Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

came from a particular estuary, but you know that if you destroy the estuaries you destroy the industry, so that there is an interstate prob

lem here.

I want to emphasize that. Around the south shore of Lake Michigan or any one of these areas, one State alone can't do the job unless they all have equally impressive and practical legislation to do the job. Let's put it this way: I think the Federal Government is proposing here to help the States solve the problem.

Mr. POLLOCK. I have no question about that, Mr. Secretary. I am just saying that in some areas you are imposing Federal Government control where there is really no need for it, where there may, in many instances, be no interstate concern at all. There may be no need for the Federal Government to step in and be the benevolent protector. It may be that every State in the Union would determine that this is marvelous and could or should be done and they should be involved. On the other hand, they may be violently opposed at the State level.

Dr. CAIN. Well, I don't think that this kind of problem is unique in American legislative history. Each level of government tends to try to do a job when it finds that the lower level of government isn't succeeding to protect the public interest.

In the water pollution control problem there is a question of national guidelines for State standards, you see. Now, there is also the question of a State which so far hasn't suffered very much loss. How do you help them not to suffer great loss?

I think this threat that we are talking about exists for every State. It is a question of degree.

It is a question of how big the population is, how it is exploding or concentrating on the coastline and so on.

Mr. POLLOCK. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow?

Mr. Dow. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Cain, I want to congratulate you on a fine statement. It is written in very eloquent prose. You should take a good deal of pride in it.

May I ask you about section 6 of the bill. It says:

In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations which may be amended from time to time specifying standards for zoning bylaws which must meet his approval.

Sir, could you enlighten me as to what is the constitutional authority that gives the Secretary this power over zoning bylaws and it is developed further in the section, as you know.

Dr. CAIN. Mr. Dow, I remarked earlier that this language seems to me to be parallel with what Congress has been passing with respect to seashores where there have been zoning clauses.

I can't answer the constitutionality of this. Can you comment on that?

Mr. FINNEGAN. Sir, first of all, this only applies to a national estuarine area that is designated by Congress at a later date or where it has entered into an agreement with the States and what the Secretary is doing is issuing the general scheme of regulations, things that he thinks bylaws ought to be made out of.

But the local communities-but he is not usurping the power of the local communities. The local communities are the ones who will issue the bylaws. If they choose not to do that, the Secretary can go in and condemn the property. He is offering them an alternative.

Rather than going in and condemning, he is saying: "Here are some general guidelines which suggest that we won't take this private property. It can remain as a private residence or a hunting club. If it does so, issue your regulations to protect them so that we don't have to take them and let it stay as it is."

There is no constitutional problem regarding that.

Mr. Dow. Let me say that I am not entirely sure I agree with you on that.

First off, I am very much in favor of the legislation. I am a supporter of this legislation and I want to see the progress as far as I can. However, this represents a difficulty that has been brought out in some of the testimony this morning, and it is a very widespread difficulty,

I think.

I have encountered it in the wild rivers bill which affects my area and in the proposals relating to the Hudson River, which affects my area, and the difficulty I think seems to be not so much with the States, and we have talked about the Federal relationship here, as it does the interests of the localities in these efforts by the Federal Government to preserve areas or to set them aside.

Now, I have found from experience, and I am sure it will be repeated in this situation, that the local fathers are concerned about the intervention of the Federal Government. The board of realtors, the chamber of commerce, the businessmen, and the city council, the village council, are all alarmed about these efforts by the Federal and not only by the Federal, but by the State.

Upon the Hudson River the Hudson River Commission, as set up by the State of New York, has gotten into some pretty contumacious dialog with the localities about the problem of the enforcement of zoning and the power that the State or Federal may have about zoning or setting aside property and so on.

I am not at all sure that the constitutional issues have been cleared up here or that a viable way has been provided to, you might say, ameliorate these difficulties. I introduced a bill along this line to suggest a mechanism for arbitrating between the locality and the State and Federal.

I haven't provoked much interest on the part of the Department of the Interior, but I will keep at it. My bill may be inept and fumbling. That is because we are dealing with a very difficult and elusive area, but I think it is a situation that will come much more to the fore as it becomes necessary for the State and Federal to extend their controls for preservation and the like over more areas that are close in to settled communities.

So that, I would ask you please to take further note of this problem, and I think it is the one that will be the most difficult for us in the efforts to secure this legislation, which I greatly favor.

I submit that you do not have a mechanism and that we will need a mechanism to properly arbitrate the concerns of the localities and local people and local business in the takings and the reservations that develop out of this kind of legislation.

Mr. MORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Dow. I yield.

Mr. MORTON. I have to go. I don't mean to interrupt the train of thought for the record, but one question, I think, has not been asked.

Who in the Department of the Interior is going to manage these estuarine areas or represent the Department of the Interior in these agreements and how many new people are going to be required to carry out the purposes of this legislation?

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman will yield, I believe, under the rules. The number of new jobs and positions to be established is included in the report of the Department, is it not?

Mr. FINNEGAN. The rules state if it is over a million dollars, we have to list it. That is the statute, the 1956 statute, but the one thing we might comment on here is that the bill doesn't authorize us to acquire any lands in any designated areas. When we have to come back to Congress at a later date for that acquisition authority, we would then estimate the acquisition and manpower costs.

Right now the only management here is the management of the permit system and the study authority on which we have given an estimate as far as the study at $4.5 million. The permit system may cost about $4 million annually, but we would recover most of these costs through the establishment of reasonable fees and charges. Such a fee policy is consistent with the policy requirements of the act of August 31, 1951 (5 U.S.C. 140). The bill contemplates such charges, particularly when an application requires considerable research work to minimize damage to the estuary.

