mately there will have to be some permanent scheme of control. Do you believe that an interstate compact should be sought by the respective States as a proper way to effectuate the most solitary kind of control? Mr. WALLACE. Senator, as I visualize this, if we could make this study immediately, we have the evolving legislation on the management of the coastal zone which provides for the joining together of States on a regional basis to deal with these management problems. It seems to me if we could get the studies going now under the existing vehicle, that would then be followed naturally by a regional compact between New York and Connecticut to do this management job. Senator JAVITS. Thank you. Senator RIBICOFF. This is important because I see many conservationists in this room, time after time both in New London and Norwalk, different witnesses would raise the issue, have a moratorium, stop the people along the sound from doing certain acts, certain developments; well, may I say this, I cannot conceive the Congress of the United States ever taking away from local communities or the State the right to manage its own property, and as I told the people of Connecticut and as Senator Javits makes a point here too, that basically the question of enforcement, the question of various permits, the question of land utilization is basically within the jurisdiction of the towns, the counties, and the State on lands that they control within their municipality or State jurisdiction, and this is something that the States are going to do. Both Senator Javits and myself, from my experience with him in the Senate, while we are interested in the Federal Government taking care of problems within its jurisdiction, we do not feel that we have a right to infringe upon the authority of the States or municipalities, so I think the point that Senator Javits makes is a very sound one, while a study can be made under Federal auspicies or the New England River Basin Commission. Second, what you do within the towns and the State is going to have to be controlled, I believe, by a compact between Connecticut and New York. Mr. WALLACE. And I think a vehicle is evolving in the Federal Government right now through the coastal legislation also, which is apparently under consideration in the Senate and House. Senator RIBICOFF. Congressman Wolff. Representative WOLFF. Thank you very much. Mr. Wallace, your reputation as a conservationist is well known. How long have you been in your present position as director of the Marine and Coastal Resources in New York State? Mr. WALLACE. I have been employed by the State of New York for 8 years. Representative WOLFF. In the 8-year period according to Senator Javits, the only thing that stood in the way of State activity has been the Corps of Engineers in the way of navigation requirements; is that correct? Mr. WALLACE. Yes, as far as the State exercising its jurisdiction, that's correct. Representative WOLFF. Are you familiar with the study that was made by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Department of Interior, recently, on clean water? 51-566-70-pt. 3- -2 Mr. WALLACE. Yes; I am. Representative WOLFF. What do you consider a coliform of 27,000 to indicate to you? Mr. WALLACE. The water is contaminated. Representative WOLFF. 18,000? COLIFORM COUNT Representative WOLFF. Obviously this is a coliform count taken of the area surrounding New York City. Now, you have said that the Sanitation Commission set up for New York City has the responsibility for controlling the activities of the city and the waters in the New York City area, which is not under the jurisdiction currently of the enlarged New England compact; is that correct? Mr. WALLACE. Yes. Representative WOLFF. Do you thing that control has been exercised, sir? Mr. WALLACE. I think that the Interstate Sanitary Commission certainly has been working aggressively to try to come to grips with this problem. Representative WOLFF. They still have water that is highly contaminated; have they done their job? Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Wolff, I think that the city of New York alone has been expanding $100 million a year. Representative WOLFF. I don't care what they're expanding, have they done the job? Mr. WALLACE. No; I think it's impossible at this point with that kind of funds to do the job; it's going to mean a massive injection of money from all levels of government to bring the kind of system that we have to have around New York City. Representative WOLFF. What about 12,000 coliform count? I'm talking now about the areas of Bridgeport and New Haventhat's not New York City. That's part of the New England compact today? Mr. WALLACE. I'm not denying that there isn't pollution. I think I said this right in the beginning. PROTECTING THE SOUND Representative WOLFF. It's quite obvious then what you said before that the States have not, and with the New England compact, have not done the job of protecting the sound? Mr. WALLACE. Well, I'm not saying that the job has been completely done. In fact, I think I said very clearly that we agreed that a study is needed right now to evaluate completely this picture and lay out the kind of program that will accomplish the goals which I believe all of us believe are necessary. Representative WOLFF. What about the question about the nuclear powerplants, when you say a plan has been set up to see to it that each is licensed; how many plants do you have in mind that the power companies are going to put up on the sound area at the present time, do you have any idea? Mr. WALLACE. At the moment I can't give you a final number, but I think it's perfectly apparent that power companies are looking toward Long Island Sound for siting of powerplants and use of cooling water to cool the system. Representative WOLFF. Do you have any study that has been made thus far of the cumulative effects of the plants that have been planned? Mr. WALLACE. Yes; there are some studies that are underway at the present time, part of which are being done by the State University of New York, the Marine Science Center at Stony Brook, and they have a comprehensive plan to study the entire sound in relation to siting of powerplants. NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS Representative WOLFF. This is the plan siting for 12 nuclear plants on Long Island Sound, both on the Connecticut side and the New York side, both north and south shores of the sound, and there are a number of people who are concerned about the question of the thermal effects, because obviously the Atomic Energy Commission is not going to take jurisdiction in this area, and these plants, by the way, have been planned for some time, and the Shoreham plant is now in the prospect. How long will it be before the studies that you say are going on, will be completed? Mr. WALLACE. I would say that the total studies of the sound for this whole thing would be probably about 