COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m. in room 1334, Longworth Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chairman) presiding. Mr. LENNON. The subcommittee will resume its hearings for the further consideration of H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493, and H.R. 9229, which the members of the subcommittee, who are here this morning, are familiar with. We are indeed very honored today to have the Honorable James Carter, affectionately known to the people of the State of Georgia as Jimmy Carter. And I saw a few minutes ago his friend and colleague, Congressman Jack Brinkley. I am sorry he had to leave. We have other very distinguished witnesses this morning that we will certainly be delighted to hear from. Governor, we apologize for the delay in your appearance. We understand the necessity for you to be over on the Senate side at another hearing where you are scheduled to testify at 11 o'clock today. Now, do you have a prepared statement, Governor? I assume that you do. STATEMENT OF HON. JIMMY CARTER, GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA Governor CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I do have a prepared statement. Mr. LENNON. Do you wish to follow the statement or wish to testify off the cuff and then make that part of your formal statement which will be placed in the record following your comments? Governor CARTER. I think it would be better to present the prepared statement and let me proceed on my own with additional comments. Mr. LENNON. All right. Governor CARTER. First of all, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the chairman of the committee for permitting me to testify on a piece of legislation that will ultimately be of tremendous importance to my own State. We have been blessed by God with a great marshland area, which is basically unspoiled, but which is now in tremendous threat of being spoiled. Georgia has about 80,000 acres of salt water marsh, which is one of the major attractions of our State and the Southeast. I have read House Resolutions 2492 and 2493, and only this morning the newer legislation, 9229, which includes and designates some additional areas. I have submitted to all a brief written statement, and I would like now to comment in addition to specific provisions of House Resolution 2493 as they relate to my own State. In the definition of coastal and estuarine zones, this is a very fine definition except for one omission which is of concern to me. I think this is defined in section 304(b). We have in Georgia, which is a coastal plain region, a very fine fresh water aquifier which is under threat because there is an uncontrolled use of fresh water from the subterranean regions which has created, on several occasions, the incursion of salt water into the fresh water area. I would like to suggest in this definition there also be included a provision of the water beneath the land. This would help us in our plans for the zone to control to some degree the use of the underground fresh water supplies. Mr. MOSHIER. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? I do not think the members understood the phrase that you just used. Governor CARTER. I said aquifer, fresh water aquifer. This is the supply of water that flows under the ground which we extract through wells. Mr. KEITH. The old English gap escapes some of us from New England. Governor CARTER. It is like an underwater lake. This is the only supply of fresh water which we have in the coastal plains region. Above the fall line we have a supply from impounded lakes which are relatively pure. It takes this water about 50 years to move from the fall line underneath the ground eventually out to sea, and it reaches the sea well beneath the surface. In the past, in the coastal plains region we have had a flowing spring and wells. If you drilled a well there would be enough pressure to have the water spout from the surface, but this has been sadly depleted, and the water level is dropping because of unwarranted use of the fresh water supply. My only request is that in our overall planning there be included not just land above the water, but also the water beneath the land because this is closely related with the salt water from the sea. If we overdeplete the fresh water supply and the sea water does move under the land and contaminate the fresh water throughout the coastal area, it is serious. Under the Department of Commerce we have the Coastal Plains Development Commission, and I particularly like the idea under section 306 (d) that interstate agency portion which permits us to cooperate with South Carolina and North Carolina in the development of an overall plan for the coastal plains region. The seacoast is very similar in all three States, and our problems are mutual. In the portion which prescribes requirements for a State agency, we now have a marshland protection agency established in Georgia already, and I would like to encourage the committee not to make these original restrictions listed under this section 1 through 5, section (g) completely restrictive for the first year or so. Our own marshland protection agency, I have asked them to see if it complies, but if it does not in some minor point on which the Georgia law is not compatible with this legislation, we would like to have the freedom to proceed in good faith under the provisions of this act. Under section 313 throughout the Nation now in the development of the marshland areas, in the construction of interstate highways and other projects, the States are afflicted with the uncertainty of final Federal agency approval under the environmental impact studies. A head of a department, like Secretary Volpe, will make a so-called final decision on the approval of a particular portion of, say, coastal Interstate Highway 95. the Following that, he submits his impact study to a series of Federal agencies and in one instance we have waited 3 or 4 years before we have gotten a final approval or disapproval for a particular stretch of the interstate highway. We are setting up in Georgia this year one committee or council, which will consist of the State agencies responsible for the protection of the environment, and they are the game and fish commission, parks, water pollution, watershed protection agency, and asking them to prepare an environmental impact study, as a group. If one particular agency disagrees, they are permitted to file a minority report, but the overall council analysis of the impact on environment, plus a minority report, if any, are a final expression of the State's approval or disapproval of a particular project which might have an impact on the environment. We would certainly appreciate, from the State level, seeing the Federal agency do the same so there is some finality about the approval for a project to proceed, which would potentially have an impact on the environment. Ten days ago I was involved in a very serious incident which will illustrate the need for this legislation. At about 