Now, dealing with the Chesapeake Bay as an example, is it your concept of these programs that they will provide additional knowledge as to the source of pollution, the trends of pollution, and the effects of various remedial programs for the State agencies to use in their enforcement work and their engineering toward the elimination of pollution?

It is my understanding that in spite of everything we have done the Chesapeake Bay is more polluted today than ever before. In the bay we are reaching a point which is damaging not only to migratory fish but also to our shellfish. We must take drastic action in the immediate future in order to correct this situation.

Is the research and the investigations provided in this bill going to develop more knowledge to the State agencies involved in cleaning up an area like the Chesapeake Bay?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Congressman, what you have said with respect to providing more knowledge to the State agencies is true.

The only one that we would not be, would be in enforcement.

Mr. MORTON. You are not in the enforcement business at all?
Mr. PAUTZKE. That is right, sir.

Mr. MORTON. But the point is, what to enforce sometimes gets to be the question, and the work that I have done with the Tidewater Fisheries Commission of the State of Maryland, indicates to me that we do not have sufficient knowledge of pollution and we do not have a satisfactory knowledge of what the threshold levels are.

There is always going to be some pollution. Now, are you going to determine with these moneys and the talents employed under the authorization of this bill, how we should go about the elimination and control of pollution?

Mr. PAUTZKE. My answer to that, sir, would be yes.

Mr. McKERNAN. In expanding on what Mr. Pautzke has mentioned, it seems to me that this is an important idea that Mr. Morton has put forth.

As we see this, this would give us a chance, working with the States, for example, the Chesapeake Bay, to examine the problems of watershed and of resource management throughout this particular area.

Furthermore, it would give us the opportunity for the first time in the history of our country to set priorities.

In other words, just how important is pollution to the problem of the dwindling aquatic resources? It is a No. 1 priority item, obviously this is where attention and effort ought to be. If there are other matters of equal importance or maybe even great importance, then by looking at this from a watershed standpoint, this would allow us then to set proper priorities. If the enforcement authority lies within the States, then with the combined effort and in a sense the combined reporting by State and Federal agencies, it seems to me that the pressure is put in the proper place to get correction of these matters. I for one firmly believe if this is not done and done rapidly we are going to lose many of these areas for aquatic resources.

Mr. MORTON. This is the point. We have the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, dealing with the Chesapeake Bay Basin. If we do not develop a total management concept from a biological point of view as well as from an engineering and commercial

management point of view there is little hope that we can clean up the Chesapeake.

If we do not develop a total basin concept, we are always going to push this balloon someplace and have it pop out someplace else. I just want to know if the scope of this bill is toward the development of a total biological management concept of the Chesapeake Bay Basin and its tributaries?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Congressman, this is the Department's concept of what this bill entails.

Mr. MORTON. This bill does that job?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOODLING. Will the gentleman yield for just one question? Do you not agree that we can get all the knowledge, but until such time that we can put teeth where they are going to bite we will continue to have problems.

That has been our failure in the past. We have information but fail to use it.

Mr. MORTON. I agree with that, Mr. Goodling, but we should not make this organization at this point in time a law enforcement agency. If we do that we are going to take their eye off the ball that we are trying to direct them toward.

The whole Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna complex will suffer until we have a total basin management system, in which the States are willing to cooperate, are willing to discipline.

Mr. GOODLING. I agree with that 100 percent.

Mr. DINGELL. Speaking of the bill, this is not one of the things I want to see. I want to see some development plans go forward, but in terms of putting enforcement in the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I do not think you can. This is by law now reserved to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

But, I think when the time comes I may have some amendments to offer, in view of the discussions that have been raised this morning, which I think can permit the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior to go into the subject of pollution insofar as making recommendations to HEW, which, I think, would be useful. Mr. MORTON. Let me ask just one more question concerning the scope of this work. I am particularly interested in section 2 on page 2. I am told that the population of migratory fish in the Chesapeake such as shad, rockfish, and others, is decreasing. Are you going to try to develop the reasons why it is not increasing?

Are you going to be able to tell us what is happening to the shad run, what is happening to the rockfish run?

Mr. MCKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, it would be our idea, looking at this rather specific problem, to bring together the knowledge of the biology and population status of these various important species in the Chesapeake Bay and other estuarine areas of the country.

As somebody has mentioned, some of the committee members have mentioned, there is a good deal of data now available. We would attempt to bring this data together and find out-with the State scientists and State conservation agents-if there were gaps in this knowledge which prevented us from launching a successful and positive program for rehabilitation or maintenance of these resources, such as the situation might call for.

Then, we would, again, with the cooperation of the States, attempt to fill in these gaps in knowledge. The objective being, of course, to allow us to develop an action program to enhance these aquatic resources, so that the purpose of our efforts would not simply be to gain knowledge of the resources but to gain that knowledge necessary to go forward with a positive action program.

Mr. MORTON. I think I understand that.

I want to be able to ask you after you have spent this $25 million you have a biologically sound management plan for the Chesapeake Bay Basin.

if

If we do not have that, I think we are going to have an open sewer in the Chesapeake Bay in 1975 and we are going to sit around and talk about the history of the migratory fish and not about what they are doing.

Mr. GOODLING. Will the gentleman yield for an observation?

Mr. MORTON. Yes.

Mr. GOODLING. We already have some of the knowledge you are talking about as far as the decline of shad fishing in the bay is concerned. Some years ago, we had 200 miles of spawning area that we no longer have in the Susquehanna River.

At one time in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., that was an important shad industry; today there is not, because of the dams.

Mr. MORTON. They are talking about putting another dam there. I think that this whole matter must be studied before any such dam be constructed.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Hagen?

