ment of our wetland resources. Recent efforts to achieve effective review on the county or state level have failed. Navigation, pollution control, fish and wildlife, aesthetics and recreation all must and can be accommodated, but only if the complexity of these interests is fully recognized in a reviewing authority. Single-purpose controls so far have led to serious and unnecessary losses. We believe the Army Engineers would be the first to agree that their review of permit applications for alteration of the marine environment in coastal waters has been and still is limited, the Coordination Act of 1958 notwithstanding, to navigational criteria. Such criteria of course represent only a fraction of the public interest that may be involved. Too great a burden is placed upon the Army Engineers as sole custodians of the public interest under present conditions. Their charge under the law is not broad enough. The losses and pressures today are so great that conservation values should be given full and separate consideration by an agency equipped to do so and under a law that is clearly defined. The Interior Department has the professional disciplines and philosophy to perform this service. We particularly hope that H.R. 25 will be reported favorably out of your subcommittee with no weakening of Section 12. May we respectfully request that this letter be included in the record of your hearings on this bill and its companion bills? Yours sincerely, PRISCILLA REDFIELD ROE, Conservation Chairman, Suffolk County Council, League of Women Voters of New York. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, March 28, 1967. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. DINGELL: The League of Women Voters has long been concerned with the preservation of our water resources. The League of Florida is happy to see H.R. 25 and similar bills brought before the House. In Florida, our estuarine areas are in great danger; many have already been seriously damaged, by developers who dredge and fill so that the buyers can moor their boats in their own backyards. This leaves no shallow brackish areas for shellfish and for breeding and nurture of food fish. Pollution is further caused by the use of septic tanks in these same residential areas, so near the estuaries that filtration cannot be complete before the effluent enters the tidal basins. Causeways with long reaches of fill instead of open trestle bridges prevent the ebb and flow of the water, so that many stagnant, polluted little bays result. If H.R. 25 can prevent further damage of this kind, and even make offenders correct that already done to even a slight extent, it will be very helpful to our State, and I am sure similar conditions exist elsewhere. Sincerely yours, LUCILE M. CHURCHILL, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND, Elkton, Md. REPORT ON A FORMER ESTUARY LOCATED IN CECIL COUNTY, MD. Arnold Creek Marsh was once a lovely estuary comprising about 100 acres. Trees, wild flowers and lush grasses grew there profusely. It was a natural feeding spot for birds. In early spring after the ice was gone, the Great Blue Heron's fifty inch high head was visible there. The bird could be seen wading in shallow waters, stepping slowly along, raising each foot high and slipping it back quietly into the soft bottom. The blue heron had chosen this protected area for one of its largest rookeries in Maryland. The marsh was only invaded by humans during the hunting season, long after the nesting period had passed. The rest of the year it lay unused except to be gazed upon for its great beauty by the many small boat owners who used the anchorage at nearby Cabin John Creek. In 1964 the U.S. Corps of Engineers designated the marsh as one of the sites for spoil dumpage dredged from the ship channel in the Chesapeake Bay. Conservationists' pleas went unheeded by the Corps and by the U.S. Department of Interior. The plan was to fill in about 90 of the 100 acres, stopping about 3,000 feet short of the heronrie. Alternative plans were proposed, which indeed would have delayed the project by one and a half years, as well as cost a substantial amount more dollarwise. However the observation can be made that Cecil County benefits very little by the ship channel, and the cost of maintaining it should not have to be borne by the county in the loss of its greatest natural resource-beauty and recreation. The plan is now in operation. Starting in 1964 many tons of spoil were pumped into the estuary. The provision to stay 3,000 feet from the rookerie was not adhered to. Mud actually reaches to within a few hundred feet of it. A series of three dikes were built to hold back the spoil. Interested citizens warned the Corps that the dikes were inadequate. Their worst fears came true. In December of 1964 two of the dikes broke and Cabin John Creek was filled with mud. Eventually most of this mud was removed, but much mud still remains along the edges of Cabin John. Arnold Creek Marsh is gone; it is all mud and will remain in this condition for the next eight years while the Corps holds lease to the property. It is true that the herons are still there. The tree tops loaded with their twig nests still silhouette the sky this spring, but the flowers and rich grasses were burned off and their ashes lie under many feet of mud upon which very little vegetation will