11 o'clock at night, Saturday before last, I was informed by people in the Brunswick, Ga.. area that the Corps of Engineers was dredging a small creek called Terry Creek, and were depositing on the marshland quantities of very low quality spoil. No State agency whatever had been notified about this project, and finally, about 3 o'clock, after investigating the Georgia law, I called the colonel who was the Corps of Engineers director and asked him to cease the dredging operation. There was contemplated a complete destruction of 150 acres of marshland almost within the city limits of Brunswick, Ga. They did cease the dredging operation. The deposit on the marshland was found to consist of about 10 thousand parts per million of toxic material from one of the industries upstream. We had a meeting at the mansion last Sunday afternoon of the Corps of Engineers and the State agencies involved, councilmen from the city, and others. The Corps of Engineers insisted that they did not have any legal constraint on their continued dredging operation because they were operating under a 1938 law passed by Congress, which permitted the maintenance of channels in this particular creek. No dredging operation had been carried out there since 1946. The dredging continued down the intercoastal waterway, dredging and depositing spoil on the marshland areas. At my own insistence, the colonel worked with the State agency heads to identify spoil areas, which would minimize the impact on the marshland. This relationship between the State and Federal Government needs to be clarified because the old laws dating back to the 1930's, which permitted clearing of channels, with no consideration being given to the ecological impact, are, in my opinion, obsolete, to say the least. The Georgia State Legislature maintains that the marshlands are the property of the State, the title rests in the State, and that no one has a right to destroy the marshlands without prior permission of the State agencies. I particularly like the section which would clarify this point, section 313(a) (3) to prevent further destruction of the marshland without prior notice to the State agencies. That is one thing that concerns me about this, however. In section (d) it says that, the No. 1, nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish either Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources and navigable waters. There is no phrase correcting this continued authorization by the provisions of this act. In section 2 it says "to change or otherwise affect the authority or responsibility of any Federal official in the discharge of the duties of his office" and adding the phrase, "except as required, to carry out the provisions of this title." I would certainly see this legislation in order to correct an altercation that has developed with the Corps of Engineers, contain a similar phrase so that the provisions of this act would indeed diminish the previous jurisdiction of the Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, over unrestrained use of the marshlands of Georgia. In item 3 under that section there is the same phrase. That concludes my remarks about the bill itself. I have three or four more that concern me. There will be a necessity in the future, a continuing necessity to maintain the intercoastal waterways and to maintain the quality of the interstate highways and others being constructed now in the marshland areas. Georgia is doing all we can to minimize the impact of Interstate 95, specifically, which goes down the marshland area; but in the future the Corps of Engineers needs some direction as do the State agencies to identify legitimate spoil areas for continued maintenance of the intercoastal waterways. This will be a major problem for us, and is one of the prime examples of a problem which this particular legislation can and ought to solve. We also need to have some consideration given to the restoration of marshlands previously destroyed by causeways and other construction projects financed by the State or Federal Government when marshland waterways have been completely blocked out with culverts or bridge construction. There is another point that I would like to point out concerning House Resolution 9229. I notice that there is a title 4, which has been added, including marine sanctuaries. We would just like to be sure that the designation of particular areas in the open sea does not insinuate that all other ocean areas have no ocean dumping restrictions on them. I am afraid that the public would get the idea that if we identify particular areas as marine sanctuaries, this would mean that ocean dumping is permitted in the areas not designated. I particularly like House Resolution 9229, an outgrowth of House Resolution 2493, and prefer it decidedly to the House Resolution 2492 legislation. This would conclude my presentation to you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much, Governor. And inasmuch as you have to leave very shortly, I will take the liberty to try to get on the record your answer to one or two questions. Did you not hear yesterday the testimony of the mayor from Savannah? Have you had an opportunity to read his statement since his appearance here yesterday? Governor CARTER. I have read excerpts from it. Mr. LENNON. Do you have a copy of his statement? Mr. LENNON. I would appreciate it if Mr. McElroy would furnish the Governor a copy of the statement of the mayor from yesterday. He insisted, Governor, that the State of Georgia denied a permit to the Kerr-McGee Corp. which would allow dumping of spoils into the marshlands. It was only the agitation and protest at the local community level that Georgia adopted in 1970 the Coastal Marshland Protection Act, which they now operate under. He said if it had been left to the State it would never have happened, that it was only the protest of the people at the local level which resulted in the statewide legislation. That is one point he made. He made it a point that he did not feel that the Governors would sufficiently have a dialog with the coastal metropolitan officials and the county officials of the coastal areas. I think we straightened it out before he left, that he can expect their cooperation. We read the definitive language which provides for that. It was made crystal clear here yesterday that you could not separate the coastal zone management program from the marine sanctuary. Let me assure you that you cannot do that. Have you read, or are you familiar with the legislation that is being considered jointly by the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife and Oceanography, known as the ocean dumping bill? Governor CARTER. Yes, sir; I am familiar with that. Mr. LENNON. You will recall in that language that definitive protection is provided through EPA with respect to the dumping of spoils from dredging of any type. It also provides that EPA can say where areas cannot be used for dumping. The Corps of Engineers must clear this with EPA before they make this decision. |