467 



first step which should lead to international control of the universal 

 problem of marine pollution. 



Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other mem- 

 bers of the committee might have. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Stevenson. Your testimony 

 is most helpful to the committee, and the committee is grateful to you. 



Mr. DuPont? 



Mr. DtjPont. Just one question, I think, Mr. Chairman. 



On page 3 of your testimony, Mr. Stevenson, you commented that 

 our authority to^ regulate the 9-mile contiguous zone, as far as anti- 

 pollution activities are concerned, really derives only from our right 

 to protect the 3-mile coastal zone. Does' that imply any jurisdictional 

 wealmess, as far as the United States is concerned? 



Mr. Stfa-ejstsox. No, sir ; this just reflects the provisions of the 1958 

 Geneva Convention with respect to the contiguous zone. The concept 

 of the contiguous zone is that you are able to do certain additional 

 things in that zone of the high seas, in order to protect our territorial 

 sea or our own territory. I think for present purposes, that this is 

 entirely adequate, because most of the dum.ping in the contiquous 

 zone we are talking about, would have an effect in the waters within 3 

 miles of our coast, so we could take the necessary action between 3 and 

 12 miles, to prevent that sort of activity. 



Mr. DuPoNT. I have been proceeding on the assumption that we 

 could pass a piece of legislation that would have full and complete 

 jurisdiction now for 12 miles. There is nothing, in your view, nothing 

 in international law that prevents us from passing antidumping legis- 

 lation of the type being considered, that would be effective fully out to 

 the 12-m.ile limit? 



Mr. Stevenson. The actual wording of the Geneva Convention gives 

 you tlie authorit;^ to exercise the control within the zone between 3 and 

 12 miles necessary to implement certain national policies with respect 

 to sanitation, among other things. It seems to me that the power pro- 

 vided to control certain actions in the contiguous zone would probably 

 justify most of the type of regulatory activity that is involved here. 

 This is not the same thing as saying we have a 12-mile territorial sea. 

 Our position still is that the United States has a 3-mile territorial sea, 

 with an additional contiguous zone between 3 and 12 miles. While 

 we have agreed that we would be willing to accept a 12-mile territorial 

 sea, by international agreement, until there is international agreement, 

 our position remains at a 3-mile territorial sea. You could not equate 

 the legal situation in the contiguous zone with the situation in the terri- 

 torial sea. There are differences. 



Mr. DuPoNT. Can you give me a practical example of something 

 we could do within the 3-mile limit in regard to limiting dumping 

 that we could not do in the 3- to 12-mile zone ? 



Mr, Stevenson. Well, basically, with respect to the sort of dump- 

 ing that we are talking about here, the only problems we have had have 

 been with the ocean dumping of materials originating on the U.S. 

 mainland. So that basically, everything that we need to control is 

 dealt with satisfactorily by the provision which controls the transport- 

 ing of materials from U.S. territority for ocean dumping purposes. 



