BROAD SPECTRUM OF INFORMATION NEEDED

I see no reason that one small manufacturing company should pay the cost of investigating all of Long Island Sound to determine what the outcome might be. I feel that he should have a broad spectrum of information, putting himself in the center of dealing with his own problem but not having to make up for many of us who do not think in these terms.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

This ends our formal witness list. A number of ladies and gentlemen have indicated a desire to make comment. Names have been given to the staff during recess. I will call the names out as they are listed with the staff.

So far we have indications from 12 who would like to speak. Everyone who wants to speak will be given an opportunity, and I hope you will take into account that there are many who would like to comment. If you would possibly hold you comment to 5 minutes, it would be appreciated.

The first person is First Selectman Bullard of Guilford.

STATEMENT OF FIRST SELECTMAN BULLARD, GUILFORD, CONN.

First Selectman BULLARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement here from the Regional Council of Elected Officials of South Central Connecticut, of which I am a member. This is in the form of a letter written to you.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

First Selectman BULLARD. I also have a copy of a letter which was sent to you from the Council of Guilford in response to your letter of last spring, and I think that is going to be included in the record of this hearing.

Senator RIBICOFF. Yes; the statements and letters that I have received from many town officers and interested citizens will be incorporated in their entirety in the record of the proceedings.

Thank you, sir.

(See exhibit 5, p. 106.)

Senator RIBICOFF. State Senator Gunther of the 21st district, town of Stratford.

STATEMENT OF STATE SENATOR GUNTHER, STRATFORD, CONN.

Senator GUNTHER. Senator Ribicoff, Senator Mathias, at the beginning of the hearing this morning I thought we were going to have another plea for another water pollution study, and I was getting ready to crawl out of my skin and say: "Not another study!" I certainly am very happy to see and listen to the last two speakers, Mr. O'Brien and Dr. Blake.

I think I can subscribe 100 percent with the statements that those two gentlemen have made. I think they are the real meat of the hearing today, as far as I am concerned-not to downgrade any of the other speakers, but I do think we seem to get preoccupied with water pollution, and I think that the study of Long Island Sound is some

thing that's got to be a lot broader than merely looking into water pollution.

In fact, sitting there, I couldn't help wonder if I didn't-I attended 1967 and 1968 sessions of the Connecticut Legislature. With some of the comments that were made, although I know that they are correct in the enforcement of some of our laws, I would like to direct myself more to the economics of the study than the specific areas of the study, which I think Dr. Blake covered very thoroughly.

I think there are plenty of reasons why we need a comprehensive study of Long Island Sound. Many experts throughout the State will attest to the need for knowledge of what presently exists in the sound, what we have lost and what we can do to preserve or reclaim these marine resources. The only real question is: How do we get this study and what is the best approach?

Frankly, I feel that the congressional route would be the slowest, most costly and, if the pattern runs true, too much bureaucracy and too little involvement of the people who know what must be done and the best method to get it done.

The study of Long Island Sound is long overdue and we can't afford to lose any more time. We have lost too many of our valuable marine resources to wait any longer.

I feel the best and quickest approach to getting this study off the ground is the three States involved to set up a tristate Long Island Sound Commission, to be financed under a sea grant from the National Science Foundation. This commission should be a blue ribbon panel of expertise, augmented by people of some substance in associated fields that would be involved-for example, conservation, recreation, sports and commercial fisheries, et cetera-to be appointed by the Governors of each State. This type of commission would be more responsive to the needs and the urgency of our situation, and, instead of waiting for congressional action, we could probably get this off the ground within 6 months.

Just 2 months ago, in Connecticut, a meeting of interested parties was sponsored by the Connecticut Research Commission to initiate just such a program as this. The meeting was to explore the scope and interest in conducting such a study. It is interesting to note that eminently qualified people from the business and educational research departments were represented at this meeting, and the general feeling was that it would take from 5 to 10 years to conduct the type of research that would give us the comprehensive type of study that is

necessary.

One of the first considerations should be the compilation of all known studies that have been conducted to date. There have been many fragmented studies of specific areas of our sound by various government, business, and educational organizations. It is amazing to find that there is no central location to go to in order to obtain the information developed by these studies. Most of these studies end up gathering dust on the shelf.

This is the day of the computer, and, in order to evaluate what has already been done and have this information available to those who might need it, computerizing this in a central information area is a must.

I would suggest that the studies should be conducted by the various. academic communities in the three-State area, both private and public. This would serve two purposes: First of all, we could draw on the experts we have in our various colleges and universities with marine. science departments. Second, we would get an extra bonus by upgrading all the educational facilities of our States in their marine science departments. This would be particularly helpful in Connecticut; as of the three States, New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut,. our marine science departments are a long way behind.

I would suggest that this study should not be a research into the sources of water pollution but, if anything, this area should be minimized. We have enough data available to institute a real aggressive water pollution abatement program. Our only problem is enforcing the laws we already have, both State and federally.

If the State and Federal Government developed a get-tough policy toward the water polluters, we might make some headway in abating our water pollution. Action, not study, is the thing that we need in this problem. If there is any need for Federal legislation in this area, it is the need to develop effluent standards instead of the ambiguous water quality standards that the Federal and State government have been pussy footing around with.

I feel the greatest service your committee could render is to see that sea grant funds are made available for this study, and, possibly make a special appropriation to cover the one-third State's participation in such a program.

