pesticide into their stomach but seem to have no effective metabolic device for using the molecules. Rather than being immediately discharged, the poison accumulates, and infinitestimal quantities in the estuary water may be concentrated 70,000 times in the shellfish. The animal's growth and activity decline and the cleansing efficiency of the estuary, to which every organism contributes, drops accordingly. Some of this concentrated DDT is eliminated in the wastes of the oyster and joins the ooze of the reef. Marine worms pick it up and in turn pass it on to dozens of predators, which live just long enough to be caught up in another series of exchanges that takes the poison around the world, even to the penguins and seals of Antarctica. This chain of events illustrates the extent to which the rest of the ocean depends on the produce of the estuary-but it also shows that the estuary is being put to an impossible test by modern civilization. The very system of nutrient conservation that has blessed the ocean with its productivity now promises to become a curse, because of its "conservation" of poisons. Yet if there were no organisms to accumulate the pesticide molecules, the general pesticide level in the environment would rise, and susceptible faunal forms, like young blue crabs which are killed by one molecule of DDT in a billion of water, would begin to suffer. There is only one answer to this quandary. The estuary must operate at its maximum potential, and any synthetic toxic substance which cannot be readily destroyed in the estuary should be banned from distribution. It can be seen that the setting aside of estuarine areas will not, by itself, preserve estuarine function, and this bill should not be regarded as the solution to the estuary problem, but rather as a first step. Other signs of malfunction This leakage of DDT is only one bit of evidence that nature's sewage system is being taxed beyond its capacity and ability. Other signs include septic deposits and dead fish in estuaries, bays and adjacent ocean pockets; declining production and shifting habits of sea life; upset balances of predator and prey; and invasions of parasites and diseases. Although declining lobster catches on the east coast and poor crab fishing on the west coast are often attributed to overexploitation, the declining effectiveness of our estuaries may be the ultimate cause. To paraphrase John Donne, "No shellfish is an iland, intire of it selfe; every resident of the sea is a peece of the Continent, a part of the estuary." (Devotions XVIII) Our activities on land intensify the estuary problem While we place increased strain on the natural waste-disposal abilities of the estuaries, we are reducing the natural cleansing abilities of the land. It is true that we are spending, or intend to spend, billions on pollution control and sewage plants, and this will help. However, we thoughtlessly escalate the problem by interfering with, or destroying, species or food chains that through the years have been responsible for the removal of dead things and undesirable compounds. For example, we have made life impossible for the California Condor that once ate carrion along the ocean shores and cleaned spent salmon from the Columbia. The sea gull, which, because of its numbers and predilections, is one of the world's most important and effective scavengers, now seems to be in trouble around the Great Lakes. Reproductive success, due apparently to DDT, has dropped to less than half a chick per breeding pair. At the same time the gulls are needed more than ever before. An introduced fish, the alewife, is dieing by the millions, fermenting, aud causing fish-eating and scavenging birds to die by the thousands from botulism. Windrows of fish, dead gulls and loons have been a common sight along Lake Michigan shores in recent years. With no scavengers to pick their bones, these remains will slide back into the lakes unmetabolized, enlarging the putrifactive load. Coyotes and bears that once cleaned dead animals from the western range are being reduced with poisoned carrion-their reward for having such tastes and habits. Countless scavenging organisms such as burying beetles have to run the gauntlet of soil pesticides. Freshening bacteria and fungi of the soil are discouraged with fumigants. Maggots often cannot play their salvaging role because the flesh of intended victims contains toxic levels of pesticides. Increasing acreages of black-top, house roofs, and "clean" farms reduce the habitat needed for pretreatment of earth's wastes. Vast air pollution and spraying programs are decimating and simplifying the flora and fauna to the point where many missing links exist in nature's system for self-rejuvenation. The result of all these changes taken together, trivial though some may seem, is a gradually increasing burden on every lake and river, every sewage plant, and ultimately on every estuary. The physical destruction of estuaries It is one of those typically human contradictions that the more we need estuaries, the more rapidly we destroy them. We are draining, filling, dredging, levying, and channelizing them. We are diverting their water, building roads and cities into them, and through dams and reservoirs upstream we are cutting off the flow of sediments which may result in erosive action by ocean, river, tide or wind. When we consider that our economy cannot build enough sewage plants to keep the land from smelling, it is plain that we cannot afford man-made facilities for keeping the ocean fragrant and productive. In conclusion It is not idle prophecy to conclude that just as estuaries were responsible for the origin and increase of life, so their destruction could hasten the coming of a lifeless world. Hopefully, man will realize in time that the estuary is at once protector and provider of the ocean and all that mankind harvests from it. The Estuarine Areas Bill is a step in that realization process, but it is only a small step. It gives the impression that the prime need for protecting estuaries is for human recreation purposes-for water sports, picture taking, bird watching. The truth is that the very health of the earth is at stake. It is the recreation of nature that is vital. Estuaries can recreate life from the waste of the continent if we give them a chance. If nature is re-created, man's recreation will follow. Rspectfully submitted, ALFRED G. ETTER, Ph. D., Field Representative, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. Addendum.-We suggest a clarification of intentions with relation to the Great Lakes. The definition of "estuary" includes a requirement for a connection with the sea, (p. 14, Sec. 13b), and yet reference is made on p. 13, Sec. 12b, to the need to "conserve and protect the natural values of the estuaries of the United States or in the Great Lakes and connecting waterways." While we realize that there are no tides and no salt water in the Great Lakes, the "estuary-like" features of the Lakes should be considered of equal importance to the true estuary, and hope that it is the intention of this bill to provide for their study and preservation. RESOLUTION Let it be known that Dr. Theo. B. Ford, Chairman of the Estuarine Technical Coordinating Committee of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, came before the Commissioners of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission at its regular Spring Meeting to present and recommend the adoption of the following resolution: "Whereas, a special Committee of the Estuarine Technical Coordinating Committee of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission does support the general purpose of H.R. 25 relative to the preservation, protection, development, and restoration of the estuarine areas of the Nation; and "Whereas, the Committee has not had sufficient time to consider all aspects of the bill as proposed; and "Whereas, the Committee finds that certain aspects of the proposed legislation are not acceptable to one or several States represented; and are objectionable; and these objections include but are not limited to powers of regulation and certain permit authorities granted to the Secretary of the Interior: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the Committee recommends (1) that the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission request the Honorable John Dingell of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, not to report H.R. 25 out of the Committee in its present from: and (2) that the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission support the concept of an Estuarine Portection Act; and, (3) that the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission request the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to seek the assistance of the affected States and the Secretary of the Interior in drafting a bill mutually acceptable to both the affected States and the Secretary of the Interior which will promulgate the basic concept of H.R. 25 as now proposed; and (4) that this resolution be adopted by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and a copy thereof be furnished to the Honorable John Dingell with copies being sent to the other members of the House Committee of Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to the Congressional Delegation of each State, to the Governors and Commission members of each of the Gulf States, and to the Secretary of the Interior." The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was made by Dr. Lyle St. Amant, seconded by J. Y. Christmas; and unanimously adopted by the Special Committee of the Estuarine Technical Coordinating Committee at a luncheon meeting on March 16, 1967, and referred to Dr. Theo. B. Ford, Chairman, estuarine Technical Coordinating Committee, for presentation to the meeting of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for its adoption. Attest: (Signed) JOHNNIE CRANCE. TERRY LEARY, Chairman, Special Committee. RESOLUTION "Whereas, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission is of the opinion this same resolution be adopted by this Commission: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the foregoing resolution as adopted by the Estuarine Technical Coordinating Committee of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission be and the same is hereby adopted. The motion for adoption of this resolution was made by Richard P. Guidry and seconded by Dr. Lyle St. Amant (proxie for Dr. Leslie Glasgow)." The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, March 17, 1967, at a regular Commission meeting held at the Fort Brown Motor Hotel Brownsville, Texas. Jos. V. COLSON, Director, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STATE PARKS, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR JOHN: The enclosed Resolution 6 in support of preservation of estuaries and estuarine areas, was adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Conference on State Parks at its March 17 meeting. The Board hopes that this resolution will be helpful to the Congress in considering pending legislation to authorize suitable conservation measures. Sincerely, RESOLUTION 6 CONRAD L. WIRTH. Chairman of the Board. Whereas, each year many thousands of acres of estuaries (where rivers enter the sea) and adjacent estuarine (salt marshes, intertidal areas, bays, sounds and lagoons) areas are destroyed by dredging, pollution, fill or otherwise, and Whereas, these estuarine areas are of vital importance in the survival of many species of fish and wildlife and related fishing, hunting and other forms of enjoyment of wildlife and of estuarine areas, and Whereas, there is pending before the Congress proposed legislation to authorize a five-year study of estuarine-area uses, conditions and suitable means of preservation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Conference on State Parks at the meeting of its Board of Directors in Washington, D.C., March 17, 1967, urges early consideration of the pending legislation by the Congress in order that the necessary studies may be made and appropriate conservation measures instituted. Mr. NED P. EVERETT, BURTON'S SEAFOOD, INC., Chincoteague, Va., March 20, 1967. Committee Counsel, House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. EVERETT: As a member of the Oyster Institute of North America, I wish to advise that the seafood industry on the Eastern Shore of Virginia in both the coastal areas and the Chesapeake Bay areas supports very strongly a Bill now pending before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation designated as H.R. 25. On behalf of the members of our industry on the Eastern Shore, I shall appreciate your presenting this letter to the members of the Subcommittee. We recommend passage of the Bill and I trust that the Subcommittee will give the Bill favorable consideration. Very truly yours, LEONARD L. BURTON, President. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: First of all, let me thank you for granting us the additional time to submit the Mississippi Valley Association position in regard to H.R. 25 and related legislation as evidenced by the telegram received from Mr. Everett, Counsel of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. In our telegram requesting the extension of time to submit our position, I mentioned that the Valley Association has misgivings regarding the proposed legislation. These misgivings arise in consideration of the Mississippi Valley Association's dedication to the principles of proper development and wise management of our country's soil and water resources. The Mississippi Valley Association has espoused these principles since its founding in 1919. At the present time, our membership extends into 36 states, and our roster includes just about every segment of our country's commercial and industrial intersts as well as legal bodies and their subdivisions. I hasten to point out that because of the broad cross-section of our membership, we do not represent the selfish interest of any one segment of industry. At the 48th Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Valley Association completed in Chicago, Illinois, on February 14, 1967, two of the resolutions adopted touch upon the subject legislation. The first is: CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES The responsibility for America's water resource development rests with Congress. The constitutional prerogatives of Congress to control, develop and conserve the Nation's water resources should be strengthened rather than diluted by requirements for clearances and approvals by additional Federal agencies. The second is: FISH AND WILDLIFE The effect of constructing water resource projects upon the fish and wildlife of the area should be carefully considered and all practical steps should be taken to avert serious damages to these resources. We oppose any interpretation of public laws which would permit the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service or any other agency to delay or require excessive modification of plans for projects authorized by Congress. It is desired to point out that resolutions adopted by the Association are thoroughly screened by an originating committee, reviewed and approved by a searching resolutions committee, and finally adopted by the membership as a whole. From the review of H.R. 25, it is apparent that if this legislation is enacted the Congress would be relinquishing its responsibility in regard to water re sources projects that they have already authorized. Section 3(b) of the proposed legislation indicates that all lands or waters are to be administered, managed and developed for fishing, wildlife conservation, outdoor recreation and scenic beauty by the Secretary of the Interior. This section indicates that the Secretary of Interior may allow other compatible uses, but it is apparent that industry would be eliminated from his consideration. At this point it is germane to point out that much of the construction materials available to the construction industry in urban areas located in the coastal plains comes from the dredging industry. The dredging of these building materials is approved only after the granting of a permit by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. Because of tidal and wind effects, any disturbances occasioned by estuarine dredging are of a short duration. At the same time, these dredging operations improve navigation, contribute to adequate channels for pleasure boating thereby increasing recreational activities and provide a source of construction aggregates at or near the metropolitan areas where they are so badly needed. It is apparent from reviewing H.R. 25 that the criteria it would impose would cause an elimination of all industry or commerce within the estuarine areas designated by the Secretary of the Interior as well as the adjacent land areas. H.R. 25 does not define an estuarine area. This definition certainly is necessary to prevent conflicting interpretations. It is our further opinion that the Congress, not the Secretary of Interior, should authorize National Estuarine Areas. The several states have enacted and are administering statutes for industrial operations in their coastal areas. The proposed legislation would grant to the Secretary of the Interior zoning authority and planning responsibility in these areas, and it is the apparent intent of the legislation to give the Secretary of Interior the power to veto local zoning laws. Aside from being unconstitutional, the legislation is not needed since, as mentioned, states are presently adequately administering these areas under their own statutes. The bill would provide the Secretary of Interior with the power to acquire privately owned improved property within areas he determines to be National Estuarine Areas without the consent of the owners. In other words, when a local or state agency is considered to have a zoning law that is not to the liking of the Secretary of Interior then the Secretary, wholly within his discretion, may ac quire this privately owned improved property. The definition of improved property in the proposed bills is limited to say the least. It makes no reference to improved property belonging to bona fide industrial or commercial owners. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Interior could by fiat acquire land of commercial installations within the area defined by the Secretary as estuarine. Section 12, of H.R. 25 states that the Secretary would have complete control over any dredging in any estuary of the United States or in the Great Lakes and conecting waterways regardless of whether the Congress has declared them to be National Estuarine Areas. Presently, dredging operations can be performed in estuarine areas or on other navigable waterways of the United States only after a permit has been obtained from the Corps of Engineers. This section would require an additional permit from the Secretary of Interior. This section of the bill as interpreted by the Mississippi Valley Association would give the Secretary of the Interior complete powers over these waters regardless of the intent of Congress. It would appear to us that the Corps of Army Engineers which has been accepting applications for and granting permits for a great many years is better able to adjudge the overall effects of proposed works than any other federal agency. Certainly, the requirement for an additional permit is not needed. Additionally, under Section 12, the Secretary of the Interior would be able to prohibit dredging in all estuaries. At the same time, he could regulate zoning and acquire land in estuarine areas and would be able to prohibit onshore dredging or mining operations in estuarine areas thereby depriving private owners of their proper rights. It should be pointed out that state or other governmental agencies who are presently owners of estuarine areas could be made to lose their mineral rights in these areas. Private property owners in estuarine areas would be at the complete mercy of the Secretary of the Interior. H. R. 25 and the related legislation makes no allowance for the overall consideration for what is best for the areas involved and the value to the total economy. The dredging industry whether it be on the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf Coast is a great contributor to the construction industry on these coasts, and as such, contributes very materially to the national economy. It is apparent that H. R. 25 |