Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

WATER POLLUTION

This is such an obvious issue and has been well known for so long that its details need not be belabored here. Current efforts to deal with water pollution must be pressed, which will require more Federal funding than has been available in the past.

Our studies indicate that an adequate sewerage system to serve this region by 1980 will cost, in 1969 dollars, the staggering total of $204 million. Only one-third of this total will qualify under existing State and Federal sewer-construction grant programs. There seems to us to be a serious need for broadening of the sewer system elements eligible for Federal funding and increasing the total dollars available.

Two other water pollution issues are of particular concern to this region. The first is discharges of sewage from naval vessels moored in New London Harbor and the Thames River. Continuation of this practice makes exhortations from the Federal level to clean up our waters ring a bit hollow.

Our second concern is the extent to which the margin of Long Island Sound can absorb thermal waste from generating plants without major ecological destruction. This region now has one nuclear generating plant located at Millstone Point in Waterford, and a second unit at this site is planned in the near future. There will, I am sure, be other such installations proposed at many other points along the sound in the years ahead.

We clearly need more information on the localized effects of these facilities on the ecology and on the collective effect of increased numbers of thermal discharges on Long Island Sound as a whole.

ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

Approximately 75 percent of southeastern Connecticut's employment, or about 40,000 civilian workers and 14,000 military personnel, is directly or indirectly dependent on defense expenditures, chiefly for submarine construction, overhaul, and operation. Several studies in the past 6 years have documented the long-term gravity of this excessive defense concentration.

For instance, the National Planning Association, in a study published in 1965, calculated that even with an extensive reemployment program, southeastern Connecticut's employment would drop by about 25 percent under arms control programs that affected strategic weapons. Clearly, the region must explore alternative means of diversifying its economic base.

Any efforts to substantially broaden this region's economic base are likely to have some impact on Long Island Sound. The public has made it clear that while they recognize the need for economic diversification, they do not want it at the sacrifice of our natural environ

ment.

In view of this, identification of the natural resource sensitivity of Long Island Sound is of critical importance. Equally important is the identification of how the sound can be used as a resource to assist in economic diversification. For example, does direct access to the sound offer the opportunity for creating a major oceanographic center in southeastern Connecticut?

51-566-70-pt. 1- -5

LACK OF WATER-USE PLAN

The underlying problem of Long Island Sound, of course, is the lack of what could be termed a water-use plan. Extensive planning on both sides of the sound by State, regional, and local agencies has produced an impressive library of plans dealing with the use of land along the shore. In many instances these land-use plans are being implemented with land-use regulations. Tragically, nothing comparable to the land-use plan has been developed to allocate use of the sound itself.

Competition for the use of the waters of the sound, already sharp, will increase geometrically as the density of population and economic development on its shores rises in the future. In the immediate past we have seen lobster wars between Connecticut and New York, proposals for jetports in the sound, and even visions of the sound being turned into a gigantic fresh-water reservoir. These foreshadow conflicts to come and point up the need for a comprehensive policy on the future use of the waters of the sound. To be effective, such a policy will require implementing regulations.

LACK OF A FOCUS ON THE SOUND

Much of the failure to develop a policy for Long Island Sound to date is due to our failure to create a unit within government that has the sound as its primary focus. The sound has been such a dependable resource through the years that we have neglected to plan for its future. Surely we must now realize that this resource deserves the undivided attention of some governmental body capable of studying and protecting Long Island Sound in its entirety.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SOUND

One of the most critical issues that I believe will burst into headlines in the next few years is that of public access to the recreational resources of Long Island Sound. And the focal point in this issue will be the beaches fronting the sound.

Southeastern Connecticut provides a good example of the nature of this issue, at least as it exists along the Connecticut shore. This region has some 64 lineal miles of shore on Long Island Sound. Only 8.7 miles of this consists of sandy beaches. The remainder is bluffs, rocky shores, tidal marshes and riprap storm barriers. Of the sandy beach frontage, only 23 percent is open to the general public. All other beach frontage is restricted to private owners, beach clubs, beach associations, or to residents of particular communities.

Each year Connecticut's growing urban and suburban population will be placing increasing pressure on the beaches, which are a very limited recreational resource. Similar pressure will be placed on other facilities providing access to the sound, such as boat launching sites.

SOLUTIONS

Solutions to these public access issues can, I believe, best be developed within the framework of the entire sound and its surrounding population concentration. The ease of travel to reach a recreational site within this area makes such a comprehensive approach essential.

The preceding review of issues relating to Long Island Sound, in my judgment, clearly indicates the lack of an effective planning mechanism to develop a cohesive policy for the future of the sound and its periphery. Such a mechanism is long overdue. While S. 2472 is a commendable effort to create a basis for coordinating the sound's future, I have several reservations and questions about the bill in its present form.

The most basic question is whether Federal legislation is the most effective means to the desired end. It is generally accepted that planning ought to occur at the lowest level of Government where appropriate interests can be brought together. Since all of Long Island Sound and its environs lies within the State of Connecticut and New York, these levels of government have paramount interest in what occurs in and around the sound.

While the Federal Government clearly has an interest in the sound, only the citizens of Connecticut and New York will share its future on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, the two States, through their municipalities, exercise land development controls that will have much to do with implementing any plan for the sound. These controls do not exist at the Federal level.

Another point of substantial importance is that both States have evolved relatively sophisticated planning structures with well-established lines of responsibility among local, regional, and State agencies. No comparable structure for comprehensive planning exists at the Federal level.

