Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., April 21, 1971. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1971, requesting the views of the Department of State on HR 3662, a bill to amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in order to protect the marine environment by regulating the dumping of wastes in the coastal and ocean waters of the United States. The Department of State is in agreement with the need to protect the marine environment by regulating dumping. However, we wish to point out two problems of international law raised by the present language in HR 3662. Section 5B (a) provides that "no person may dump waste material into the ocean waters of the United States or transport such material through such waters unless he has first obtained a permit from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency authorizing such dumping" (emphasis added). The Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, to which the United States is a party, provides the right of innocent passage through territorial waters for all vessels. Article 14 (4) of that Convention states that passage is innocent so long as it does not prejudice the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. This provision places on the United States an international legal obligation not to restrict, prevent or regulate passage through its territorial waters except on the above grounds. The simple transport of waste material through United States territorial waters would not be considered prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the United States. Of course, the United States does have jurisdiction to control the transport from its territory of materials to be ocean dumped. Therefore, the Department of State recommends that the phrase on lines seven and eight of Section 5B (a) “transport such material through such waters" be deleted. In addition, Article 24 (1) of the Convention provides that a coastal State may, in a zone of high seas contiguous to its territorial sea, prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea. The United States may, therefore, restrict dumping in the contiguous zone which would contravene the sanitary regulations of its territorial sea or territory. However, the high seas beyond the 12-mile limit of the contiguous zone are entirely beyond United States jurisdiction. The Department of State strongly favors enactment of comprehensive legislation to regulate ocean dumping. It is quite clear that indiscriminate ocean dumping of waste products from the United States in the territorial waters and contiguous zone and on the high seas is a matter of great international concern. In order to regulate such activities the Department of State favors the adoption of HR 4247, the Marine Protection Act of 1971, which is before your committee for consideration. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DAVID M. ABSHIRE, Congressional Relations. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., April 7, 1971. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to respond to your letter of February 11, 1971 on H.R. 549, and your letter of February 25, 1971 on H.R. 337 and H.R. 4217, bills concerning the discharging of material into any of the navigable waters of the United States. The proposed bills would regulate discharges in international waters by any person of certain materials. There is no basis in international law for an exercise of jurisdiction over the conduct of foreign nationals on the high seas. We would propose that this problem be dealt with in the context of a comprehensive regulatory scheme such as that proposed in H.R. 4247, the Administration's pro posed "Marine Protection Act of 1971." That proposal would meet the essential objectives of the subject bills by prohibiting the transport from the United States by any person of material to be dumped in the ocean without a permit. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of these reports. Sincerely yours, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DAVID M. ABSHIRE, Congressional Relations. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., April 21, 1971. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1971 requesting the Department of State to comment on H.R. 1383, a bill to amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to provide additional protection to marine and wildlife ecology by providing for the orderly regulation of dumping in the coastal waters of the United States. The Department of State shares the concern regarding the protection of the marine environment to which H.R. 1383 is directed and has no objection to its enactment from a foreign policy viewpoint. However, the Department would prefer a more comprehensive proposal to regulate the dumping of materials in the oceans as contained in the Marine Protection Act of 1971 (H.R. 4247 or H.R. 4723). The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DAVID M. ABSHIRE, Congressional Relations. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., April 7, 1971. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of February 26, 1971, enclosing for the Department's comments copies of H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723, bills cited as the "Marine Protection Act of 1971". The Department's views on this legislation, which we fully support, are set forth in the prepared statement delivered to your Committee in advance of the hearings today at which the Department's Legal Adviser, John R. Stevenson, is testifying on this general subject. The Department recommends favorable action on this legislation which the Office of Management and Budget advises is in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, (The position paper referred to follows:) DAVID M. ABSHIRE, ANNEX I.-POSITION PAPER ON OCEAN PROTECTION THE NEED The oceans, the common heritage of mankind and essential to his survival, have always been regarded as too vast and productive to be damaged by man. But today we know that existing threats to the health and productivity of the oceans are both real and grave. We can no longer afford the myth that the oceans are an unlimited cornucopia for exploitation by mankind. Man poses two direct threats: overexploitation and pollution. Through overfishing some species, such as the Blue Whale, the largest animal ever to exist on the Earth, have been virtually exterminated. Pollution in the form of oil spills, pesticides, radioactive material and other toxic substances, is increasing rapidly. Man's impact on the marine environment also occurs through the simplification of a complex ecosystem through arbitrary selection in species and fish population. The elimination of competing predators to increase production from a fishery or the elimination of an anadromous fish environment in order to extend irrigation agriculture, can be guaranteed to produce adverse environmental consequences. Existing institutions have not yet been able to prevent pollution or overfishing. A few efforts, now under way, show some small signs of success in handling parts of the problem but new and innovative efforts are urgently required. The urgency stems from the fact that the time scale within which we must respond may be measured in years, not decades. Additionally, the growing pressures upon the resources of the sea will make the solution of these problems even more difficult. Oceans, atmosphere and land are interdependent: a disturbance in one is quickly reflected in the others. A particularly critical area is the coastal zone, where the land meets the sea-and much of the seafood used by man depends directly or indirectly upon this zone. Exploitation and pollution in the estuaries and continental shelf area thus pose significant threats to the health of a great portion of the world fishery. A decline in the productivity of the oceans, combined with rising population levels, would cause serious problems for any nation. To the underdeveloped countries, this represents imminent disaster. In the past the developed countries, owing to their advanced technology, have taken the greater share of marine resources without proper measures to induce rational utilization. If this trend continues the developing nations will never receive their equal share of this finite resource. The present catch from the world's oceans might, under ideal conditions be increased by a factor of 50% to 200%. Increasing pollution of the oceans however must and will decrease their productivity, and the nevitable losses will be suffered by those who can least afford them. Some believe, almost as an article of faith, that when the problems of the oceans become sufficiently acute, technology will somehow produce a miraculous cure. The history of the deteriorating aquatic environment does not support this faith. Until better evidence is available that irreversible changes are not taking place. reason demands that we proceed more carefully, with greater concern for the health of the seas. Mankind cannot assume the risk of precipitating irreversible changes. THE POTENTIAL THREAT Without positive protection of the oceans, we can anticipate with varying degrees of certainty and severity: Diminution or destruction of coastal and oceanic fishery resources through physical, chemical and/or biological disturbances in the ecosystem. Inadvertent modification of weather and climate, inadequately monitored by existing or planned weather systems, in time producing major adverse changes in ecosystems. Disturbance of the diversity, stability and productivity of the oceans. THE PROPOSALS 1. We recognize the need for the conservation and rational use of the ocean environment consonant with the foregoing discussion, organized to assure the protection and rational use of the oceans for the benefit of all nations, particularly the undeveloped nations. 2. To work toward this goal, we urge governments jointly to strengthen existing international organizations concerned with the ocean-atmosphere environment and we stress the value and importance of non-governmental public service groups to support this concern. 3. We recognize the need for the development of an international network of monitoring stations for the ocean-atmosphere environment coupled with adequate facilities for data collection and distribution to nations and organizations desiring them. 4. We further recommend that the following functions be considered as integral to the establishment of any organization purporting to act for the protection of the ocean-atmosphere environment: (a) long-range forecasting and evaluation of data, including (where appropriate) simulation studies. (b) continuing surveillance of potential long and short-range problems, specifically incorporating means for providing public information and recommendations for action. 5. We express the strong hope that preparations for the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment will lead to carefully prepared international conventions covering the primary threats to the ocean ecosystems (see attached Appendix). 