But I am primarily interested in what is called the Niantic River, which has so far been thought to be the purest water along the Atlantic Coast. I have been fighting for the preservation and conservation of that river for the last 4 years.

But, unfortunately, and what concerned my State, that Senator Ribicoff doesn't know, many committees of the local peopleI won't accuse politicians to keep up what you call the dredging of the channel of the Niantic River, although the original bill introduced into the Congress by 1960, by the predecessor of Ribicoff-Senator Bush-spoke about nothing else, nothing else than the dredging of the Niantic Bay, which naturally is continued by the Niantic River, and this has been done for the purpose of the Corps of Engineers.

They spoke to me, tried to explain to me, as well as Washington— the Secretary of the Army has been down-it's been done to facilitate. or improve navigation. How can you improve navigation in a river which is about a mile and a half long and about a mile and a half wide? It's just one of those excuses that affluent people with big boats tried to make that excuse in order to have, sooner or later, when the channel's been dredged, to use that river, that Niantic River, as a mooring place for their boats.

Which is not the proper way of damaging that river, because, as engineer Mr. Snow of the former Employees State Water Resource Commission said, "Mr. Fassullo, if big boats like cruisers, like sailboats, with a family, are going to live on those boats, soon or later"and they see no exception anywhere in the United States, where any river or any lake is being commercialized for boats, which is completely nothing infested, not polluted, by what you call residues thrown out, and the flushing, whatever might be in the boats, and ultimately kill this only river which so far as got the honor of being the purest water all over the Atlantic Coast.

I have been fighting the stream. Even I hired a lawyer to that effect, and the answer's been given to me in Waltham by the Corps of Engineers, by two or three concerns there.

Due to the fact that I complained that there was never a public hearing, a legal public hearing, ever held to inform the people of our town, East Lyme and Waterford, that such a project was going on, the whole thing has been done underhand, almost, which is objectionable and not every much honorable.

But I hope through the interference of the people of Washington that this situation will stop once and for all, and rights done. Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Fassullo. Mrs. Brown.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARGARET BROWN, OLD LYME, CONN.

Mrs. BROWN. Senator Ribicoff, my name is Margaret Brown. I live in Old Lyme, Conn., and I am president of the Lyme Historical Society.

As an organization, we are actively involved in the support of the area conservation efforts and have adopted as a philosophy for our historical society the idea that we are very much interested in having everything possible done to save the wetlands of the Long Island Sound from the ever-increasing effects of pollution and wetlands destruction.

I am happy to be able to be here. I only wish to comment on the bill S. 2472, which calls for 3 years' study.

We should like to suggest that the time element be reduced to a 1-year study and that the commission bring in a final plan within 2 years, making in the interim the Long Island commission the immediate enforcing agency, so that the violation of existing laws can be dealt with and not run into a no-operable situation waiting for survey traps such as have befallen the wetlands bill.

Two, as the bill is written, the committee is composed entirely of Government people, 15 members, with eight votes constituting a quorum. We should like to suggest that the majority should be citizens rather than Government servants.

It was this kind of commission, private citizens, that made the San Francisco Bay conservation fight a success. It operated, it is important to note, entirely apart from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Incidentally, the Army Corps of Engineers is involved in the Niantic situation that you have just heard about.

In the bill as worded, there is no citizen representation. It proposes that the commission would operate under the single agency of the Army Corps of Engineers, which would mean, in effect, I believe, that the Cobb River side of the Long Island Sound problem would be dealt with under the auspices of the Boston Corps of Engineers and the other side of Long Island Sound would be dealt with under the Philadelphia Corps of Engineers.

Even without citizen representation, we suggest that the whole of the Long Island Sound area operate under the River Basins Commission and that the public interest be represented by a forum of private citizens from various towns and communities involved, who are chosen for the quality of their civil interest and dedication to service. As to the Army Corps of Engineers, I mention the Atlantic Monthly article of April 1970 called "Damn Outrage," which clearly gives chapter and verse and various projects relating to the fact that the power of the Corps stems from its relationship with Congress, and it is one of the most powerful lobbies, as such, in the Nation.