3 years. Representative WOLFF. Would you suggest then that we permit the erection of a powerplant on Long Island Sound without knowing the cumulative effect on all of the other plants that are planned? SHOREHAM PLANT Mr. WALLACE. I think that the plant at Shoreham, for example, which is currently under consideration and up before the AEC is being very carefully evaluated by the State of New York right now. Representative WOLFF. That's not my question, sir; I said do you think that we should permit the erection of the Shoreham plant prior to the time that your complete studies are made of the sound? Mr. WALLACE. I believe that we can't say that we're not going to have any further power development. Representative WOLFF. My question, sir, is directed to you as a conservationist, a man who has goodly experience in this field. Do you think we should permit the erection of the Shoreham plant until your studies you say will take 3 years to complete have been conducted? Mr. WALLACE. I think that if the local studies indicate that the Shoreham plant will have a minimal or no impact on the ecology, there is no reason why it shouldn't be permitted to be built. Representative WOLFF. Thank you. BOAT POLLUTION Representative WEICKER. Just one question, I commend the State of New York on its measures of boat pollution. On the other hand, don't you think that the only enforcement that's going to mean anything is going to have to be at the point of manufacture? In other words, that the enforcement of pollution from boats is a very difficult task, at best, requiring quite a bit in the expenditure of money and personnel if you're going to be effective in this area, some sort of Federal legislation attacking the problem at the point of manufacturing? Mr. WALLACE. I would hope there would be legislation on a Federal level that would require this kind of control for boats everywhere. We have a problem here in New York right now, because while this legislation is effective, we have boats from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey all coming into our waters, none of whom are required Representative WOLFF. If the gentleman would yield, we have a bill in the House, it just so happens it's my bill which I would like your support on Representative WEICKER. You've got it. Senator RIBICOFF. Can't you inspect boats that come in, even if they are not New York boats, if they violate New York law? Mr. WALLACE. Yes. Senator RIBICOFF. Do you register boats in the State of New York? Mr. WALLACE. Yes, we do, sir. ENFORCEMENT Senator RIBICOFF. It shouldn't seem very hard to enforce this. In 1955, I put into effect in the State of Connecticut that anyone convicted of speed or reckless driving would lose his license. If you spot check the marinas on Long Island and New York, those who violate the law would have their license and registration suspended, you would find very fast compliance; you wouldn't have to have a big corps of inspectors. Mr. WALLACE. Senator, I agree with you, and I think the law can be enforced and I think it will. The State of New York will enforce it. Senator RIBICOFF. After all, you will have to give people an opportunity and time to install these devices and I think through the registration process you will find fast compliance if you get tough on it. Mr. WALLACE. We will get tough. Mrs. SNOW. May I point out, the unloading stations, there are places refusing to put in the unloading stations; what's the good of having a chemical if there is no place to dump; people are refusing to install them. Senator RIBICOFF. For the purpose of the record; would you please identify yourself? Mrs. SNOW. I am Mrs. Snow of the Oyster Bay Guardian; excuse me for interrupting. Senator RIBICOFF. Do you want to comment? Mr. WALLACE. The unloading stations are inadequate at the present time. It's like any problem of this kind, a new law. Supplying all of the needs quickly is not simple. We do need unloading stations. ANOTHER TYPE OF POLLUTION—HOT AIR Senator RIBICOFF. This just goes to show the comments here by the lady and yourself, most of the action on the environment has given us another type of pollution and that's a lot of hot air, until we really mean it and somebody is going to pay with inconvenience and with money and with action, that until the public and governmental authorities are ready to get tough and do something about it and pay the bill, our environment is going to continue its downward course and we are not going to save the environemnt, and I think it is more than a public relations job, it's really a tough enforcement job making a lot of people unhappy, and it's going to have to hit the pocketbook and the inconvenience of people, and until you are ready to take that action nothing is going to be achieved in America. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. Mr. John DeNoyer and Mr. Ruggles, please. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. DeNOYER, DIRECTOR, EARTH OBSERVATIONS PROGRAMS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY FRED RUGGLES, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Mr. DENOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am John M. DeNoyer, director of earth observation programs in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Washington, and this is Mr. Fred Ruggles. (See exhibit 23, p. 405.) Senator RIBICOFF. You want to show us some slides? SEDIMENT MOVEMENT 1 Mr. RUGGLES. Yes. Be reminded that most of these slides were taken from 15,000 feet and that you might have difficulty seeing some of the data that I would like to show in them. We are trying to evaluate whether we can use remote sensing techniques to evaluate sediment movement. This particular study had nothing to do with pollution; we are trying to evaluate and learn how to calculate and predict the movement of sediment and water into the sound and in and out of estuaries. For those of you who can see; slide No. 1 is of Fairfield County, and shows groynes. You can very easily pick up the sediment deposition being accomplished right now along this particular shoreline. Other things that show up are some of the sandbars that come out in this area. The physical description of many of these sandbars are very easy to understand through the use of remote sensing and in that way help to describe sediment deposition mathematically. GROYNE DEVELOPMENT Slide No. 2 is in the Bridgeport area. I think you can see the groyne development and the sandbars behind them. In this area the sand is washed out. In slide No. 3 there is a rather large sandbar showing in this area, and again down here at this point you can see the same type of thing. This one is near the Milford area. You can also see the groyne development, and some of the sand development in and around the island. Some of the area is clear, indicating the non-build-up of sediment. 1 The slides are not printed here but they are available in subcommittee files. |