I will say that the corps has tried to get the applicant to modify their application after receiving reports from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State conservation department. However, if the applicant insisted on going ahead, a permit was always granted. Once I appreciated the lack of concern for our estuarine resources and started to look around, I found that there were a great many other people who were alarmed. Organizations had been formed in the various towns of the county. These organizations wrote, telephoned, and talked to their town supervisors and their State assemblymen and senators. Recently these organizations, 34 of them at the last count, collectively requested their town supervisors to ask for a change in the State conservation law so that Nassau and Suffolk Counties could enjoy the same protection as the rest of the State. An amendment was introduced into the State Assembly on February 14, but I note that it was introduced by an assemblyman not from either of these counties. We are trying hard, but it does not look as though this amendment will be passed this session. Some of the towns are contemplating, under pressure from conservation groups, the formation of dredging ordinances. If adopted, their effectiveness will be questionable, as in most cases the committee set up to administer them will have only advisory powers. There is no sign of a county law, and the county continues to operate the two dredges. There has not been sufficient time to poll all the organizations who have expressed their desire to have the State conservation law amended about their feelings on H.R. 25. However, many will be writing this committee directly and the representatives of some of them are testifying. From a selfish interest in shellfish to an interest in dredging and salt marshes, my curiosity has led me into a wider examination of the whole question of the importance of our estuaries in producing protein for the increased population in a world already short of food. Just as we now look back in horror at the exploitation of our natural resources in the last century, so will future generations judge us for allowing the destruction of irreplaceable estuaries and agricultural land. I urge the passage of this legislation including section 12. We have accepted the concept of Federal regulation in this area in regard to the power given the Army Corps of Engineers. In the light of our increased knowledge of the importance of the estuarine complex, I think we can learn to accept the restrictions of the Department of the Interior. We have long realized the necessity for zoning regulations in our own neighborhoods; it is only a step to the acceptance of zoning at a higher level for the good of the entire population. I would like to present the committee with some copies of a series of articles by Leonard Victor printed in the Long Island Press in November of 1966. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection those will be received. Counsel will scrutinize them to determine their appropriateness for being included in the record. Mr. MCNICOL. I also have some letters from irate citizens which I would like to enter into the record. Mr. DINGELL. By unanimous consent the same order is given. Mr. MCNICOL. I also would like to present the committee with copies of the letters sent out by the organization working on Long Island to get the State conservation law changed. These are attached to the letter. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection it is so ordered. (The letters follow :) COMMITTEE FOR AMENDING THE CONSERVATION LAW (429B), We are enclosing a copy of the letter read to the Board of Supervisors of Suffolk County on Feb. 27th. A copy was given to each Supervisor. They should now be even more aware of the interest of all of the Conservation minded organizations of Suffolk County in having this law amended. Now that an amendment has been offered to the Assembly by Assemblyman Alfred A. Lama of Brooklyn, it is not necessary to pressure for this. However, this is still a home rule situation so it would be well if each organization wrote to or otherwise communicated with their Town Supervisor and State Assemblymen and Senators. We do not as yet have copies of this amendment, but will forward them to you as soon as they are received. We have also received a letter from the State Conservation Dept. in answer to a letter written to Commissioner Kilborne. A copy of this is enclosed. They favor this amendment also. At this point we can say that it looks somewhat favorable, it now seems that the only thing we can do is put as much pressure as each organization thinks reasonable on our respective Legislators and Supervisors. If any Supervisor could be persuaded to put a resolution favoring this amendment before the Board it would certainly help to find out how they all stand. As you are probably aware, hearings start next week in Washington on HR-25 (Dingell) which would give the Dep't of the Interior some control over dredging and filling in the estuaries. As soon as we can obtain copies of this bill we will forward them to you. Meanwhile, if you feel you know enough about this legislation to make your feelings known, letters may be addressed to Rep. John D. Dingell, 1334 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington. 