There is a real urgency to get on with the job. Your bill calls for a 3-year study. That would be 3 years after you succeed in getting congressional approval, and that might take 2 to 3 years to accomplish. I feel that the quickest, most efficient, most economical and comprehensive program can be developed under this sea grant type of

program.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator, may I say to you that the day the State of Connecticut, State of Rhode Island, and the State of New York get together to create this tristate authority, I will get up on the floor of the Senate to acclaim praise for your voluntary action, withdraw this bill, and do everything I can to get you a sea-grant appropriation. This is just wonderful, to see the enthusiasm for statewide or bistate or tristate study; but nothing much has been done about it until this bill has been introduced and these hearings held.

I, too, will be enthusiastic to have the States do this without Federal participation. I think almost everybody in the Federal Government would be ecstatic as well, and it will be a lot easier, if the States do it, to go to an appropriation committee to get a sea grant appropriation than to get an appropriation ab initio for this type of commission. I think our job would be a lot easier.

So, since you are a member of the State legislature, I know that you would use your energies and efforts as a State senator-and your respective Governors and your associates in the New York Legislature to see if they cannot do it on a statewide basis. I would be delighted.

Senator GUNTHER. Actually, Senator, I already have made overtures in this direction, and Representative Bernard Smith from Northport, Long Island, is very interested in seeing what we can develop.

Again, I don't think there has been any initiation on a State level to take and get into this, but I do feel we had this meeting 2 months ago and really it was just preliminary to see where we could go.

We are supposed to go back and see if we can possibly develop something from that, to have something under the sponsorship of the Connecticut Research Commission, to see if they could possibly find the money in their own budget to initiate this thing and get it off the ground in Connecticut.

So I would strongly sort of foster this type of attitude, and I hope that possibly we can get something off the ground. Maybe we can save you the trouble of another bill down in Congress.

Senator RIBICOFF. I would be delighted.

Senator GUNTHER. Incidentally, I would love to have been sitting in your seat with some of the other comments that were being made here. I am particularly critical of some of the attitudes of the public utilities toward the spending of money for pollution abatement, both air and water.

When you take a look at the total picture-and I know that Senator Metcalf from Montana down in Congress there is one of the heavy leaders in this particular area-I think one of these days we have to take a good look and find out what your utilities companies are spending their money on.

Just 2 weeks ago I testified in a hearing before the PUC against the use of money for this public builders' subsidy, which is a payola program; and I can quote right from CLP that they spent $1,380,000 last year in builders' subsidy. I believe that their advertising budget, itself, runs better than $3 million for last year.

We are talking about the expenditure of $4 million-plus in actual advertising and that type of area. When I hear UI spent $2 million since 1967 on pollution abatement, I think it is about time you stopped advertising and started showing the people of the State that we can spend our money to clean up the pollution. I like that type of advertising a lot better.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator, you have got a big smokestack belching a lot of smoke right in your backyard down there, and I wish you well in the Connecticut General Assembly; that is, if you go back after November.

Senator GUNTHER. I know you are wishing me well [applause] but let me say this, Senator: Actually, when you make reference to the particular use plants, I wish we would make reference to the sulfur dioxides and monoxides which are too many times-emotionally, the public sees the smoke, and, unfortunately, that is the big thing, although they do contribute 59 percent to the sulfur dioxide of the State. Senator RIBICOFF. I am very well aware of your fine engineering efforts in this whole field for many, many years, and your credentials in the field are the best, Senator.

Senator GUNTHER. Thank you.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.
The next witness is Mrs. Van Zandt, please.
You may proceed, Mrs. Van Zandt.

STATEMENT OF MRS. SIDNEY VAN ZANDT, PRESIDENT, GROTON OPEN SPACE ASSOCIATION

Mrs. VAN ZANDT. Thank you.

I have a short thing to say, and it is about a subject that has not been brought up today. It has to do with transportation.

About 15 years ago we used to sail on Long Island Sound off Larchmont, and every afternoon about 4 o'clock you could count on the southerly coming in; you could aim at that southerly. Because the first one that got it got home first.

That southerly no longer comes through, and the main reason is that it no longer comes through because of the highways that have been built down on Long Island and up the coast, which have caused such mass heat and such exhaust from the automobiles that that cool air never comes down into Long Island Sound.

So that when we are taking care of water pollution, we should also take care of air pollution and not what comes out of the smokestack but what comes from the automobile. The mass transit system is also a great necessity, and what happens in Long Island Sound.

The only other thing I have to report is that a moratorium is desperately needed, not only for the salt water marshes but for the inland waterways and the inland waters and the watersheds and the flood plains. The State of Connecticut has great laws, but so far it has been an invitation to dredge and fill, and we need right now a law to stop this until the State of Connecticut-at least Long Island, New York. Rhode Island-until these laws-until these studies are through, through a moratorium, an immediate one, on all inland. waterways, and all of the salt water areas have to be taken care of. The final thing that is most important is this new proposed jetport for southern Connecticut. That is called progress by some people. But, in order to have a jetport in southern Connecticut, you have to have a bridge to feed this jetport, and that bridge would have to come from Long Island. It would mean the ruination of this whole upper area; it would mean the ruination of the few unpolluted salt marshes that are left.

These are natural areas. These are the nurseries that feed the salt water fish that are a major industry, which is slowly going down the drain.

So there needs to be a great education program along with the studies, an education program to the people that feel that progress is jetports and progress is bridges, because the average person, say, as far as jetports go in southern Connecticut, thinks of all the jobs this will give all the people in this area, but they don't think what it will do to this area.

Just as an average housewife, one who is very concerned with what happens to the small town of Groton and to southern Connecticut, my wish is that the Federal and State laws be pushed through-and very quickly because there are so few little housewives in southern Connecticut that are fighting the various things that have to happen, and there is not enough money to buy up the salt marshes that are left that are not being filled.