company dredge was working East Bay. Indeed, there are five dredging companies which were at about that time dredging in Galveston and Trinity Bays: W. D. Haden, Parker Brothers, Horton and Horton, Mayo Shell Company, and Matagorda Shell Company. The big dredges, over the last several years, have intensively dredged the southwest portion of the Bay you see here-toward the little point shown at the bottom of this picture, which is called Eagle Point.

You will notice the constriction between the two bays, formed by Eagle Point at the southwest and Smith Point at the northeast. This divides Trinity Bay (into which the Trinity and the San Jacinto Rivers and Buffalo Bayou flow) from Galveston Bay, which has an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea just to the north of Galveston Island, between that island and Bolivar Peninsula.

Therefore, as you will see, this body of water fits the definition of "estuary" as defined in Section 13(b) of H.R. 25. Section 12(a) requires a permit as a condition for dredging in estuaries.

We are in this situation in Galveston and Trinity Bays at the present time: The Todd's Dump area, off Eagle Point, has been very extensively depleted of its oyster shell structure; and, as can be seen from the picture from Gemini XII, extensive dredging is occurring now in the Hanna Reef area. Since Galveston and Trinity Bays have produced about 85% of the oysters in Texas, and since these bays are the center of sports fishing in this vicinity, they are very important to our fisheries and to our recreation and tourist programs.

The shell reefs of these bays are the base upon which these resources depend. Therefore, they have national interest, like, for instance, the Redwood Forest. H.R. 25 recognizes such national interest and affords a means by which they may be preserved.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you rather have the staff scrutinize the other two maps to see whether or not they can be inserted in the record? Mr. ECKHARDT. You mean the Coast and Geodetic Survey map? Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. ECKHARDT. They are available for the committee if the committee would like to insert them.

Mr. DINGELL. Counsel will scrutinize them to see whether it is possible to have them inserted in the record.

Mr. PELLY. May I ask a question at this point?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. Why are the dredging operations necessary there? Is that for oil?

Mr. ECKHARDT. No, sir. The Parker Dredging Co. is the biggest producer of oyster shell as a calcium source in the world and the combination of the five companies, Matagorda, Parker, Mayo, Horton & Horton, and Haden constitute perhaps the biggest dredging operation in the country.

Mr. PELLY. Is that used in the manufacture of cement?

Mr. ECKHARDT. This is used in the manufacture of cement, in road building, and to a lesser extent in the chemical industry.

Now, in all of these respects limestone is an interchangeable source of calcium and furthermore, of course, dredging today may be done at great depths.

Originally, the regulation by the Parks and Wildlife Commission prohibited dredging except under a 2-foot overburden of silt. When that occurs, there is no substantial injury to oyster production or to marine life because oysters can't grow if there is that much silt, but what is attempted here is the skimming off of the little hillocks which constitute the protuberances of shell upon which the oysters grow. When they are leveled and the bed of the bay is a continuous level field of silt, then the oyster fishery is gone.

Mr. PELLY. Oyster seed in other words attaches itself to a shell that is there and if you remove those shells, the seeds have no way to clutch onto anything in the mud and, therefore, they don't grow. Is that right?

Mr. ECKHARDT. That is right. If they have nothing to rest on, they sink into the mud and, since they are dependent on the flow of current over the oyster, they simply die. They simply starve.

Mr. PELLY. Those reefs that show in the map, are those really layer upon layer or a deposit of oyster shells which has accumulated over the centuries and the program would be over 7 years to remove them and use them commercially and thus destroy all the oyster beds that exist?

Mr. ECKHARDT. That is exactly right. They have been deposited over geologic time and we are removing them over very short periods of history.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Downing.

Mr. DOWNING. I am sorry I missed all of your testimony, Mr. Eckhardt, but what I did hear sounded most interesting. I too was going to ask why they were dredging but I am also wondering does the State of Texas have any laws which would protect the oyster industry there? Mr. ECKHARDT. There were two rules of the Commission that ade

77-724-67-19

quately protected the public interest against the dredging of the reefs. One provided that dredging should not be closer than 1,500 feet of a reef and then a reef was defined in terms of oyster population. No. 2, it was provided that no dredging should occur unless there was a 2-foot overburden of silt. But in the changing from one Commission to another, these rules were nullified.

The dredgers came before the Fish and Game Commission and were refused permission to change the provisions. They then supported the change of the Commission. That Commission went out and a new one was created and the two rules were removed.

These rules were administrative in nature. The 1,500-foot rule was reduced to 300 feet and later to more or less discretionary control of the person in the area. This change in administrative regulations is what has caused the imminent threat to the oyster industry there.

I readily recognize that this is a problem that the State could face but the State has not faced it and some type of regulation or some type of minimum standard would appear absolutely essential to protect the general public interest.

After all, these reefs, since they are created over geologic time, are roughly comparable, say, to the interest of the people in the redwood forests. It is not just the interest of Texas or coastal people. It is an interest of the people of the United States.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes that you have referred to a 7-year program for shell dredging. Would you like to have that inserted in the record?

Mr. ECKHARDT. I would like to request that. We have supplied the committee with a copy of that 7-year program.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, it will be included in the record. (The information follows:)

A SEVEN-YEAR PROGRAM FOR SHELL DREDGING IN GALVESTON BAY

(Presented to the Texas Game and Fish Commission by: Parker Brothers & Co., Inc., W. D. Haden Company, Horton & Horton, Bay Dredging & Towing Co.)

THE PROBLEM

The situation concerning the production of shell in Galveston Bay is critical. Many industries must have a supply of shell as an essential ingredient in their products, or they cannot operate.

There are known deposits of shell in Galveston Bay sufficient to supply the requirements of industry for a number of years; however, present regulation of the dredging of such shell makes it impossible for the shell producers to assure industry of a future available supply.

The shell production problem is made more acute by increasing demands for other uses of the bay.

Unless a program is immediately adopted for the removal of the known deposits of shell from Galveston Bay, it is probable that circumstances will bring shell production to a halt in Galveston Bay, and the known deposits will never be removed, with the consequent loss of revenue to the state and curtailment of the industrial development dependent on this production.

Even now it is impossible for the shell production industry to plan for future operation and arrange for financing of the expensive equipment necessary in the mining of shell.

A bulk production industry like shell is dependent on large-volume, low unitprofit operation, with costly, large equipment which depreciates rapidly. Financing of such equipment requires assured, uninterrupted operations over a foreseeable period of years.

With the coming of NASA, located on the shores of Galveston Bay, the most conservative estimates of the urbanization of the bay area are that it will experience a growth comparable to the establishment of a new city of 200,000 population by 1970.

LONG-RANGE PROGRAM NECESSARY

This problem makes it vital that a long range program for removal of known deposits of shell from Galveston Bay be immediately promulgated by the Game and Fish Commission.

Advantages of a long range program:

1. Maximum recovery of shell can be effected to meet industrial demands. 2. The producers and industrial users dependent on this resource will know what to expect and can make their long-range plans accordingly.

3. The Game and Fish Commission will be in a better position to simultaneously develop a program for recreation and other uses on a long-range basis.

THE PROPOSAL

The shell producers of Galveston Bay offer for consideration of the Commission the following program for the removal of shell from Galveston Bay covering a seven-year period.

PHASE ONE

(For three year period ending with the calendar year 1965)

The following state land tracts be designated by the Commission as "Shell Production Area No. 1": 285, 286, 308, 309, 310, 311, 327, 328, 329, 330, 333, 334, 349, and 350.

The following state land tracts be designated by the Commission as "Shell Production Area No. 2": 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243. During Phase One all of the shell dredging in Galveston Bay will be restricted to Shell Production Area No. 1.

During such three year period in Shell Production Area No. 1, all of the rules and regulations heretofore adopted by the Commission for the dredging of shell be suspended as to that particular area, and a new order promulgated with due regard to the shell dredging problem and other responsibilities of the Commission. At the end of such three year period (or sooner if the supply of shell of a quality suitable for industrial uses is exhausted prior to the termination of such period), the Commission will authorize the commencing of shell dredging in Shell Production Area No. 2.

The Game and Fish Commission promulgate a plan for the replanting of oysters, construction of fishing reefs, and other activities for the enjoyment and use of this area to be carried on simultaneously during the three year period.

PHASE TWO

(For four year period covering calendar years 1966 through 1969)

That Shell Production Area No. 2 be produced and developed in like manner during the four year period beginning with the calendar year 1966 (or sooner should the supply of shell of a quality suitable for industrial uses be exhausted in Shell Production Area No. 1 before the end of the first three year).

That the Game and Fish Commission promulgate an order of similar import for shell dredging in that area during Phase Two.

That the Game and Fish Commission advise the State School Land Board, Railroad Commission, General Land Office, U.S. Corps of Engineers, and other agencies, of its action with a request that any rules and regulations promulgated by such agencies take cognizance of the creation of Shell Production Areas Nos. 1 and 2 and the planned program in such areas.

That prior to the completion of the taking of shell deposits suitable for industrial uses from Shell Production Areas No. 1 and No. 2, the shell producers will present to the Commission a recommendation for the establishment of additional shell production areas based on information gathered from exploratory work by the Shell Survey and Oyster Conservation Association, which is currently engaged in a program to discover additional deposits of usable shell.

That this pattern of removing shell in Galveston Bay be the basis for the development of a long range program for other bays and inlets along the Texas Gulf Coast.