21515. Tel. 202-2254047. Hearings will be held on March 8 and 9. Requests to appear may be addressed to Mr. Dingell or Mr. Ned P. Everett, Counsel. They request that statements be a maximum of five minutes, with 50 copies submitted. (two days prior to testimony, if possible). ART COOLEY. DOUG MCNICOL. WEST SAYVILLE, N.Y., Suffolk County Board of Supervisors. GENTLEMEN: The following organizations, all dedicated to the preservation of the natural resources of Suffolk County, collectively urge the Board of Supervisors to ask for a change in the Conservation Law of New York State. The change desired is an amendment to Chapter 955, Paragraph 429B so that Suffolk and Nassau Counties can enjoy the same protection as the rest of the State in regards to the dredging and filling of navigable waters. Respectfully, The Brookhaven Town Natural Resources Council. The Islip Town Conservation Committee. The East Long Island Wetlands Preservation Committee (Southold) The East Long Island Wetlands Preservation Committee (Southold). The Mt. Sinai Harbor Association. The Long Island Chapter of the Mature Conservancy. The Greenhamptons Association (Southampton). The Southamptons Baymen's Association. Conservationists United for Long Island. The Freshwater Anglers of Long Island, Inc. The Nissequogue River Resources Committee. The Long Island Shellfish Farmers Association. Action, for the Preservation and Conservation of the E. Shore of L.I. Bellport Village Association. Southampton Township Preservation Soc. Sag Harbor Advisory Council. East End Branch of the Nature Conservancy. Civic Association of the Setaukets. Suffolk Bird Club. National Party Boat Alliance. Great South Bay Water Fowlers. East Hampton Town Baymen's Assoc. Great South Bay Beach Buggy Assoc. Babylon Tuna Club. East Hampton Chamber of Commerce. Springs Civic Assoc. The Georgica Assoc. Ladies Village Improvement Assoc. Conservation Comm. COMMITTEE FOR AMENDING THE CONSERVATION LAW (429B), Mr. DINGELL. Mr. McNicol, we thank you for your kindness and presence and for your statement today. Your statement will be most helpful to the committee. I would like to ask you this question. Have you presented your views and concern over this to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration with regard to the pollution which is affecting the shellfish beds in this area? Mr. MCNICOL. We have attended the hearings held by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in regard to the duck waste and the effect of the duck waste on the great south bay. I have been sitting on the committee that was appointed to come up with some suggestions as to what could be done about this. We are all making some progress in the way of handling the future duck wastes. We still have the problem of the sludge beds from the duck beds that have existed for quite a few years. Their removal will be quite expensive. The only method for removal at the present time that looks possible is to pump them into the ocean during the winter. Mr. DINGELL. But the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is aware of this situation? Mr. MCNICOL. On duck farms, yes. Mr. DINGELL. And also on the pollution in the area stemming from the dredging? Mr. MCNICOL. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you again, Mr. McNicol. Mr. MCNICOL. Thank you. Mr. DINGELL. If you will give your full name and address to the reporter you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HUGH H. MERCER, PRESIDENT, BLUEPOINTS CO., INC., WEST SAYVILLE, N.Y. Mr. MERCER. My name is Hugh H. Mercer. I am president of Bluepoints Co., a shellfish growing and shipping firm located in West Sayville, Long Island, N.Y. I represent a commercial interest and therefore approach the problem under consideration from that viewpoint. The firm I represent has had a continuous existence as an entity since 1886. It has grown and shipped hard clams and oysters for 75 years. Part of the explanation for what is longevity in American business annals lies in the degree of control it exercises over its underwater farmland through perpetual franchises and ownership in fee simple. This ownership has permitted, indeed encouraged, us to undertake investment in projects that would be impractical, indeed, foolhardy, for the usual shellfish venture. We have worked in the development of sophisticated mechanized harvesters, have utilized chemical control of water predators, have pionered in