6. We propose that an interdisciplinary interim committee be established to refine and develop recommendations 1-3 above, including the preparation of progress reports to the participants in this convocation. 7. Finally, we express gratitude to the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, with particular reference to the work of Mrs. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, for its leadership in preparing for and conducting the present convocation and we hope that its work on behalf of an effective Ocean Regime will continue undiminished. APPENDIX 1. Effective international regulations are necessary to prevent irreversible changes in the ocean environment. Areas in which such regulation may be appropriate include: (a) Prohibition of emission of oil into the oceans. (b) Prohibition or reduction of the manufacture and use of persistent environmental poisons, such as certain pesticides, and heavy-metal compounds. (c) Rules for the transportation of toxic substances harmful to the environment. (d) Rules for the storage and final disposal of environmental poisons and radioactive materials. (e) Rules to prevent overfishing of certain stocks. 2. There is a need for education and training in both developed and especially underdeveloped and developing countries with respect to the ecological requirements of international planning and development. We recommend the setting up of training centers and the publishing of supporting information to this end, as well as the dissemination of relevant information produced by existing organizations and those organizations established pursuant to the Malta recommendations of July 1970. 3. We realize that an increase in the number of organizations working on behalf of the world's oceans adds to the difficulty of coordinating the work of the new with that of the old, and also adds to the probability of duplication. However, we also believe that the increase in organizational complexity is a concomitant of expanding population and technology. Moreover, accelerating threats to the ocean ecosystems and the need for innovative and rapid corrective action require adding to the diversity and consequent strength of the forces available to mankind to protect the global environment. Mr. LENNON. Our first witness is a very distinguished and able member of our full committee, the Honorable John M. Murphy. Let me see if the distinguished member from Florida, Mr. Fascell, is here. I don't know whether Congressman Whitehurst, Congressman Pepper, and the chairman of the full committee are here or not, but we will, gentleman, with your permission, hear the several Members of Congress in the order that I have called them and with your permission we will defer questioning of the Members of Congress until they have finished, if there is no objection to that, because we have to be ready at 11 o'clock to hear Chairman Train. Now, if you gentlemen have something that you would like to have go on the record, you can appeal to the Chair to rescind that decision I have just made. We welcome you, Mr. Murphy. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I last testified before this committee, the administration has conducted a massive study of ocean dumping. In October of 1970, the Council on Environmental Quality issued a complex report of its findings and recommendations. I find myself in almost complete agree. ment with them, at least as far as they go. This is not unusual as they follow the precepts that I outlined in the bill I introduced 1 year ago and in my testimony before the committee on July 27, 1970. In the meantime, nothing much has been done by the administration in the way of substantive action, and an additional 620 billion gallons of garbage have been dumped into New York Harbor. During that year, another 16,400 billion gallons of industrial waste were poured into our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters; 7,300 billion gallons of waste water were pumped into our sewers. Lake Erie, one of our many "dead seas," received its annual 3 million tons of pollutants. Almost 40 million tons of dredge spoils were dumped on our coastal waters, 14 million tons of which were polluted. Five million tons of industrial wastes polluted our seas. Four and a half million tons of sewage sludge were dumped at sea, 4 million tons off New York Harbor alone. I will agree with the conclusion of the report that "the volume of wastes dumped in the ocean is increasing rapidly, that many are harmful or toxic to marine life, hazardous to human health, and esthetically unattractive." However, I cannot and will not accept the conclusion of the report that the volume of ocean-dumped wastes will "increase greatly" in the future. We cannot let this happen. This committee has the power to stop it. The solution, however, will not be found by creating more pollution farther out to sea; the solution will come from our scientists and other ecology experts who must be given a firm mandate to find new answers to the disposal of our cosmic trash problem. Otherwise, we are all going to end up, those of us left alive, living on one gigantic garbage pile. The issues are clear and simple. We are throwing too much of society's excrement into our water and it is coming back to haunt us. If I cannot appeal to you on esthetic or ecological grounds let me do it on a gastronomical level. Your very lives may depend on it. How many would enjoy a lobster salad at lunch knowing that shellfish have been found containing hepatitis virus? How many would |