grow. The herons' feeding place is gone and although the bird will range over many miles in search of food, it is known that it is one of the wariest birds and very quick to take alarm. The question as to how long it will remain in our county after the mud dries out and becomes suitable for human habitation is unanswered. In conclusion it is to be noted that not all of our estuaries are being covered with mud, but surely some master plan is needed before they all meet the similar fate of Arnold Creek. Pictures of the estuary in its original state and the condition of it after the dikes broke accompany this report. Respectfully submitted by, Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, CAROL R. MALTENFORT Water Resources Chairman LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GREAT NECK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DINGELL: The Nassau County League of Women Voters is pleased to note your sponsorship of H.R. 25 and support of companion measures which would initiate a nationwide study of estuaries, authorize a system of national estuarine areas, and require that a Department of the Interior permit be necessary for dredging and filling operations consonant with acceptable conservation goals. Areas on the South Shore of Long Island have seen almost total destruction of the bay bottom contour and overdredging and indiscriminate dumping have adversely affected its productivity. The oyster industry, which as recently as fifteen years ago was able to work the waters of Hempstead harbor and South Oyster Bay, has been forced to give these up. Other shellfish breeding grounds have also been adversely affected and pollution levels have increased. The North Shore as well has seen indiscriminate dredging with a consequent loss of esthetic, recreational, and ecological value. We understand that under the provisions of the bills, 16,000 acres of South Shore wetlands will be one of the first areas to be studied with a view towards their preservation. We believe this will help to redress the affront to nature caused by decades of indifference and harmful practices. Passage is important in that it defines the nation's responsibility for preserving its natural resources .and gives the Department of the Interior the ability to act in the public interest within planned conservation guidelines. The League of Women Voters' long standing support of pollution abatement measures and conservation of our water resources impels us to provide vigorous support for legislation to protect estuarine areas. We would be pleased to have this statement of support for H.R. 25 and companion bills included in the official record. Respectfully yours, PAT BARNETT President, Nassau County League of Women Voters. ROSELIN S. WAGNER Coordinator of Water Resources, Nassau County League of Women Voters. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow. Mrs. IRWIN BARNETT, East Meadow, N.Y. Mrs. DAVID WAGNER, Great Neck, N.Y. Mr. Dow. Yes, I would like to salute Mrs. Clusen for a very splendid statement. I am a great admirer of the League of Women Voters. We have several chapters in our district and many of those ladies make it a point to visit with the Congressman and straighten him out when they think he is not doing the right thing, and generally I think they are correct about it. I might ask one question, Mrs. Clusen. You state here that your home is in Green Bay, Wis. We have heard some statements or suggestions earlier that not everybody in the Great Lakes area was entirely happy to have the Great Lakes included in this bill. I was wondering, do you feel that there would be a good deal of support or interest of the people in the Great Lakes area if the Great Lakes were included? Mrs. CLUSEN. I think that considerable support could be generated from a number of sources. I, of course, am not here as a representative of my own area, but of the leagues all over the United States. I meant to use my reference to Green Bay as a way of showing that I think there is room for improvement of the processes which now exist for dredging and filling in the Great Lakes. It seems to me that this is a logical inclusion in the bill. I was somewhat surprised by the statement made by the gentleman from the Great Lakes commission. There are great differences, I think, in the Great Lakes States in how they feel about this and also in the way they handle the possibility of permits as the chairman brought out. Not all of the Great Lakes States require permits at this time. As far as the reaction of the public to this is concerned, I certainly do feel that, in the areas where there are harbor problems relative to dredging and dumping, the dual permit system will be quite enthusiastically received if people understand the full intent of it. I am also concerned lest people, reading about control of dredging and dumping in the papers of our area, will think that this applies to Corps of Engineers operations as well, because this, of course, has been the basis of the controversy at home. Mr. Dow. Were they resentful of the Corps of Engineers in any respect? Mrs. CLUSEN. I think people found it difficult to find the right handle, whom to approach, the right method at the right time to make known their resistance to what was going on in some cases. There was very natural concern that something besides navigation factors be considered in deciding what should happen with regard to dredging and spoil. Mr. Dow. Mrs. Clusen, on page 3 of your testimony, down below the middle, it says; and you may be able to supply some information here: The League is glad to see H.R. 25 and similar bills recommend that the study to designate estuarine areas of National significance should be correlated with the study of pollution of estuaries authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act, which we supported in the last Congress. Just for my own information, do you know who is to carry out the study in pollution of estuaries caried out by the Clean Water Restora tion Act? Mr. DINGELL. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of the Interior. Mr. Dow. So that it can be correlated with this study. Mrs. CLUSEN. Yes; we believe it can. Mr. Dow. I wasn't clear on that. That helps me a little bit. I think, Mr. Chairman, that that is all. I want to say that Mrs. Clusen has made a fine statement. Mr. DINGELL. Mrs. Clausen, the Chair is grateful to you. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. First of all, I would like to comment with regard to your statement on page 3 of the testimony where it says: If the intent of the authors of the bill is that dumping of dredging spoils by the Corps of Engineers does not come under Section 12(d), we hope that the language of the legislation will make this clear. I believe that your comment on this prompts me to suggest to counsel that it will be well that we analyze the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in the light of your comments here to make sure that that protection is adequate with regard to the corps. The second comment with regard to your statement is "In connection with sections 1 and 7 of H.R. 25, it seems important that the legislative history show that the intent of this program is protection. of values peculiar to estuarine areas and that pressure for access roads and recreational facilities is to be resisted by the operating agency. A national recreation area with an estuarine setting may be desirable, but we see the national estuarine areas as serving a different but important purpose." As one of the authors, but one who has had experience in providing mass recreation, I would say that your comments, and I say this by way of establishing the legislative history of this legislation, are identical with my own. I expect that the agencies will operate with the greatest of care in this area and I will assure you that they will be advised on this point. I would like to conclude by expressing my particular appreciation for your presence here this morning, It has been one of the most helpful statements that this committee has received. I would like to echo Mr. Dow's comments that I greatly enjoy my privilege of being with the League of Women Voters. I now have a schedule to met with one of my groups and I find them an alert and fine body of women and I enjoy my association with them. Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you. I wanted to say to Mr. Dow that his league members are not attempting to straighten him out. In most congressional interviews, league members are attempting to get information from their Congressman about what is going on in Congress. Mr. Dow. I don't think the ladies were being too critical to me. If the truth were known, I exaggerated a little bit. Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair is compelled to announce that there is a quorum call going on on the floor of the House of Representatives at this moment which requires his presence in that body. It is the intent of the Chair to meet at 2:30 or as near thereabouts as circumstances will permit. The Chair notes that Mr. David Adams, Commissioner of the Division of Commercial and Sports Fisheries of the State of North Carolina is present and has indicated his interest in being heard previous to 3 o'clock and the Chair will make every possible effort to see that he is heard before that time. The Chair also intends to proceed promptly with the hearing of all persons this afternoon so that we may conclude the hearings on this matter today if at all posibles, or if not, at a very early time tomorrow morning. With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until 2:30, or thereabouts. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. DINGELL. The subcommitte will come to order. Mr. Adams, we apologize for detaining you. There was a vote on the floor. Please give your name and position to the reporter. The Chair will be happy to hear whatever statement you may wish to make. STATEMENT OF DAVID ADAMS, COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL AND SPORTS FISHERIES, STATE OF NORTH CARO LINA Mr. ADAMS. My name is David Adams, commissioner of the division of commercial and sports fisheries of the State of North Carolina. The statement I wish to make is part of a letter from Gov. Dan Moore to the North Carolina congressional delegation. It was drafted after consultation with the department of water resources, the department of administration, and my own division, and counsel with two State attorneys and two attorneys not in State government. Part of the letter goes as follows: In North Carolina, we have more than 3,000 square miles of estuarine areas, administered by the Departments of Conservation and Development, Water Re |