I only would like to ask about the funding for the bill; I mean for the New England area. We have had some experience with the problems under the present situation. I assume you have ideas to solve that, even under the stringency of the present economy, hopefully. Senator RIBICOFF. We have to go to the Appropriations Committee to get the money for any commission, whether it is done by the New England River Basins or a separate commission. We are having problems, but because the problems are difficult doesn't mean that you don't try.

Mrs. BROWN. Yes.

Senator RIBICOFF. I have always tried. I have never been afraid to jump in on a hot issue, whether anybody likes it or not and whether you make a lot of enemies in the process of doing so.

Today there are a lot of suggestions-let the States do it, let somebody else do it but the fact remains that none of the people had suggestions about who should do it, and this bill came in and we started open hearings.

I think these hearings are very valuable, covered by the press and the television. People like yourselves have been here. Everybody has

had a chance to be heard. We will have more of them, and I believe we will have a better understanding of what this problem is all about when we get through with these hearings.

Your suggestions have been sound. There have been very many constructive suggestions that the witnesses have testified to. There is no question we will have other constructive suggestions in Norwalk

tomorrow.

I am a great believer that not all wisdom resides in Washington, D.C. I found through long experience that there is a large reservoir of intelligence and knowledge and commonsense back home, and I like to tap that reservoir as often as I can.

Mrs. BROWN. Well, certainly, my best wishes to you, because we need you desperately and are all for you.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to comment?

Mr. JOHN SHKOR. Yes, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. Give us your name, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN SHKOR, MONTVILLE, CONN.

Mr. SHKOR. My name is John Shkor. I am formerly a resident of the State of Maryland. I live in Montville, Conn., and I have lived in Connecticut for 6 years.

I think I can speak not with the credentials of previous witnesses but having seen some rampant industrialization at the headquarters of Chesapeake Bay. My home was in Ferrisport, Md., which is the site of a very large Bethlehem Steel plant, which brings to my community a great deal of money, of commerce, of trade, a high standard of living: yet, the area is unlivable.

It will take about 2 years for a car body to rust out completely because of the iron oxide which pours from the stacks. The waters are unswimmable because they are a virtual dead sea from the pickling solutions.

I comment on this only because Connecticut residents view with alarm the deterioration already experienced in Long Island Sound. They have not yet seen how far industry can deteriorate a body of

water.

I would like to commend you on your belief that Federal action is called for on this matter. I believe that State governments are often, although they might not like to be so cast, in the role of a rather chamber of commerce; they're responsible for bringing industry and growth to a State, and I think that this conflicts with a duty to limit industrialization or to sensibly plan the lives of the people within a State. Often the pursuit of a dollar prohibits this.

I think, too, that whenever a State has a particular vested interest, it will, by virtue of its absolute veto, block any interstate action, and for this reason alone Federal action is required.

I would like to throw up a cliche that is often used by firefighters or people fighting shipboard disasters: "Hold what you have got." Rather than try to cure pollution, let's stop pollution now and not let it get

any worse.

I would like to propose a number of specifics to you that you, if you would, sir, consider further:

51-566-70-pt. 1-7

One is that something along the order of a national zoning commission be established, with the responsibility to define, delineate, and protect through zoning all ecologically vital lands. I don't suggest that we buy them as State parks; simply restrict their uses.

I would like to suggest that fresh water be defined as a national resource, and that anyone who chooses to use it must be licensed by the Federal Government, and that we tell those users the same thing that we would tell our children: Put it back the way you found it. If they don't or can't because of technological inadequacies, I suggest that we can do without their services.

I would like to say that I believe that legislation is the mother of invention, and that technology will soon rise to meet the need.

I caution against a belief that our growth rate is absolute, that in 12 years our electrical power requirement will double, that in 30 years the population of the United States will double. I think the fact that man is a thinking animal and that we can predict these things gives rise to the hope that we can forestall them, and I choose to believe that we can sensibly use our limited resources for a higher standard of living for a more limited number of people rather than acquiesce to a rampant industrialization of our country.

