277 



work would not hinder navigation and that the Secre- 

 tary had no authority to refuse the permit on other 

 grounds. They acknowledged that "there was evidence 

 before the Corps of Engineers sufficient to justify an 

 administrative agency finding that our fiU would do 

 damage to the ecology or marine life on the bottom." 

 The Government urged lack of jurisdiction and sup- 

 ported the denial of the permit on authority of §10 

 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899, 30 

 Stat. 1121, 1151, 33 U.S.C.A. § 403, giving the Secretary 

 discretion to issue permits and on the Fish and Wild- 

 life Coordination Act of March 10, 1934, 48 Stat. 401, 

 as amended, 16 U.S.CA. §§ 661 and 662 (a), requiring 

 the Secretary to consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service and state conservation agencies before issuing 

 a permit to dredge and fill. 



The District Court held that it had jurisdiction, that 

 the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was not authori- 

 ty for denying the permit, and that: 



"The taking, control or limitation in the use 

 of private property interests by an exercise of 

 the police power of the government or the pub- 

 lic interest or general welfare should be auth- 

 orized by legislation which clearly outlines pro- 

 cedure which comports to aU constitutional 

 standards. This is not the case here. 



As this opinion is being prepared the Con- 

 gress is in session. Advocates of conservation 

 are both able and effective. The way is open to 

 obtain a remedy for future situations like this 