GRASSROOT PROPOSAL

My conclusion is that our objective would best be served by a planning organization created jointly by the two States through a compact under which the Federal Government would become a third, but not a dominant partner. Funding of the program would be shared by Connecticut, New York, and the Federal Government. Such a structure would be very similar in basic concept to the Tri-State Transportation Commission that has been created for the New York City metropolitan area.

I very much fear that the present bill would create an organization lacking contact at the grassroots level and isolated from the existing planning structure within the two States. The bill's provision that 11 of the 15 commissioners be appointed by the President or Federal departments places the Federal Government in a position of overwhelming dominance. On the other hand, Connecticut, with over a million residents in its 24 shore communities, would appoint only two members on the commission.

A second concern relates to the ultimate purpose of the commission. The language of the bill specifies a "full and complete study of Long Island Sound and the adjacent shoreline area *** for the purpose of formulating a comprehensive plan" within the 3-year life of the commission.

Experience nationally has demonstrated repeatedly that completion of studies and a plan is no guarantee of plan implementation. The likelihood of implementation is greatly diminished unless the planning program is a continuous process rather than a short-term research project.

I believe strongly that this point should be recognized at the outset in considering a planning program for Long Island Sound. Whether a program is initiated through Federal legislation or through an interstate compact, it will require a considerably larger life than 3 years to produce anything more tangible than studies. However, I also believe that any legislation creating a commission on the sound should include a timetable for the completion of initial studies to insure prompt formulation of the plans and policies necessary to an action program.

Assuming that the present bill is enacted, I am curious as to how the Long Island Sound Commission's functions would relate to those of the existing New England River Basins Commission, which is charged to plan for water and related land use, and whose area of responsibility was recently extended to include Long Island Sound. At the very least, there appears to be the potential for confusion with two commissions having similar responsibilities in the area of the sound. At worst, we could witness a wasteful duplication of limited planning

resources.

SUMMARY

In summary, I subscribe fully to the view that an agency to study, plan, and coordinate action for Long Island Sound is needed. I believe such an agency should bring local, State, and Federal interests together, but I would prefer to see this agency created under interstate rather than Federal sponsorship. And I believe that a Long Island Sound Commission will produce lasting results only if it is created. as a continuing program.

We feel strongly that this committee has done a public service by bringing this issue before the residents of southeastern Connecticut. I would like to introduce Mr. Richard Erickson, who is executive director of our agency staff, who has done a great deal of work in compiling studies on the sound.

I will be glad to answer any questions.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

MORE LOCAL AND STATE PARTICIPATION FAVORED

May I say, Mr. OBrien, almost every Senator that I know, be he Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, would much prefer the States and localities undertake various functions. I would be delighted, personally, if the State of Connecticut and the State of New York would do this on their own, without any Federal help or Federal intervention.

But, unfortunately, this very seldom happens. When the Federal Government says there is a public need and somebody ought to do something about it, they say the Federal Government shouldn't do it, let the States do it, and the States don't do anything about it, and the years go by and the conditions deteriorate.

But there is no one who would be more delighted than myself if this became solely a function of the State of New York and the State of Connecticut.

Also, I am aware of what you say concerning the New England River Basins Commission. We intend to resume these hearings, after

the Connecticut and New York hearings, in Washington, at which we will ask other Federal agencies to testify, including the New England River Basins Commission.

It would be my hope that the New England River Basins Commission would continue and undertake the responsibility for what we are trying to achieve. If they indicate a willingness to do so, then, of course, we could shift gears and try to give them the additional funds, with their present staff, to continue the work and the study that we would hope would be undertaken by this commission.

Senator Mathias and myself, and I think the other Senators on the subcommittee, do not want to duplicate, we do not want to cause any waste, but we are very anxious to get a job done.

I do appreciate your taking time out to give us the value of your experience and your knowledge of the entire area. Also your dedication.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator MATHIAS. Mr. O'Brien, following what the Senator has said, there is not, I don't think, any disposition on the part of the Congress to increase the size of the Federal Establishment. We are up to 3 million Federal employees now, and it is proving to be a very cumbersome piece of machinery to operate.

The only problem is that there is a Federal interest in a body of water such as the Long Island Sound or Chesapeake Bay, and unless the adjacent States are prepared to move very aggressively, very effectively, there is really very little option, if the public interest is to be preserved, but for the Federal Government to become involved.

A POINT FOR THE PUBLIC TO DECIDE

I think it is very useful that you have made this point, because I think this is a decision for the public. Is there to be action at the Federal level, or are the States willing to assume this burden? This is a point which the public must decide.

I think the job clearly has to be done, and will be done, but it is for the public to determine who is to do it. I hope that these hearings, if they do nothing else, will carry that particular message.

Mr. O'BRIEN. We feel strongly that this subcommittee, through these hearings, is opening the door to the viewpoints of the citizens on these issues, and will result in some action being taken, whether it is enactment of this bill or some other program. I think the subcommittee is serving a very useful public function, and we appreciate your interest.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The next witness is Dr. John Blake of the Marine Research Laboratory.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN W. BLAKE, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, ECOLOGY, BASED AT THE RAYTHEON CO.'S MARINE RESEARCH LABORATORY, NEW LONDON, CONN.

Dr. BLAKE. Senator Ribicoff and Senator Mathias, I am John W. Blake, technical director, ecology, based at the Raytheon Co.'s Marine Research Laboratory, located in New London, Conn. I cer

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »