(The material mentioned follows:) CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. JOHN W. WYDLER, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR JOHN: I have read with interest a copy of H.R. 11236 which was introduced September 23, 1965, by your New York colleague, Mr. Tenzer, providing for the protection, conservation, and development of the natural coastal wetlands of Hempstead-South Oyster Bay, Long Island, for fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation purposes. There is no doubt that the bill provides for the federal acquisition of the wetlands in the Hempstead-South Oyster Bay area of Long Island. This bill is similar in every respect to the other bills introduced for the acquisition of seashore areas and wetlands by the federal government and there is no doubt that in view of the avowed purposes of the act, in those areas where the federal government expends money for outdoor recreation use, they would be permitted to charge user fees under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. From the bill itself, in section 1, apparently this program has been under consideration for some time because the Department of the Interior has on file in the office of the Secretary a map or drawing entitled: "Boundary Map, Proposed Long Island National Wetlands-Recreation Area," dated September 15, 1965, and includes approximately 16,000 acres. With every good wish, Sincerely, Mr. LENNON. Mr. Pelly. JOHN P. SAYLOR, Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Wydler for protecting local interests, and I think that he is performing a responsibility that each of us has whenever legislation comes up that affects an area in which we have an interest. I serve with the gentleman on the Science and Astronautics Committee, and I have long learned to admire the way that he has taken an interest in matters that concern his district. I know he is concerned with noise abatement from airlines, and I have seen the way he fights vigorously for the interests of his district and the people that he represents. I think he is performing a great service here. I would like to admit that I, too, have become greatly confused, because I had not ever seen these proposed amendments that came in. It would be helpful to me, as a member of this committee, if we don't try to rush this thing too much, so that we have a chance to see a clean bill, and perhaps get a better idea of what is in it. I would like to ask Mr. Wydler one question, and that is: Are you familiar with Mr. Dingell's bill? Mr. WYDLER. To some extent, Mr. Pelly. I read it. That is about all I could say at the present time. Mr. PELLY. Well, I, of course, am thinking in terms that perhaps the objectives that are sought in Mr. Tenzer's bill might be realized through the Dingell bill, which would cover the entire Nation, rather than one particular area. I am just wondering if there is anything in H.R. 13447 that you would like to comment on, as it would affect your position. Mr. WYDLER. I am not at this time that well acquainted with the provisions of the Dingell bill, but I do understand that the chairman's bill is one that would attempt to set a national policy for this type of area, and I think, personally, since we do represent the National Government, that that would be a sounder approach than to have specific legislation for each particular area. Mr. PELLY. I would like to ask the gentleman as to whether he would be willing to study the Dingell bill and put his comments as they affect the special interests that he is seeking to protect today in the record. Mr. WYDLER. I will be delighted to do that. Mr. LENNON. Without objection, then, you will be permitted to revise and extend your remarks relating to the Dingell bill and its relationship to the bill offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tenzer. I would like to say, too, that I commend you for the position you are taking, Mr. Congressman. I don't think there is a man in the House or in the other body who, if his people objected to something that was before us, does not have an obligation to make a vigorous fight until he comes out with what he believes is in the best interest of the people. That is true democratic representation. I might make this other observation, though, that your municipalities and political subdivisions, whatever they may be designated in New York, are creatures of the State, are they not? Mr. WYDLER. They are. Mr. LENNON. It is a little bit confusing to me as to why the State of New York, in its wisdom at its legislative level, could not establish a compact for the preservation of the wetlands. Although the legal fee or title might be in its own political subdivisions, the State of New York could act to protect its wetlands through special legislation involving this area, or any other area in the State, and provide that the department of conservation and other departments of the State would supervise it, just as this legislation does under the new proposed amendments, to be administered by your Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Conservation. This is a matter, here, again, and it is so typical, where we must concede the interest is demonstrated by at least six or seven New Yorkers introducing a bill which seeks the same objectives Mr. Tenzer seeks, and here again we find the inability of the so-called-and I say that advisedly sovereign State to meet its responsibility with its own creatures, its own political subdivisions, to require them, if necessary by a local act, to establish a district or a series of districts in this geographical area to accomplish the objectives, and then to be administered by the department of conservation and development in that State. We have come to the point, long since, where a matter cannot be resolved at the local level, because of the inability of the people to get together, they come to Washington seeking the Great White Father. This, ultimately, and we know it, results in a greater degree of Federal control, which we all abhor, or should. I am no philosopher. Mr. St. Onge. Mr. WYDLER. I would like to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you, and that is why I am taking the position I take. You see, in this case, there was such an attempt by the State and town of Hempstead to enter into a compact agreement to preserve these wetlands. This was done last year. The Secretary of the Interior says the agreement is no good, and that is one of the reasons why I wanted to sit on the subcommittee when he testifies, to ask him how, why, where, and when it is no good. Mr. LENNON. I take issue with you, Mr. Congressman, in a mild sort of way, that the Secretary of the Interior ought to seek the counsel and advice of your State officials, and municipal officials, in the light of the fact that some seven New Yorkers have introduced a comparable bill. The Secretary of the Interior would have a right to assume that the people of New York generally want this Federal-I won't say control, but want this Federal participation. You indicated that you did not know whether or not the officials of the State of New York, or the officials of this community, wanted to confer with the Secretary about it. I think, if they are interested enough, that they ought to demand an opportunity to come to Washington and sit down with the Secretary and thrash out this thing. They may be able to resolve it that way, so that we can go on and incorporate into legislation the basic agreement that might be worked out. I don't think it is the duty of the Secretary, in the light of all these bills that have been introduced by people who represent New York, to seek the counseling. I think it is up to the people in the State, the municipality, to come here and say: "Mr. Secretary, we recognize that New York legislators, with one exception, want this bill." Mr. WYLDER. That is not true, Mr. Chairman, we have 41 Congressmen from New York State alone. Mr. LENNON. I said New York legislators, because you are the only one I know who has appeared in opposition to it, and I commend you for your stand. But I am talking too much. Mr. ST. ONGE. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for your statement, based, I am sure, on long experience, as to what happens in these situations, when local problems arise and people do come to Washington looking for some relief. I think it is a pretty clear-cut analysis of the situation, and it is due to the lack of local initiative that people do come to Washington. Mr. PELLY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. ST. ONGE. Yes. Mr. PELLY. I think that the chairman should recognize that we have programs for fish and wildlife conservation in which the Federal Government has had to go all over the country to try to protect migratory birds and other resources. If we waited until the local people came here, we would never have done anything about it. So that it is not necessarily the duty of the farmers of North Dakota to come here and say that they want some wet lands preserved, because they never will. They don't want them preserved. It is up to the Federal Government to go to them and say, "We want this program." Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Pelly, I could not agree with you more. I think the chairman's statement was a broad statement on the relation of the local community and the Federal Government. We are dealing this morning with a very specific problem, it seems to me, on the protection of wildlife in general, and here I think the national interest does enter into the picture, and it is the duty of the committee and subcommittee to look into this problem. Mr. PELLY. The chairman has been around here a long time, and I know his views. He and I agree. He has done a great job. He is the author of the legislation that does provide for recreation, sports fishing, and things of this nature. I was not criticizing him, but I was just pointing this up. Mr. Wydler, the proponents of the bill quoted from a joint report of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior and the State conservation department, which indicated that, between 1954 and 1959, 12.5 percent of these wet lands were destroyed, a subsequent 30 percent have been destroyed to date, and the prospect is that an additional 39 percent are in danger of destruction in the foreseeable future. Do you quarrel with that report all all? Mr. WYDLER. I just think the report is not relevant to the situation that exists today. The situation that we have in New York State today is that last December the State of New York and the town of Hempstead entered into an agreement to conserve and protect the wet lands. As a matter of fact, it is the same language that appears in the preamble to this bill, in effect, and there is a new situation that exists now. They have entered the agreement and put these wet lands aside. The State and the town have agreed to do this, so that it is an entirely different situation that we are facing today over the one that you are talking about. That is the past. I agree with you that that was very bad, but that happened in the past. We are now dealing with the situation that exists this year. Mr. ST. ONGE. Is that not contradicted by the fact that the Corps of Engineers is entertaining an application for the removal of 800.000 cubic yards of fill, and there is nothing to prevent further removal of fill even under this agreement? Mr. WYDLER. I don't know. Would there be an absolute prohibition against dredging, in these wet lands, if this bill were passed? Certainly not. It would merely require that the Department of the Interior agree to it, and they might. The Department of the Interior agrees to a lot of things in conservation that I don't agree is good conservation. I understand that the plans for the Fire Island National Seashore are going to call for massive dredging, to take place in the Great South Bay. I don't know whether that is true or not, but that is under the Department of the Interior. That is another thing that I think we ought to ask Mr. Udall when he appears here, because it is of vital interest to our area. There may be reasons to dredge in various areas of the wet lands. The original title of this bill was for a recreation area. The Department of the Interior has changed it to conservation. Mr. Morton raised a very good question as to how compatible these areas are, but these areas are more than wet lands. They are access areas to the sea for a great number of people, and their interests have to be considered to some extent. I don't believe that the passage of this bill stops any possibility of anything being dredged in the wet lands of Long Island. Mr. ST. ONGE. Would it not stop dredging that would destroy the effectiveness of the wet lands, either for waterfowl or spawning grounds for fish? Mr. WYDLER. I don't know about that. This depends on the decisions the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army make. Mr. ST. ONGE. That would be the purpose of the bill. Mr. WYDLER. That is the announced purpose of the bill, that is correct. Mr. ST. ONGE. That is right. It is your purpose, as I understand it, that the State, the town, and the Secretary sit down together to discuss the control and management, to see if an agreement can be reached. Mr. WYDLER. That is true. Mr. ST. ONGE. Is that not exactly what the proponent of this bill is proposing? Mr. WYDLER. I don't believe so. I will admit that I am not expert in the language of these Department of the Interior bills. I have had it read by people whom I consider expert, and they have interpreted it to me as to how it would work in practice, but I am not clear exactly how this would work in practice, who would have what control over what actions and activities. This bill was just changed substantially in form. I think this is the type of thing where they should sit down together and say, "This is what we intend to do, and how would that work with what you intend to do?" If they would in fact agree on what sounds like a good procedure, write it into the bill, and let's have it. I don't know who drew up the language in there now. Somebody at the Department of the Interior. That is his idea of how the wet lands should be administered. I don't see why that must be the way the town of Hempstead or the State of New York want it administered. Why should they be bound by that thinking? I see no reason for that. Mr. ST. ONGE. It is your feeling that if the town of Hempstead decided, for instance, that it wanted nothing to do with the New York State Conservation Department, or the Department of the Interior, that it should be exclusively up to them? Mr. WYDLER. I think at this point the town of Hempstead has already decided it did want cooperation with the State, and have entered into the compact on that score. It now behooves them to find out what the Department of the Interior is offering them, and, if they see nothing beneficial, I think they are duty bound to reject their offer of control or cooperation. Mr. ST. ONGE. Don't you see a conflict between local and national interests here, where, since these wet lands apparently are part of the Atlantic Flyway there is something of a national interest to be pre 67-228-66- -5 |