274 
of the ocean, as we do the land to the estuarian area. And I hope that 
we will move from the immediate confines of the legislation that is 
before us to broaden the scope of the hearings and our action to protect 
the ocean area because of its impact on the estuary. 
I am particularly concerned—and you may very well share the 
same concern—that Massachusetts suggested a sanctuary concept with- 
in a 3-mile limit. 
The State has said that there shall be no exploitation of resources 
of a mineral sort within the 3-mile limit. I believe it is the first State 
action in this area. In effect it extends the national seashore for an 
area of some 3 miles. I am considering extending that from 3 to 30 
miles, so that area, too, shall be a part of the sanctuary and will in- 
hibit exploration and exploitation of products from it. We have had 
a great deal of activity there with high explosives, with numerous 
fish kills, and much industrial activity that adversely affects our 
scenic and fishery resources, such as from high explosives and indus- 
trial activities. 
Mr. Fasceru. You are very correct in my judgment in the concept 
that you must have an overall approach to the problem of the preserva- 
tion of the water. I had mentioned that earlier in my testimony, about 
the need for international mechanisms and agreements, as well as 
strong efforts domestically. The step taken by the State of Massa- 
chusetts is a step in the right direction. Beyond the 3-mile zone, 
there are international agreements on contiguous zones and territories. | 
As the gentleman well knows, we are now in the process in the U.N. 
of hopefully dealing with the problem of deep-sea beds beyond the 
contiguous zone. 
Mr. Kurru. My concept is concerned with the areas where we do 
not have jurisdiction of the seabed as we have with the Continental 
Shelf. 
Mr. Fasceru. That is right. 
We have an international agreement on the policy for exploitation 
in territorial water and contiguous zones. 
Mr. Kerri. What I want to do for those areas where we have respon- 
sibility for the national seabed by treaty is to stay within the first 27 
miles beyond the 3-mile limit. It is in these areas also where the 
most. beneficial uses of an existing natural resource, whether it be 
fishery or scenic or recreational, should be utilized. ; 
Mr. Fascety. I understand the gentleman. What you are touching 
on is a basic administration decision that will be made by the Depart- 
ment of Interior which has the jurisdiction and the problem both for 
the preservation of our waters and the use of the funds from the 
exploitation. 
Mr. Kerri. We introduced some legislation back in 1966 which, if 
it had been enacted, would have inhibited in my view the kind of 
development that took place in the Catalina Channel. What we are 
interested in in Massachusetts is preventing that kind of development 
in an area where, ecologically speaking, it would adversely effect the 
resources which we feel at this time are more essential. 
Mr. Fascetz. Mr. Keith, there isn’t any question that the time has 
come for a review of our national policy with respect to that problem. 
We have gone along on the assumption that we would exploit the 
