PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVE IN ORGANIZING RESOURCE ACTIVITIES Now, I do not think Frank Smith's description about scarring up the landscape and losing control of resources, or whatever his quote was, was quite accurate. I think that by careful and painstaking work and examination of this it might be possible. And I cite the fact that the President moved in this direction a little bit as a matter of fact, when I had my bill drafted, before I had the Department of Pollution Control, which was in HEW, as one that would go over to the Department of National Resources. Well, the President accomplished that by executive order, which was a movement in this direction, and it indicated to me that the executive department thought there ought to be some more orderly arrangement in the water field of resources. So, I have introduced the bill, and I am hopeful that now is the time that we can probably get this done, even though it has failed in previous efforts. NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COUNCIL Senator RIBICOFF. Now, Mr. Smith advocated a Natural Resources Advisory Council which would have the same role in the resources field as the Council of Economic Advisers now has in the economic field. If one of our major concerns is coordination and leadership, what would your reaction be to a National Resources Advisory Council to advise the President, the various departments and also the Congress? Senator Moss. Well, I think that would be a step forward, a step in the right direction, but I do not think it would be as effective or as efficient as bringing the functions into one department and pinning the responsibility down to a secretary and his staff to develop the plans and present the alternatives on resource conservation and development to the President and the Congress. I think one agency charged with that certainly would do it more. efficiently than having just an advisory council that would make a report to the President who, in turn, might then have to send some orders back to three or four of his subordinate departments, Government departments. Again, you have just fractured it up, it seems to me. Senator RIBICOFF. One final question, because I see the subcommittee is well attended, and I want to give everyone an opportunity to ask questions. Marion Clawson, of Resource for the Future, wrote in the July 1965, issue of American Forest, that the strongest argument against the Department of Natural Resources was the monopoly argument. This is what he says, and I quote: Since the users of federal land often have a personal stake in how those lands are managed, and since each federal agency necessarily has significant economic power when it carries out the legislation applicable to its land, the question arises: "Would a single federal land management agency have an undesirable degree of economic and political power? Is there some present gain in the fact that both the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service sell timber, and on somewhat different bases? Are there some advantages arising out of the fact that several federal agencies provide outdoor recreation?" What is your reaction to the questions raised by Mr. Clawson? CONFUSION IS LIABILITY OF COMPETING AGENCIES Senator Moss. Well, although I do not reject the idea that there is always some element of advantage perhaps in competition, I think it adds up really to more confusion than competition. We are talking here about the sovereign, managing, planning for the management of all the resources of the country. And to have competing agencies with different regulations simply adds to the confusion, I think, of the consumer on the other side. Now, it was mentioned in the quote you read that BLM and the Forest Service sell timber in a different manner under different regulations. Well, this is not only confusing, but perhaps if there is this element of competition, it might be to the extent of selling off the timber faster than regrowth will regenerate it. Now, that is one of our problems, to be able to plan for years ahead where we can get our consumption and production into balance so we will not be cutting our force to the point that 40 or 80 years, 20 years, someplace ahead we would be deficient in timber. And that can be done by a single department planning; whereas, if you have this competitive aspect, it may be overlooked until it is too late. Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Harris? Senator HARRIS. I do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Baker? Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask just one or two additional questions, and I am mindful of the fact that Senator Kennedy is anxious to testify, and I do not want to unduly prolong the hearings. But let me make a point or two at the outset, Senator Moss. I have no desire to be antagonistic or in opposition to this proposal. Senator Moss. I understand. Senator BAKER. I hope, though, that you will forgive me for pressing a little to make sure that what I conceive to be one of the boldest and most valid of regional approaches-the Tennessee Valley Authority is not seriously destructured or damaged by this concept. Senator Moss. I appreciate your questions. I think that is the only way we are ever going to be able to arrive at any consensus, if we do, on this bill, and that is by probing all these possible conflicts. MERITS OF REGIONAL APPROACH TO CONSERVATION Senator BAKER. Now, it occurs to me that there is obvious merit in broad coordination of the effort to conserve our natural resources, and that, by the same token, there is an equally valid and obvious desirability in coordinating the total resources development of a specific logical region, such as defined by the great river system in the Tennessee Valley. I think now of the conservation of water, navigation, flood control, forest development, agriculture, fertilizer, air pollution control, water pollution control, educational