Now, your State opposed the coordination act a long time back. Mr. DINGELL. I can assure you all the State agencies opposed this because they said it would infringe on the State jurisdiction. Mr. ADAMS. I have been in this position only 3 years and we worked very intimately with river basin studies on every Corps permit and on every Corps project. I am on the phone almost daily with them on the coordination act. Mr. DINGELL. You have found this to be most helpful have you not? Mr. ADAMS. I have and they have found our position to be most helpful, Mr. Chairman, because there are times when the State can take a firmer position than they. Mr. DINGELL. I am satisfied that this is also true. Let me ask you this: What in this particular section would deny the State the authority to have its own permit system? Mr. ADAMS. Nothing. But neither would this improve a State system that was in operation and was working well. It would merely add an additional level of redtape. Mr. DINGELL. Suppose we put there "in consultation with the States"? Mr. ADAMS. Your bill also says that even the State must have a permit from the Secretary of the Interior to do work on State-owned bottoms within any estuary within the State. This is to me a little Mr. DINGELL. You have to have that permit now from the Corps. Mr. ADAMS. From the Corps of Engineers to do work in navigable waters, yes. This is another permit for the State to do work in its own waters on its own bottoms. This provides that the Secretary can take legal action against the State for parts of this section, for violations of this section. Mr. DINGELL. Section 12(f): Provides that the federal government may take legal action against the State for violation of regulations issued under this section. Mr. ADAMS. Within this section. Mr. DINGELL. You are referring to the permit section? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. EVERETT. Could I ask one question with respect to 12(a), Mr. Adams? Your conclusion was that section 12 would remove the States present authority to control activities on all State-owned estuarine areas? Mr. ADAMS. Because it would subject it to higher review which would override. Mr. EVERETT. I believe you mentioned in the last part of section 12(a), "that in addition to any other permit that may be required for such work." Is that the one you are speaking of as the States permit? Mr. ADAMS. The State now grants easements for any work on Stateowned bottoms. This is essence is permit. We have a bill that will be introduced in our current general assembly which will be an actual permit for work on State-owned marshlands and estuaries. Mr. EVERETT. It may have the same standard in regard to the State standard? Mr. ADAMS. If this were stated, where a State has adequate permit sysetm then this would be acceptable in lieu of the Federal permit, then it would bring about what you are suggesting here, that the two permits may be coincident. Mr. DINGELL. Would you support this legislation if it were so amended? Mr. ADAMS. That where a State has an adequate system of permits and control? Mr. DINGELL. Yes. Mr. ADAMS. Yes. I don't know that we will get that far but this was one of the suggestions I wish to make. That where we feel in North Carolina, and perhaps we are a little egotistical on the subject, we feel we have an adequate program for protection of these waters. Yet there is no credit given in this bill for such States that may have an adequate program. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Adams, I think your testimony has been very helpful to this committee. I want to thank you for your presentation. Will you submit to the committee language changes that you feel would be helpful, bearing well in mind our discussions here on these points which are matters of great importance to me. Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; I shall do my best to mail them back in. Thank you. You have has been very helpful. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The following memo was supplied for inclusion in the record:) To: North Carolina Congressional Delegation. From: Governor Dan K. Moore. I should like to call your attention to a bill now pending before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. On January 10, Congressman Dingell introduced H.R. 25, a bill "to authorize the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with the States to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and make accessible estuarine areas of the Nation which are valuable for sport and commercial fishing, wildlife conservation, recreation, and scenic beauty, and for other purposes." In North Carolina, we have more than 3,000 square miles of estuarine areas, administered by the Departments of Conservation and Development, Water Resources, Administration, the State Board of Health, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. We are extremely cognizant of the immense value of these areas as sources of recreation, food, minerals, and water, and have made tremendous strides in recent years to ensure their preservation for future generations. North Carolina is engaged in a number of comprehensive planning programs. all of which recognize the importance of preserving our estuarine areas. All coastal engineering projects are reviewed by State agencies, and a bill requiring registration of all earth-moving equipment working in estuarine areas and State permits for all such work will be introduced in the current General Assembly. All coastal waters have been classified by the State Stream Sanitation Committee and established water quality standards are being maintained. Sewage pollution and pesticide residues are being monitored. Encroachment on state-owned marsh lands and bottoms by private developers is being curtailed. Regulation of fish and wildlife harvest is efficient, and based on scientific principles and information. The existing legal framework governing ownership and use of estuarine land is currently being reviewed in order that loop-holes might be detected and corrections made. In short, we feel that we are doing a pretty good job in administering our estuarine resources. H.R. 25 provides for the establishment of a national estuarine system administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to include those estuaries of national significance. Although the bill refers to "consultation with the States", it clearly transfers to the federal government traditional State and local functions such as management of fisheries and wildlife resources, zoning of land use, regulation of mineral exploitation on estuarine bottoms, and the ability to plan and expedite the orderly development of the States' natural resources. H.R. 25 is rather long and complicated. Piecemeal amendment would undoubtedly lead to even more lengthy and ambiguous legislation. Therefore, I feel that H.R. 25 should be given an unfavorable report by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (attachment lists specific objections). The Congress should then counsel with the States in order to determine whether any additional federal legislation to protect the nation's estuaries is needed, and if so, jointly to develop such legislation. The State of North Carolina recognizes the immense value of the nation's estuaries and of her own esuarine areas and offers to assist the federal government in any way possible to protect and preserve these great natural resources for the use and enjoyment of future generations. (The following letter was received in response to requests made during Mr. Adams' testimony :) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, 2452 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: On March 9, Dr. David A. Adams, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Commercial and Sports Fisheries, represented North Carolina at a hearing on H.R. 25, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with the States to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and make accessible estuarine areas of the Nation ** At the close of this hearing, which was held before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, you asked Dr. Adams to "*** submit to the committee language changes that you feel would be helpful *** Although these language changes would improve H.R. 25 materially, North Carolina continues to feel that passage of this bill is undesirable at this present time and that the Congress has already laid the foundation and created precedent for an alternate and more logical program for management of the Nation's estuaries. Section 5(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, directs the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the States and other entities, to conduct a comprehensive study of the Nation's estuaries, including such aspects as pollution, demographic trends, land and industrial development, navigation, and flood and erosion control. The report of this study is to be submitted to the Congress not later than November, 1969, and is to include "recommendations for a comprehensive national program for the preservation, study, use, and development of estuaries of the Nation, and the respective responsibilities which should be assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by local and private interests." The above recommendations, developed in consultation with the States, will form the foundation of an estuarine program similar to that authorized by H.R. 25, but based on more thorough field study and incorporating more contributions from non-federal sources. This, we feel, is the logical approach to protection of the Nation's estuaries; passage of H.R. 25 prior to receipt of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's study and without consultation with the many non-federal agencies concerned would nullify this important program already authorized by the Congress and would not be in the Nation's best interests. Sincerely, DAN MOORE. PROPOSED CHANGES TO H.R. 25 (To authorize the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with the States to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and make accessible estuarine areas of the Nation which are valuable for sport and commercial fishing, wildlife conservation, recreation, and scenic beauty, and for other purposes.) By rewriting certain sections as follows: SEC. 2(c) Each study shall give particular attention to whether an area should be acquired and administered by the Secretary or acquired and jointly administered by the Secretary and State or subdivision or agency thereof, or acquired and solely administered by a State or local subdivision or agency thereof, or whether the area may be protected adequately through State or local zoning laws or other methods without Federal or state acquisition or Federal administration. SEC. 3(a) The Secretary may acquire lands and waters or interests therein within any national estuarine area by purchase with appropriated or donated funds, donation, or exchange, except that he shall not acquire any lands or waters or interests therein owned by a State or by any political subdivision thereof, without the consent of the state or political subdivision owning same. In the exercise of his exchange authority, the Secretary may accept title to any non-Federal property and in exchange therefor the Secretary may convey to the grantor of such property and federally owned property under his jurisdiction which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal. The values of the properties so exchanged either shall be approximately equal, or if they are not approximately equal the values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to the Secretary as the circumstances require. SEC. 4(a) The Secretary may enter into an agreement, containing such terms and conditions as he deems desirable, with any State or political subdivision or agency thereof for the permanent management, development, and administration for the purposes of this Act of any lands and waters or interests therein which are located within an estuarine area of national significance and which are owned or thereafter acquired by the State or by any political subdivision thereof and such area shall be designated by the Secretary as a national estuarine area. The State or a political subdivision or agency thereof and the Secretary shall share equally in the cost of developing the lands, water, or interests therein covered by the agreement that are to be developed primarily for outdoor recreational uses other than fishing and hunting. SEC. 4(d) In connection with the administration, development, and protection of any area covered by an agreement entered into pursuant to this section, the Secretary may acquire in accordance with the provisions of this Act not to exceed 1,000 acres of land, waters, or interests therein within or adjacent to such area, subject to the provisions of 3 (a). SEC. 6(d) The Secretary shall not acquire any privately owned improved property or interests therein within such area without consent of the owner as long as the appropriate local zoning agency shall have in force and applicable to such property a duly adopted and valid zoning bylaw that meets the standards heretofore prescribed by the Secretary under Sec. 6(a). SEC. 6(e) If any improved property is made the subject of a variance under, or becomes for any reason an exception to, such zoning ordinance, or is subject to any variance, exception, or use that fails to conform to any applicable standard contained in the regulations of the Secretary issued pursuant to this section and in effect at the time of passage of such ordinance, the Secretary shall have authority to acquire such improved property by condemnation. SEC. 6(f) The Secretary shall furnish to any party in interest upon request a certificate indicating the property which meets the standards set forth in Sec. 6(d) and is therefore not subject to condemnation by the Secretary. SEC. 6(g) The term "improved property" as used in this Act means (1) any single-family residence, the construction of which was initiated before an area is designated as a national estuarine area by the Secretary, and such amount of land, not in excess of three acres, on which the residence is situated as the Secretary considers reasonably necessary to the use of the residence and (2) any property that is owned and used chiefly for hunting before an area is designated as a national estuarine area and continues in such use. The Secretary may exclude from improved property any beach or waters, together with so much of the land adjoining such beach or waters for public access thereto, as he deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. SEC. 9. Subject to existing State laws, the Secretary is authorized to issue regulations governing the public use of estuarine areas administered solely by him and is authorized, subject to the approval of the agency sharing it the administration of any estuarine area, to issue regulations governing the public use of estuarine areas jointly administered. SEC. 10(a) 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 public safety. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary under this section shall be effective only after consultation with the State agency responsible for hunting and fishing activities. Nothing in this Act shall limit or interfere with the authority of the States to manage and regulate the fish and wildlife resources in any waters within an estuarine area administered by the Secretary. Nothing in this Act shall affect the authority of the Secretary under other provisions of law to regulate migratory birds. SEC. 12(f) For the purposes of this section, the term "person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or municipality. SEC. 12(g) Upon finding that a given State has in effect a permit system adequate to protect estuaries within its boundaries the Secretary shall endorse such State permits in lieu of those issued by him, and said State permits shall have the same effect in law, including prosecution and penalties as authorized in Section 12(e) of this Act, as those issued by the Secretary. SEC. 12(h) The provisions of this section shall be effective one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes we have a number of witnesses who indicated a 4 o'clock deadline. Mr. Robert Cook and Mrs. Helen Fenske who have all been very patient. Perhaps we should apply the ladies first rule. STATEMENT OF HELEN C. FENSKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION Mrs. FENSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Helen C. Fenske, vice chairman of the New Jersey Governor's Conference on Natural Beauty and executive director of the North Jersey Conservation Foundation, with offices near Morristown, N.J. This organization, the former Great Swamp Committee of the North American Wildlife Foundation, organized originally to save the Great Swamp of Morris County, N.J., from exploitation. It received donations of $1.5 million from thousands of individuals throughout the United States for the purchase of over 3,000 acres of swamp which was donated to the Federal Government as the nucleus of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. The foundation is now exerting an increasing influence in stimulating effective citizen action toward the preserving of New Jersey's diminishing resources. This represents a tremendous challenge because nowhere in the Nation is open space and the resources of a State under so much pressure for exploitation and development. This is the pressure which has motivated us to work with school educators in New Jersey in launching an environmental education program. This program is a comprehensive one from kindergarten through 12th grade which is being integrated into existing school curriculum and it is considered unique in the country. Ironically and appropriately the program is called education for survival. If survival denotes desperation and crisis, it is appropriate terminology in discussing New Jersey today. Legislators need only to turn to this small populous State for insight into the environment of the future and to know that legislation such as proposed in the House bill H.R. 25 is a necessity. |