Mr. MORTON. I don't have the time, but if the gentleman will yield further, there are two things I really want to know.

Is this going to be a program of the Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Department, or is this going to be carried out by a new organization within the department?

What do you foresee as the management aspect of carrying out the purpose of this bill?

Dr. CAIN. If there were a national system as described in the bill as of now, we believe it could be managed, should be, by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. MORTON. And could the Fish and Wildlife Service manage it with approximately the same managerial people they have on board now?

Dr. CAIN. If new national units were to be authorized by Congress, they would require new personnel for management.

Mr. MORTON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Dow.
Mr. Dow. You are welcome.

That completes my questioning.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Roth, you have been most patient.

Mr. ROTH. I have no questions.

Mr. LENNON. Could I come back, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Secretary, I don't like to be provinicial, but I was interested in the situation as reflected in your table on North Carolina where out of 790,700 acres of basic habitat there have been lost only 8,000 acres, or a total of 1 percent.

Dr. CAIN. I guess the explanation of that, or one of the explanations, is the fact that the State of North Carolina has basic title to all the estuarine lands and have sold off only 1 percent.

Mr. LENNON. I am concerned about this. In three different bills that have come to the Congress in the last 7 years, they have included an island known as Smith's Island off the coast of southeastern North Carolina. The Department of the Interior has seen fit to include that in three bills as to the acquisition of the national seashore park.

It has been taken out by the North Carolina delegation three times. The third time the bill slipped through in the Senate and the third time we had to cut it out over here again.

In reading the summary, the Secretary would have to, after consulting with the Governor, or other appropriate agencies in the Federal Government, make a determination or enter into agreement that a certain area should be declared a national estuarine area; is that correct?

Dr. CAIN. Yes. If it's in State ownership now and they want to come into the national system, it would have to be by agreement of the State. I mean, the purpose of the State to come into the national system.

Mr. LENNON. That would have to be the agreement. Suppose at the State level there was an agreement with the Department of the Interior to declare this island off the coast of southeastern North Carolina as an estuarine area. Then you would come back to the Congress on an annual basis and recommend its acquisition by your department through an act of Congress?

Dr. CAIN. Not if it is already in State ownership.

Mr. LENNON. No; this is private ownership.

Dr. CAIN. Yes, then you are correct.

Mr. LENNON. Then who would determine as to what would be paid the owner of that property if he refused to sell?

Dr. CAIN. Well, if he refused to sell, it goes to condemnation. There are Federal appraisals or would be, but the court determines. Mr. LENNON. The court could ultimately determine it?

Dr. CAIN. Right.

Mr. LENNON. Actually what would happen in that specific instance is, if the State of North Carolina acquiesced in requiring this particular island and there are some estuarine areas in that island, then you would have to come back to Congress for legislation authorizing the taking of that property for this purpose, right?

Dr. CAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. It would have to be an act of Congress?
Mr. FINNEGAN. This is where it is non-State owned.

Mr. LENNON. Yes.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Non-State owned.

Mr. LENNON. Yes, privately owned.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Yes, we would have to get an authorization from Congress in that respect, a special authorization to acquire that area. The request for the authorization would be preceded by a thorough study which would probably include public hearings.

Mr. LENNON. But the private owners have this property, they could develop it any way they liked until such time as it was declared a national estuarine area?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That's right, sir.

Mr. LENNON. After that, of course, the question of the negotiations and the ultimate settlement are a decision of the courts with respect to the price tag.

Mr. FINNEGAN. That's right, sir.

Mr. LENNON. I will have to fight that battle over again. I see that will ultimately happen if this bill goes through. I say that because it is the tax base that is essential to the county on which this island is located and its potential for development because, as you gentlemen know, we have some excellent natural seashore parks in North Carolina and are developing more, but you still want this one and I know it and the county citizens don't want you to have it, because that is their ultimate hope for a sufficient tax base through its development for many, many public and civic purposes.

Mr. DINGELL. Counsel?

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be brief. Back to the cost of this legislation, are you in a position to estimate at this time the cost of the legislation to the Federal Government if this committee should favorably report the bill in its present form?

Dr. CAIN. The cost of the study has been estimated. We asked for a half million dollars the first year and $1 million for each of 4 subsequent years, for a total of $4.5 million.

That would include both phases of the national study, the inventory of estuaries of the entire coastline and the second phase, the study of those areas which have been identified as of national value.

Mr. EVERETT. With respect to development, maintenance, and acquisition costs, do you have any estimate at this time?

Dr. CAIN. We have none because each unit, if in the future there were to be national estuary units under Federal ownership and control proposed, would have to be proposed under separate acts of Congress for each unit.

At that time we would know the area. We would have appraisals of value. We would make estimates of development and management operation costs.

Mr. EVERETT. In last year's bill the acquisitions would be authorized to be obtained, with the approval of the President without having to come before the Congress. However in the hearing it was estimated, with respect to the Long Island development, that it would take around $1.8 million to acquire lands, $666,000 for further development of those lands and $85,000 per year for maintenance.

Dr. CAIN. That was a specially defined area. We knew what we were talking about there.

Mr. EVERETT. With respect to the chart you produced, it appears to be roughly 26 million acres throughout the United States that would be constituted as estuarine areas. Do you have any percentages as to whether they are publicly or privately owned?

Dr. CAIN. No, sir. I think the answer to that kind of question would have to wait until the national inventory has been made.

Mr. EVERETT. Right, sir. Looking at this chart, I notice you refer to using a 6-foot depth as the basis of an estuarine area. Is that a low-water or high-water mark?

Dr. CAIN. That would be from the high-water mark down.
I ought to clarify that, if I may.

77-724-67————6

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »