38 



is. There have been mistakes made, especially mistakes of omission 

 I think more in this case, than of commission over the years. 



When I listen to the scientists, and particularly to Dr. Mayo, I 

 almost hear a cry of the heart here, because, as I understand it, 

 you have given so much of your soul and blood to the study of this 

 animal, and it is in such peril, and you acknowledge sort of tran- 

 scending your scientific expertise, that decisions have to be made 

 in uncertainty, and they do. That is something that people who 

 work where I do are very familiar with. It is a very humbling, very 

 sobering kind of thing because of the consequences, as we have 

 said. So often when you are dealing with the oceans, there are 

 some mistakes you can only make once, and we do not want to 

 make that mistake. 



I think you have all done an extraordinary job. Mr. Shelley, you 

 reminded me when you spoke at the very end there — there are 

 some — this is not really the focus of this hearing, but there are two 

 statutes really that bring us here— the Clean Water Act, and the 

 Endangered Species Act. Among the endangered creatures these 

 days are those two statutes, let me tell you. If we cannot make 

 them work, and that includes adequate public funding and re- 

 sources of the Clean Water Act, in particular— if we cannot do 

 that, we are going to lose public support for the most fundamental 

 environmental statutes of the land and, in the process, jeopardize 

 the continued extension and existence of those statutes. If we think 

 we face problems now in the marine environment and elsewhere, 

 can you imagine if we did not have these fundamental statutory 

 tools to try, in our halting and imperfect way, to address them? 



Just let me alert everybody— and I do not know which friends in 

 the environmental community in Washington you are referring to, 

 but I hope they had a rude awakening last week, when we almost 

 lost the National Biological Survey on the floor— nothing but a sci- 

 entific data gathering initiative of the new Secretary of the Interi- 

 or. The sole mission is to do the best possible job of gathering scien- 

 tific data. There is no management, no regulatory responsibilities, 

 no enforcement responsibilities, just gathering data. We may or 

 may not be able to pass that bill because of the reaction around the 

 country against the Endangered Species Act. We have seen very 

 close to home here some of the reaction when you do not fund 

 mandates such as the Clean Water Act. So, between the two, I 

 think we have imperiled the statutes as well as the critters. I think 

 that ought to be a very sobering note for all of us. 



I want to just end by saying that, in this particular instance, I 

 think it has been an enormously constructive panel. I really thank 

 you. 



It is clear, I trust, Mr. Kotelly, when your hearing process is 

 over, that you will listen very carefully to the most knowledgeable 

 people here. I am very confident that we will see binding condi- 

 tions on that permit that speak to the conservation recommenda- 

 tions of NMFS, reinforced and fleshed out, as suggested by the ex- 

 pertise here. 



Mr. MacDonald, as you know, I am rooting for you to be very ef- 

 ficient in some ways, and somewhat of a sluggard in others, so that 

 we end up without the problem of primary effluent in the outfall. 