I would also like to propose a check on the Army Corps of Engineers programs, which seem to give hope to people who would build houses on marshlands, on river flood basins, on areas which are periodically wiped out by hurricane, so that shortly after they move the Army Corps of Engineers builds the necessary flood dam, a necessary flood dike or whatever, to protect these homes.

I think if we go back to this zoning commission concept we can prevent people from moving onto lands where their homes, and their properties, and their lives will be endangered and will require us, by virtue of the protection of the human life, to destroy the life. Thank you, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

Are there any other witnesses?

STATEMENT OF STAN QUICKMIRE, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. QUICKMIRE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Stan Quickmire, the northeast region representative of the National Audubon Society. I will not read my brief statement here today but will hand it in to you.

Senator RIBICOFF. The statement will go into the record completely, as if read.

(See exhibit 7, p. 142.)

Mr. QUICKMIRE. Our vice president will be testifying in the Norwalk hearing.

I also have a report made by a college graduate on the status of rails and wading birds in Connecticut that

Senator RIBICOFF. Will you please give us that for our files.

Mr. QUICKMIRE. Give a copy, yes.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

Are there any other witnesses?

STATEMENT OF JOHN HIBBARD, SECRETARY, CONNECTICUT FOREST & PARK ASSOCIATION

Mr. HIBBARD. Senator Ribicoff, my name is John Hibbard. I am secretary of the Connecticut Forest & Park Association.

I have presented a statement to your clerk which will go into the record, and there is very little that I could add to that statement and to the testimony that's being presented here today.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

(See exhibit 8, p. 142.)

Senator RIBICOFF. Any other witnesses?

The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. in Norwalk, Conn.

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization and Government Research of the Committee on Government Operations was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Wednesday, July 8, 1970, at Norwalk High School, Norwalk, Conn.)

EXHIBIT 1

COMPLETE TEXT OF SENATOR RIBICOFF'S OPENING STATEMENT

This morning the Senate Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization and Government Research begins hearings on S. 2472, a bill to establish an intergovernmental commission to study the future of Long Island Sound.

The Sound is a vital link with New England's great natural heritage. Long Island itself was formed thousands of years ago from the rocks and earth of New England pushed into the sea by glaciers.

In the centuries that have followed, the Sound has proved to be one of nature's finest gifts. Its protected waters have meant a harbor for the sailor and a harvest for the fisherman. It is the home for innumerable species of fin and shell fish and a way station for migratory birds. Most importantly, it has been a place of beauty and pleasure for every man.

But, the past is only prologue. The future belongs to us and our generations. The unique location of Long Island Sound is the source of both its value and its vulnerability. Its salt water and shoreline are treasures to be zealously guarded in the heart of the industrial and urban northeast.

Long Island Sound has become a focal point for public and private developments. The shoreline is a valuable resource for industrial, commercial and residential development-as well as for recreational and open space purposes. Its waters-increasingly polluted—are used for profit as well as pleasure.

The many demands on the resources of the Sound are further complicated by a bureaucratic morass at all levels of government. In Washington, no less than eighteen agencies and departments have a continuing authority over activities on the Sound and the adjacent shoreline. In addition, state and local governments have conflicting and overlapping jurisdictions.

This confusion has abetted the piece-by-piece destruction of Long Island Sound. For among these multitudes of governmental agencies, there is no single body entrusted with the task of taking a long look into the future of the Sound. We cannot afford to lose Long Island Sound. Yet, that is an imminent possibility unless we begin to make prudent and responsible use of its assets with an eye toward the greatest future public benefit.

That is why I introduced S. 2472 a little more than a year ago.

This bill calls for an independent commission with a broad mandate to survey Long Island Sound and the adjacent shoreline and authorizes a study of the public and private developments existing or contemplated which would affect the future of the Sound.