rick Gut from the beach to the necks of the mainland, which later deed was never confirmed by patent, the parties in interest partitioned the lands in 1769, 1790, and 1794.

Although no title could be acquired by the unconfirmed Indian deed of 1683, problems were created in the Town of Hempstead title which must be further considered when a complete examination is made. This has been referred to previously in the section on the Town of Hempstead.

By Chapter 10 of the Laws of 1804, passed February 28, 1804, these outstanding interests in Oyster Bay were condemned and conveyances were directed to be made by the then parties in interest to the Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay for the benefit of the freeholders and inhabitants of said town.

There is evidence that the Town of Oyster Bay claimed title by virtue of the Andros patent since there are several recorded leases executed by the Town of Oyster Bay to individuals.

We may only conclude that the "wetlands" within Oyster Bay jurisdiction may be owned by the State of New York, the Town of Oyster Bay by virtue of the Andros patent, and in part by the Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay on behalf of the freeholders and inhabitants of the said town pursuant to the deeds given in conformity with the 1804 statute. This conclusion is again subject to a complete title examination.

CONCLUSION

We have presented an history of the wetlands included within the Long Island National Wetlands Recreation Area. The reader can see that much remains to be done before a certification of title can be prepared. A page by page examination of the town records of Hempstead, Oyster Bay, and Huntington (later Babylon) is required, in addition to a complete examination of the County Clerks' records in Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties. However, this history will provide a basis for such an examination; it will enable the title attorney to consider the problems of the present with his now improved perspective derived from understanding the past.

The chapters of this story were written by Indians, explorers, kings, royal governors, pioneering settlers, town elders, the state legislature, and the courts. Perhaps the final chapter will be contributed by the Congress of the United States.

Mr. TENZER. Thank you.

During the course of these hearings, most probably you will hear testimony to the effect that, because of the State-town agreement, legislation is no longer needed.

I would say to you that a mere reading of the State-town agreement would indicate that it leaves much to be desired.

The people in the area contend that the entire wetlands area is held in trust for the freeholders of the town of Hempstead, and therefore the people are in fact the true owners. They look to Washington to recognize and protect their right to use and enjoy their wetlands.

Perhaps the only way that the final answer to the question of ownership and the desires of the people will come is through a public meeting of all of the people, or a referendum.

The bill before you is in effect enabling legislation. It will permit agreements between the Federal Government, the State government, and the various local governments and private owners to join hands in bringing about proper control and management in the area.

Mr. Chairman, the Congress has the opportunity to effect this. The pending bills can provide the single agency with knowledge of the wetlands area and its real value, with ability to resist local pressures, with good reason to stop the encroachment of vested private interests, with full authority to retard the efforts of single-purpose governmental agencies whose prerogatives may adversely affect the area, and thereby we can halt the further destruction of the wetlands.

We alone can provide the legislative authority to permit agreements between Federal, State, and local governments which can stop the dredging licenses issued over the protest of Federal and State agencies, which now lack the power to end the gradual destruction of the wetlands.

And, finally, I would like to point to a recent instance. Though the State-town agreement was dated December 28, 1965, this is what took place in April 1966.

Under the existing State-town agreement, the town reserved to itself the right to follow practices of sand mining-dredging-which was most vividly dramatized in April 1966, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued public notice 5723, relating to the application by the town of Hempstead for a permit to dredge 1,100,000 cubic yards of fill from Great Island Channel in Seaford, located within the area covered by H.R. 11236.

On April 15, 1966, I sent a letter of protest to the district engineer, and simultaneously protests were filed by the Hempstead Town Lands Resources Council and the Nassau County Fish & Game Association.

Within 48 hours after my letter of protest, and the other protests, the town amended its application by reducing the number of cubic yards of fill to be dredged to 800,000 cubic yards.

The amended application is still pending. The facts and circumstances surrounding the filing of the original application and the amendment which followed points up and highlights the need for a more comprehensive plan for protecting the area from further destruction. I submit for the record a copy of the application to which I just referred and copy of public notice 5723 and the revised application of April 19, 1966.

If under the State-town agreement the pending application is approved, others may follow until there will be total destruction of this natural resource.

Mr. LENNON. Without objection, the exhibits will be included in the record at this point.

(The documents follow:)

To Whom It May Concern:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
NEW YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
New York, N.Y.

PUBLIC NOTICE No. 5723

Application has been made by the town of Hempstead, 350 Front Street, Hempstead, New York 11550, for a Department of the Army permit to dredge in Great Island Channel, South Oyster Bay at Seaford, town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York.

A copy of the proposed work is shown on the reverse of this sheet. The applicant proposes to dredge a channel varying in width from 350 to 400 feet to a depth of 20 feet below mean low water. The dredged material, approximately 1.100,000 cubic yards, will be deposited on an upland disposal area and suitably retained by dikes to prevent its return into the waterway.

The determination as to whether a permit will be issued must rest primarily upon the effect of the proposed work on navigation. However, other pertinent factors, including fish and wildlife conservation aspects, will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered in determining whether it would be in the best public interest to grant a permit. Any cirticisms or protests regarding the proposed work should be submitted prior to 21 April 1966, otherwise it will be presumed that there are no objections.

