hour's drive of the great population centers of Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia.

The Army Engineers hired three experts in the Gulf Coast States, and they came to the upper Chesapeake Bay and conducted all types of tests to prove, as far as the Army Engineers were concerned, that overboard disposal of spoil would not harm in any way the nursery area of the upper bay.

However, Dr. Donald W. Pritchard of Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. L. Eugene Cronin of the Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, and other learned men who work for the State of Maryland, scientists, disagreed and opposed overboard spoil disposal. Finally it was through the efforts of the Board of Natural Resources and the Governor that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service came into the picture and agreed, after a thorough review of the situation, that perhaps overboard disposal would be a very serious thing for the upper Chesapeake Bay estuary.

At one time we had hoped that some provision could have been made to dispose some of the spoil materials on Federal lands. For example, at Aberdeen the Federal Government, I believe, owns over 70,000 acres of land which is off limits to the general public, not only of the State of Maryland but to any American citizen unless you happen to be stationed at this base.

We did not get very far with the suggestion of putting the spoil on Federal lands. At the moment intensive tests are being made by the Natural Resources Institute and the Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins, in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to see exactly what overboard disposal of spoil materials is going to do to the upper bay.

These marshes, as you gentlemen have no doubt heard, provide a great amount of the nutrients that feed your aquatic life in the estuaries. This has all been documented.

It seems to me that this bill will prevent destruction of our estuaries through large-scale dredging, whether it is dredging the oyster rocks that the gentleman from Texas referred to or whether it prevents the destruction of the salt marshes by filling. A bill designed to limit this sort of destruction under the Department of the Interior would make a lot more sense than a bill that would take away from the States their rights to go ahead and zone and then pickup the pieces for their own use.

That is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Morton.

Mr. MORTON. First, Mr. Walsh, I want to welcome you here. I appreciate your taking the time to come to testify before the committee. I guess maybe we had better start out by telling you that H.R. 4505 is an exact duplicate of H.R. 25 with the exception of two things, my name and a short clause which permits a single-dwelling owner or the occupant of a single-dwelling house to dig a boat channel into his house without a permit.

I think what you have said probably is a very strong testimony for this bill. We have tried to provide in this legislation, to the extent that we have been able to, all of the protective devices that we can for assuring a relationship between the State and Federal Government that will be acceptable to the States.

This bill provides for State and Federal consultation before anything is done. The first areas of the bill provide for identifying these estuarine areas. There certainly could be no State objection to that. We then study the areas to determine how they can best be preserved, protected, and conserved and made compatible with navigation to assure the continuance of their natural ecologies. Then we finally create a national estuarine area which really is a zoning of these areas making sure that the zoning laws of the States are compatible with standards that must be developed which will assure the preservation

of these areas.

Now, if the Federal Government is going to act at all other than simply to provide grants-in-aid, it must take action that will supplement the work being done with the States and assure that in those areas where the States are not doing the job, the job is done.

I think it is high time that we take action. This is based on the very testimony that you just made that the State of Maryland in a period of less than a decade has lost 20,000 acres of estuarine or wetlands or whatever.

If we are losing 20,000 acres in that length of time, somebody has failed in their fundamental responsibility to conserve our natural environment.

Perhaps the very fact that we enact this bill will stimulate the General Assembly of Maryland and the agencies of its executive department to take more interest, to do a better job of zoning and to exercise more diligently those disciplines which are required to preserve the wetlands.

I am a little bit disappointed by the fact that your commission, the most important conservation commission that we have in the State, is not enthusiastically in support of this legislation. I had the fear last year and objected to the bill when it came before the House under suspension of the rules, that the bill we presented last year did not adequately give the States an opportunity to participate or give them a direct burden of responsibility to participate in a conservation program to assure the preservation of the wetlands.

So I would hope that the commission, that the department of Chesapeake Bay affairs, that the department of forests and parks and those other agencies of the State directed toward conservation would study again this bill and let us, if time permits, put again in the record statements from these agencies or a statement again from your commission as to the specific objections which may be in the mind of these people to this legislation so that we may have the opportunity perhaps to amend the bill and eliminate some of the objections.

I myself am not satisfied with all of the things this bill has because we have some testimony now before this committee that indicates that there is an area for improvement and revision and amendment, but I think this has been a very valuable exchange and I would hope that you would come again to us in the form of a letter or report and give us the benefit of the thinking of each agency in the State which has a specific authority.

I have put this statement to you rather than a question because I feel that this legislation could have very, very far-reaching effects in the State of Maryland where one-fifth of our total land area is wet

lands and, of course, I have a very definite feeling of responsibility because I represent two-thirds or three-quarters of those wetlands.

I am not going to let the State of Maryland get off scot free and not share in the responsibility of this legislation. I am not going to let this new administration in the State say "Well, it is a pretty good thing or it may be this or it may be that."

I am going to demand that the State put its forthright position before the Congress of the United States in order that we have the benefit of those people who are employed by the State to deal with the matter of conserving and preserving its natural resources.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Morton.

Mr. Dow.

Mr. Dow. Mr. Walsh, I take it that you are one who favors the preservation and protection, development and restoration and so on of the estuarine areas of our Nation; isn't that correct?

Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dow. I think you will notice that those are the words essentially stated in the bill to be the purpose of the bill?

Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dow. I think that you might notice also that in the bill it says that the Secretary in consultation with the States shall conduct a nationwide study.

It says further that recommendations made by the Secretary shall be developed in consultation with the States and other interested Federal agencies and each such recommendation shall be accompanied by, one, expressions of any views which the States may submit within 90 days.