opportunity, and the promotion of cultural advantages, all as a part of an interlock of pieces for one area that may very well be entirely inappropriate to the development of another area of the United States. Now, would you agree with me, Senator Moss, that there must be some sort of regional totality in the effort to plan and conserve our natural resources? Senator Moss. Oh, I agree. As a matter of fact, we have a river basin planning act now where the Congress has said that each river basin should do its planning within the river basin, and this is a logical thing when you come to water and land. I would agree with you, Senator, that regions vary. Some of them have pecularities of one kind and some another, and they ought to be managed in accordance with whatever the physical and natural features are in a given area. Here, again, I would mesh the whole thing into what our national picture is. Senator BAKER. I would hope that this would lead you to agreement that a structure as unique and vital and effective as the Tennessee Valley Authority might be excluded from this proposal. Senator Moss. Well, no; I would not exclude it, although, as I indicated, I would not expect that its management would be greatly disturbed at all by this, but I would have it under the jurisdiction of this Natural Resources Department so far as resources of the valley are concerned, the Tennessee Valley, to fit into the overall plan. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, rather than belabor the point at length, I would like, if I may, Senator Moss, to have my staff go over the exact language as it might, if at all, amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 with your staff. Senator Moss. I would appreciate that very much. Senator BAKER. Thank you. Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. CHANGES IN HEARING SCHEDULE If there are no further questions, we appreciate your being here, and I hope, Senator Moss, that you would feel free to take your seat with the rest of us during the remainder of these hearings. I have postponed the Wednesday hearing because of a conflict with the Finance Committee, of which both Senator Harris and myself are members. I think that the nature of the testimony tomorrow requires our presence there. The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of the Budget will testify on Friday instead. I am sorry if this inconveniences anyone, but we will go ahead with our Thursday hearing as scheduled. Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I would hope that the chairman would permit the record to be open for some time after these hearings are concluded, because I think, out of questions such as have been raised by Senator Baker and others, that we may want to submit some additional statements in writing. Senator RIBICOFF. By all means. Senator Moss. And if that could be done, I would appreciate it. Senator RIBICOFF. It certainly will be. [From the Congressional Record, Aug. 30, 1967] PRESERVATION OF THE NATION'S ESTUARINE AREAS AND THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to protect and restore the Nation's estuarine areas. My proposal builds on the hearings held this session in the House of Representatives under the able leadership of Congressman JOHN DINGELL. They respond also to the views of the Interior Department which has carefully studied how the estuaries of our shores should be protected and which will administer any legislation in this field. I am also happy to acknowledge the initiative of the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], who earlier this session introduced similar legislation and the senior Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], who cosponsored the Kennedy bill and whose committee will consider these proposals. Estuaries form where rivers run into the sea. They create and attract vital biological, scientific, recreational, and economic resources. Cities are built near most estuaries, intensifying land use and the consequent pollution and destruction risks. My bill tries to take account of the unique nature of our estuaries and to find the proper balance between their protection and restoration and their use and development for the largest number of people. These sea and land complexes create rich marine resources. At least 65 percent of our Nation's commercial fish and shellfish resources inhabit the estuarine areas during all or part of their life cycles. Many of our valuable waterfowl use these areas as nesting and wintering sites. People use them too, for swimming, boating, bird watching, hiking, or for an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of natural resources along coastal areas. Scientists study and expand our knowledge of the wonderful variety of animal and plant life around the estuaries. It is not only the coastal States, like Connecticut, which will benefit from this proposal. For our seashores are a national trust for all to use and enjoy. Many of our priceless shore resources have already been lost. Others can be saved if we act soon, as this bill proposes. In my own State, nearly 50 percent of Connecticut's coastal marshes had been destroyed by 1965. At the existing rate of destruction, by the year 2000 there would be no tidal marshes left. The principal causes of this manmade destruction are careless filling, usually from dredging and waste disposal. Both of these hazards will be controlled under this legislation. This bill will help determine the state of our natural estuarine resources as a first step to preserving what is left. After this survey by the Secretary of the Interior, a more detailed study will see what can be done to preserve and enhance the important estuarine areas. It also empowers the Interior Secretary to acquire and develop national estuarine areas but only after separate authorization by Congress. He can also, without further authorization, develop national estuarine areas by cooperative agreements with local and State authorities, with