R. T. BATSON,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
District of Engineers.

DEAR MR. TENZER: I acknowledge receipt of your recent letter concerning an application by the Town of Hempstead for a Department of the Army permit to dredge in Great Island Channel, South Oyster Bay at Seaford, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York.

The original plans of the work submitted by the Town of Hempstead and described in Public Notice No. 5723, dated 6 April 1966, provided for dredging in Great Island Channel to a depth of 20 feet below mean low water for a bottom width of 350 feet, and a top width of about 450 feet. The dredged material, amounting to approximately 1.1 million cubic yards, was to be deposited on Town-owned lands on Seamans Neck to develop the area for park purposes. By letter dated 13 April 1966, revised plans of the work were submitted by the Town's engineers. The revised plans show that the proposed 20-foot deep

channel has been reduced to a bottom width of about 300 feet instead of 350 feet, as shown on the original plans. This narrowing of the dredged cut reduces the quantity of material to be placed on Seamans Neck to 800,000 cubic yards. A copy of Public Notice No. 5734, dated 19 April 1966, describing the revised plans of the proposed work is inclosed for your information. This notice is being issued to all known interested parties, inviting them to submit their criticisms or protests, in writing, prior to 3 May 1966.

When applications are received for approval of work or structures in navigable waters, it is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to issue public notices describing the work to all known interested parties inviting their criticisms and comments. A public hearing will be held at a later date, if it is determined that the response to the public notice fails to provide the necessary information to supplement our knowledge of the situation so as to arrive at a proper decision. In the present case, involving dredging of Great Island Channel and placing the dredged material on Seamans Neck, it is considered that sufficient information can be readily developed from the written responses to the public notice from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as from interested individuals and organizations, to reach a proper decision on the application. It is proposed not to hold a public hearing on the application at this time.

It is hoped that the foregoing information is sufficient for your present needs.

Sincerely yours,

R. T. BATSON,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
District Engineer.

Mr. TENZER. I thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for their courtesy and consideration.

I urge approval of H.R. 11236 with the amendments outlined in the Department of the Interior report.

Mr. LENNON. Let me commend the distinguished author of the bill, H.R. 11236, for the very knowledgeable, comprehensive, and articulate statement. It points up one thing, Congressman, to me, I have always believed and have also been told and have not learned to completely accept it, that the State of New York was ahead of all States in all things; but I see your basic problem.

In North Carolina, the fee simple title of all wetlands is held by the State. Now, that was debatable many, many years ago. But the State of North Carolina instituted an action many years ago and settled the question in the courts, so that all wetlands in our State, regardless of the proximity of any municipality or any political subdivision, are the property of the State. So, we do not have the problem exactly as you folks have it. I say that that is where New York made a very grievous error, or you would not be faced with the problem you have today.

Mr. TENZER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the State of North Carolina for its forward-looking step in the direction of the preservation of the wetlands, and I believe that a State is less apt to respond to the local pressures for development than the local governments. Mr. LENNON. Of course, that is true.

May we go off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LENNON. All right, sir.

Mr. WYDLER. Congressman, I tried to interrupt you before, only to point out that you made a statement which was inconsistent with something you had said previously.

67-228-66- 4

That was to the effect that there had not been any attempt by the State and town to put any of the wetlands into conservation protection until last year. Of course, you had previously testified about some lands that they had put in which were pointed out by Mr. Vandivert on the map.

Mr. TENZER. You are correct. The reference to 1963 was the dedication of the 2,500 acres. The reference to last year was the State-town agreement.

Mr. WYDLER. I don't think that does any violence to the point you are trying to make, but I wanted the fact to complete the record. The only thing I have to ask you at this time is this: There have been some amendments, which I received copies of, to the bill that you proposed, which were sent to me by the Department of the Interior.

They have a release which was releasable yesterday, saying they support the Long Island wetlands area, but suggesting some drastic changes in the bill that you are proposing.

Now, what I would like to get absolutely clear is whether you now are in favor of your bill as you introduced it, or the bill as amended by the Department of the Interior changes.

Mr. TENZER. I think I made that perfectly clear in the testimony. Mr. WYDLER. In other words, the words and language of the Department of the Interior bill are accepted by you?

Mr. TENZER. They are accepted by me, I shall make available to you a copy of the bill incorporating the proposed amendments by the Department of the Interior to which I referred during my testi

mony.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman.

Could I ask, is that the amendment to section 6?

Mr. TENZER. All of the amendments.

Mr. PELLY. I only have one amendment.

Mr. LENNON. Could we go off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WYDLER. Do you understand, Congressman Tenzer, that under the new version of the bill there will be no imposition of Federal user fees for the use of the wetlands?

Mr. TENZER. There never was under the original bill, either, Mr. Wydler.

Mr. WYDLER. I don't want to argue with you on that, but Congressman Saylor said, and wrote me to that effect, that under the bill as originally drawn-and I will place a copy in the record-the bill as originally drawn would have allowed Federal user fees on people using the wetlands.

He makes that statement unequivocally, and he says that this bill in that respect is just like any other bill under which Federal user fees are being imposed.

Mr. TENZER. Congressman Wydler, under my bill I made it clear that I opposed user fees in this area, and I am delighted to see that we are in agreement on that.

Mr. WYDLER. You understand that this bill would not allow that to take place, is that correct, as now amended by the Department of the Interior?