I would suspect, since you have general views in line with the purpose of this bill, that you would welcome this Federal support and I would like to ask you if that is not correct.

Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir. Maybe my testimony might have been misinterpreted by my good friend, the Honorable Mr. Morton.

Mr. MORTON. No; it hasn't been misinterpreted. Let me get back on the record. There is a lot of politics in this, Roy, and you know it, and I am not going to sit up here and carry the ball for conservation for Maryland and have the State agencies go to the fishermen and say, "Oh, that was Morton's proposition."

I am going to put the State right on the hook. I will correct the record.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Dow, I certainly concur with your statement. As I said the State of Maryland more than recognizes this situation. This is why the board of natural resources undertook the study that showed that we lost 28,533 acres of wetlands in a decade and we are very much concerned about it and we are trying to do something about it.

At the moment, as I said, we have a joint resolution in the legislature asking for funding so that a complete survey can be made of the entire State. Then legislation can be advanced by the State and by the counties so that zoning can be put forth.

Now, if the Federal agencies fit in without telling the State how to do this present study, I see no objection. The present objection to

this bill is that the Fish and Wildlife Service or any of the Federal agencies have ever come to the Board of Natural Resources to discuss this problem.

I did know that these bills were coming up but I think there are many times when the State officials do not know. I am a layman, sir, and am not a State employee. I am a real estate broker by profession and when I talked to the board the other day about Mr. Morton's bill and about H.R. 25 most of them didn't know what I was talking about. I think it is a question of channeling information from the Fish and Wildlife people to the State departments that are concerned, instead of just bringing a bill on and saying "This is it."

Mr. MORTON. Would the gentleman from New York yield?

Mr. Dow. Yes.

Mr. MORTON. I think you are very accurate. I think this is one of the deficiencies in this particular staff in this committee that we do not get the word soon enough to the responsible State agencies, to commissions, to conservation people on some of the legislation that we hear.

May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DINGELL. I am listening.

Mr. MORTON. I think that this committee can be improved a great deal in this respect.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair will accept this as a well-deserved and proper rebuke.

Mr. MORTON. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Mr. Dow. The author of the bill is the chairman of this subcommittee and I know that the purpose of this hearing is to give everybody an opportunity to be heard."

Now, Mr. Walsh, in your earlier testimony, I recall your saying something about zoning. I even caught an implication there that maybe this bill might even influence or even control zoning in localities. I raised this question earlier in the hearings because I am concerned about the matter just as you are. I was a little alarmed perhaps that this was a heavy-duty intrusion in State and local zoning, but I was assured by the members here in the hearings that my alarm was not justified and that this is a paper tiger, all these words about zoning in here.

It gives the Secretary of the Interior quite a bit to do about zoning and to recommend and to review and to talk about, but, when the chips are down, apparently under this bill the Secretary of the Interior cannot exert any authority or any power relating to zoning unless he is willing to buy the property.

So that, as far as the power to influence other zoning where there are not Federal funds, and believe me, Federal funds are pretty scanty here as I look at this bill, I don't think that there is going to be too much exertion as a practical matter of Federal power in zoning.

In fact, I almost wish there were going to be more. But I wanted to allay your anxieties about that and I am willing to stand corrected if anybody can speak to the contrary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Dow.

Mr. Walsh, I have been looking at the hearings from last year which were held on June 16, 1966. That means that legislation of this kind has been a matter of very broad public notice for on the order of 9 or 10 months.

It has been rather extensively published in the press both here and in New York. The bills concerned have been pending for a rather considerable time previous to that date, perhaps as long as a year. They have been written up in publications of conservation organizations, some of which, I am sure have you or our organization on the mailing list. Now, with regard to some other questions, you have come in here with some rather strong statements of opposition to H.R. 25 and I think you could provide a very useful and valuable service to this subcommittee if you were to make a statement to us as to the specific objections that you have to the legislation in question.

The subcommittee would be very appreciative of having that particular information. The subcommittee would also be very appreciative of having from you comments on those portions of the bill which happen to be particularly objectionable to you.

You have indicated a number of points of objection on these bills without specifically mentioning them. Congressman Morton has stated to you the particular differences that happen to exist between H.R. 25 and his bill.

Now, you have also discussed a number of other matters-including some very difficult times-that you and the State of Maryland have had in protecting your estuarine areas from the Corps of Engineers and from dredging.

I think you should understand that the attempt here by Congressman Morton and by myself, as authors of this legislation, is not to run roughshod over you in the State of Maryland but it is to assist you with the problem that you appear to be having and one from which your testimony today would appear to be very real.

What we are asking from you in your appearance today is a statement to us as to how we may perfect this bill to assist you and assist the States.

I think this imposes on you a very high responsibility to come forward with a cooperative and an open and fair statement as to how you want this legislation improved to meet your objections and to help the State in its proper exercise of its responsibility and the Federal Government in the proper exercise of its responsibility, as to how you can work together to preserve these very precious lands.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your position there. For example, sentence (a) on page 10 of Mr. Morton's bill

says

The Secretary shall permit by regulation hunting and fishing on land and waters within any national estuarine area in accordance with the appropriate State laws, to the extent applicable, except that the Secretary may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of pubuic safety, administration, fish, or wildlife management or public use and enjoyment.

As I stated earlier, sir-as you know, great estuarine areas in the State of Maryland at the moment are under Federal control now; for example, the Military Bloodsworth Island, that is off limits and you