whom he will share the cost of administration and development. Dredging, filling, and excavation in estuaries would be allowed only when these activities did not impair the natural resources or lower water quality unreasonably. Similarly, commercial, industrial, and other development within national estuarine areas would be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Interior under these criteria. These provisions would not prohibit or unreasonably restrict these activities. They would insure that an authority charged with the protection and development of natural resources reviewed such projects before they are undertaken. My legislation encourages States to protect their own estuarine resources and water quality by establishing or improving plans to regulate dredging and related activities, when the plans are approved by the Interior Department. In such States there would be no direct Federal control of these activities. Federal responsibility must be exercised, for presently most States do not have effective controls to protect their estuaries. The Interior Department estimates that only three or four States have effective plans now in operation. Dumping refuse of all kinds-except oil and sewage which are covered now by law-in our estuaries would be subject to regulation by the Interior Department or by States with adequate protection plans to guard these waters from further pollution. Finally, Mr. President, this bill requires the Interior Department and the Army Corps of Engineers to work together to authorize dredging, excavation, filling and other work along our shores, under the principles cited above, to eliminate duplication and to insure that a balance is maintained between legitimate conservation and development interests. The principles involved in this legislation are sound. They seek a more fruitful protection and development of our shore resources. By encouraging communities and States to consider their own estuarine resources and to cooperate in their protection and improvement, I believe we have found the proper balance between conservation and growth and between local initiative and Federal responsibility to insure that our natural resources are devoted to the greatest common good. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD at this print. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill will be printed in the RECORD. The bill (S. 2365) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the States, to protect, preserve, restore, develop and make accessible the Nation's estuarine areas and their natural resources, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. RIBICOFF, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: "S. 2365 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress finds and declares that the Nation's estuarine areas are endowed with a variety of natural resources of recreational, commercial, esthetic and scientific value to the present and future generations of Americans, and that any modification of these areas directly and indirectly affects their natural values; that many of these areas have been irreversibly altered or destroyed; and that it is the policy of Congress to protect, preserve, restore, develop and make these estuarine areas accessible for multiple compatible uses, which give priority to maximum benefits for the widest number of people and which can be continued without destruction, or undue alteration or diminution of their natural resources. "SEC. 2. For the purposes of this Act "(a) The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior; "(b) The term 'person' means any individual, partnership, corporation, associ ation, or political subdivision of a State; "(c) The term 'estuary' or 'estuaries' means part or all of the tidal portion of the navigable waters in the United States up to the mean high water line, including, but not limited to, any bay, sound, lagoon, or channel, and the lands underlying all such waters; "(d) The term 'national estaurine area' means an environmental system composed of an estuary or estuaries and adjacent lands which together is determined by the Secretary to constitute a manageable unit and which has national significance; and "(e) The term 'national resources' includes, but is not limited to, sport and commercial fishes and other aquatic life, wildlife, esthetic, and recreational values. "SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary, in consultation and in cooperation with the States and other Federal agencies, shall conduct directly or by contract, an inventory of the Nation's estuaries that are (1) unspoiled or undisturbed by the technological advances of man, including, but not limited to, pollutants, and (2) partially spoiled or disturbed by such advances but which should be protected from further adverse effects. For the purpose of this inventory, the Secretary shall consider, among other matters, the resource value of these areas, including, but not limited to, the economic and recreational potential, their ecology, their value for navigation, flood, hurricane, and erosion control, the effects of exploration for subsurface minerals, their value to the marine, anadromous, and shell fisheries, the present and future urban and industrial effects upon such areas, their esthetic value, and the most effective means for preserving these areas and for orderly development within them, if he determines such development consistent with the goals listed in the first section of this Act. The Secretary shall also take cognizance of the results of the study authorized by section 5 (g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the nationwide recreation plan, plans developed pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act and river basin planning, statewide outdoor recreation plans prepared pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, and other applicable studies. "(b) The Secretary shall give particular attention to whether any estuary |