92 



These are just a few of the things which have been developed there 

 and they all apply to the Great Lakes, as you might call it, coastal 

 zone. 



For the purpose of collecting taxes the Internal Revenue Service 

 fully recogiiizes the Great Lakes region, as do many of the Federal 

 departments and agencies within their spheres of interest. 



The Interstate Commerce Commission does not recognize the Great 

 Lakes as a port range, because the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does 

 not specifically mention the Great Lakes. This needs correction. It 

 leads to discriminating practices contrary to Great Lakes interests in 

 our commerce. 



The Government of the United States recognizes the Great Lakes 

 area by imposing tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway, our vital shipping 

 lifeline, the only waterway on the North American Continent on which 

 tolls are exacted. More is to come here. 



In essence I should like to point out that the Great Lakes region is 

 rather precisely delineated three dimensionally ; the States and the 

 two provinces of Canada are discharging their water resources man- 

 agement responsibilities, and they are ably assisted by the Interna- 

 tional Joint Commission, the (international) Great Lakes Fishery 

 Commission, and by the several Federal departments and agencies 

 with water resources functional responsibilities within the region. 



There are a multitude of studies on the Great Lakes, some com- 

 pleted, some underwa}', and many, many more contemplated. Recently 

 a "final draft" of a report prepared by a consulting organization for, 

 as I understand it, the Great Lakes Panel of the National Council on 

 Marine Resources and Engineering Development entitled "The Role 

 of Marine Science in the Multiple Uses of the Coastal Zone of Lake 

 Erie and Lake Superior," datecl June 1969, was received for review. 

 Just how it fits in with the overall Commission's report "Our Nation 

 and the Sea," I don't know, but we commented on it and they gave us 

 3 days to read it. We pointed out that there is a strong State position 

 in the Great Lakes and the need for this panel to understand the Fed- 

 eral legislation, to consult with State joersonnel, and to become famil- 

 iar with State efforts, statutes, regulations, and operating procedures; 

 the futiljt}^ of furtlier layering of departments, agencies, and councils 

 in an attempt to solve our problems with the resulting further frag- 

 mentation of the U.S. water management effort; the desirability of 

 fresh or innovative thinking on water management and planning, and 

 more mundanely, the opportunities for water management progress 

 with reasonable Federal funding support and a stabilized program 

 or plan. 



Recommendations included: (1) that the Council earnestly consider 

 the feasibility and desirability of a Federal -interstate water manage- 

 ment compact, similar to the draft compact furnished the Great Lakes 

 Panel by the Great Lakes Commission in October 1968, and (2) that 

 the Council circulate this (the Panel's) report for comments to the 

 eight Great Lakes States and the Great Lakes Fisherj^ Commission, 

 preliminary to further processing. 



Yesterday's discussions brought out several things here that I would 

 just like to enumerate very briefly. One was that there needs to be a 

 ptreno-thening or bringing toR-ether of State agencies. I think this was 

 brought out very clearly by Dr. Linton, let's get something done. This 

 was brought out by the gentleman from Illinois. 