Mr. HAGEN. I want to commend Mr. Pautzke for his statement. On page 7 of the Secretary's letter, a proposed amendment stated— that is essentially the amendment contained in Mr. Tupper's bill, is it not?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is right.

It is identical.

Mr. HAGEN. Now, do you not think that language is a little bit vague? It says that "Provided, That no water shall be impounded to carry out the purposes of this Act."

Now, actually the impoundment might not be the result of the construction of a new structure, but rather getting a different mode of operation, we will say, of an existing Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers dam; and if that is true, literally, under this language, you would have to go to Congress to get permission for that agency to change its mode of operation.

Mr. PAUTZKE. You are particularly right, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. So, I think there should be language added there that no structure shall be approved to be constructed to impound water to carry out the purposes of the act without the compilation and approval specified by this amendment.

Mr. TUNISON. That is a very good point, Congressman.

Mr. FINNEGAN. We intended the term "impoundment" to mean dams. We do not intend to construct dams.

Mr. HAGEN. You do not approve of an amendment which will establish these rather burdensome authorization requirements for a mere change in the mode of operation of existing impounding structures?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is right. If we had an existing dam and wanted to change it so as to put in a fish ladder, we would expect this could be done without a new authorization.

Mr. HAGEN. Actually, what you are geting at is new interruptions of streamflow through building new structures?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct.

Mr. HAGEN. Now, to get back to this other issue that was raised by Mr. Lennon with reference to the last paragraph of Mr. Udall's letter. Reference was made first by you to this legislation which we passed and which became law providing for a research program for commercial fisheries.

Actually, the authorization for expenditure contained in that bill would never reach this program, a program of this indicated magnitude?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. PAUTZKE. That is what we feel, if you spread out the appropriations of S. 627, it would not approach the entity that this would do for the coastal States.

Mr. HAGEN. And furthermore, of course, here you are concerned both with the sport fishery as well as the commercial fishery. Mr. FINNEGAN. That is also correct.

Mr. HAGEN. What is the title of this other legislation?

Mr. FINNEGAN. The land and water conservation fund bill.

Mr. HAGEN. Which is pending before the Rules Committee?
Mr. FINNEGAN. I believe that is right, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. Would that program be administered by the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is right, and there are funds made available to the States and also to the Federal Government through the collection of entrance fees, and so forth.

Mr. HAGEN. Well, would fishery rehabilitation be possible under that legislation?

Mr. FINNEGAN. Fish and wildlife purposes; yes, sir, it would. Both fish and wildlife.

Mr. HAGEN. Both fish and wildlife?

Mr. FINNEGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. From your knowledge of that legislation and this, could you specifically state where this meets a need that is not met by that other legislation?

Mr. FINNEGAN. Again, that is limited to recreational needs. It does not involve commercial needs, and it meets some needs, but it certainly does not carry out the program that we feel is designed here for anadromous fish which are both sport and commercial.

Mr. HAGEN. When that legislation was submitted, it had the approval of the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct.

Mr. HAGEN. Was it contemplated that there would be any program under it to restore the fishery resource of such great magnitude as the anadromous fish resource?

Mr. FINNEGAN. I do not think I can answer that one.

Mr. TUNNISON. We anticipate actually no major fisheries or wildlife projects underlying the land and water conservation fund. That is slanted primarily to land acquisition for recreational purposes.

It also provides for Federal aid to the States for planning such recreation; and what may come to us for approval in the fisheries and wildlife, would be rather minor in my opinion.

Mr. FINNEGAN. It certainly would not get at the problems of pollution that we have been talking about here. Nor would it improve the streams, the flowage of water, and the fish, and so forth.

Mr. HAGEN. Basically, that is designed to provide the people with a place so they can camp out and have a few toilet facilities, and so forth?

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is right, and it would also-in the case of Federal funds, it would have to be previously authorized projects; and this, of course-none of these activities would be previously authorized.

Mr. HAGEN. I believe that is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Keith?

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is it not true that under this program, it is possible that the Federal Government could pay 100 percent-legally possible that the Federal Government could pay 100 percent of the costs involved?

Mr. PAUTZKE. That is right. Under the circumstance of the beneficiary's being obscure, it could pay 100 percent.

Mr. KEITH. And is it not also possible that under the legal framework that we have set up here that one particular project could take all of the money that was available? In other words, this Chesapeake Bay, for example, or the Susquehanna and Chesapeake you could not go very far with $25 million to doing that-I am trying to argue from a theoretical point of view, and I am not going to argue that you will do it. But I suggest that it is possible that to do the job required in an area such as the Chesapeake and Susquehanna could take the whole $25 million.

Mr. PAUTZKE. You must remember, Mr. Congressman, this is a cooperative program in conjunction with the States. On the Chesapeake, you would have the Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; and these others that were either participants, or beneficiaries to this, would be expected to participate

Mr. KEITH. They would be expected to, and you would hold out for their participation, I feel certain. But as a matter of law, is it not possible that $25 million could be spent in one particular area?

Mr. TUNNISON. Technically that would be true, Congressman. Mr. KEITH. I just wanted to build up my argument for an amendment that I would suggest.

It seems to me that the Federal Government effort could either go off on the tangent that I have just suggested here or that it could be spread so thin that you might not get the big jobs done and the little jobs could get many of them would get taken care of.

I would rather see the Federal Government's responsibility for coordination and encouragement where there is an entire State effort by a more active role and a larger contribution and I would rather see it spelled out in the philosophy of the law that we enact on the one hand, and then have a matching-fund basis to encourage the States to get in on this kind of a program but not leave the Federal Government with so much authority as to say what State should get how much and at what time.