commercial shellfish hatcheries where clams and oysters are spawned and grown. One of the prices of ownership, however, is commitment and we are committed to dependence upon an estuarine area. Now these areas are regions of high food potential. They are, in reality, great "soup pots" in which animals high in protein graze on microscopic plantlife. Since the Roman days, these salty fields have been harnessed by varying degrees of cultivation. With intensive cultivation (not as great as that of Japan or other eastern nations where pond farming is a high art) in the highly capitalized northeast oyster industry we have in our own company sustained yields of 500 bushels of oysters per acre or 4,000 pounds of protein food. (Oysters are about 14 percent protein by weight.) Even under fairly primitive conditions, with the use of mechanized equipment and aided by enforced conservation practices, we have maintained a yield of 300 pounds of protein food per acre, an equivalent of 450 gallons of whole milk or the production of 80 milch cows. These figures should be contrasted to the average of 150 pounds of protein food obtainable from an acre of upland grazing. And recall this marine grazing is on "free" feed. I have dwelt overly long on the details of our parochial concern since it is what the knowledgeable have come to call "agriculture." We at Bluepoints have proved for years and we are not alone in this regard that the protein value of the estuarine area is a fact. Now this value is recently more and more recognized as a major consideration in planning for such areas. An example is found in a White House report dated June 1966, and entitled "Effective Use of the Sea." From this report we quote: Although the opportunities to enrich man's food supply in the fishing of the open sea are significant, they are limited. An entirely different set of opportunities are offered by the potential crop that might be obtained by systematic farming of restricted areas of the sea-agriculture. An example would be Bluepoints Company, Inc. The Report continues-the most appealing opportunities for agriculture exist in our estuaries and coastal waters, regions which are most accessible and amenable to control and management. But the same panel notes: Unfortunately such areas are often public health hazards and national disgraces rather than opportunities for the production of valuable marine products. At this very moment our estuaries are under attack by the shortsighted, the indifferent, the venal. These are the demands that view the estuary as sewage pit, as fill area, as the basis of cheap developmental land. These are the views that do not see these areas as vast grazing lands of the least expensive forms of feed, areas that once lost are probably irretrievable. These views do not grasp that the frontier of the open sea is already closing. Massive fleets of Japanese trawlers and of Russian factory ships are already straining the ocean's potential. I have attached several notes from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries indicating the limitations that may be involved. (The notes follow:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, March 3, 1967. JAPAN IS BECOMING BIG FISH IMPORTER Japan, which thinks of itself as the world's leading fisheries nation, has developed into a heavy importer of fish. Fish imports amounted to only US $7,700,000 in 1959 but jumped to $160,000,000 in 1966 and are likely to hit $200,000,000 this year. The rise is attributed to steadily rising consumption and a leveling off in the domestic fish catch. Japan is the world's largest consumer of fish as well and consumption is rising steadily because of higher standards of living. High meat prices have also stimulated fish consumption. Surveys indicate that farm households now eat as much fish as urban families. Western methods of cooking fish have made it more acceptable to younger people, who have been impressed by what they learned in school about getting more animal protein in their diet. Controls on fish imports were lifted in 1961, and the result has been a constantly growing inflow of shrimp, sea bream, tuna, herring, salmon, roe, and cuttlefish, mostly frozen. Heavy sellers in the Japanese market include not only neighboring countries like South Korea, Soviet Union, and Taiwan but more remote fisheries nations like Peru, Mexico, Spain, and Australia. The big Japanese fisheries companies have become leading importers as well. Imports have been further stimulated by reciprocal deals in which Japan sells fishing vessels and equipment and supplies technical aid in exchange for fish imports. Meanwhile, Japan's own fish catches have leveled off sharply. in 1965 was 5,88,000 tons, or only 20,000 tons more than in 1962. cline has appeared in offshore fishing. ("Asahi", Feb. 3, 1967.) Its total catch Today's fish meal futures on New York produce exchange |