509 



The National Projects themselves are interesting and would certainly stimulate 

 further progress. It must be recognized, however, that some of them are already 

 underway in several forms and to various degrees and thus the selection of what 

 to do next must take detailed account of the current status. This matter is incom- 

 pletely treated in the Commission report. In addition, hefore proceeding, a care- 

 ful reexaminaion of the costs to be expected for the various projects should be 

 undertaken since the Commission's costing was admittedly crude, as it had to be 

 considering the dimensions of their task and the time and staff available. If 

 NOAA is established, these tasks would be a proper part of its initial program. 

 Otherwise, special studies would need to be undertaken so that the National 

 Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development could advise the 

 President and guide the various agencies in proceeding with the National Projects. 



As for the international legal/political framework for seal)ed resources, the 

 DOD position stated in the letter of 6 January 1969 from Secretary Nitze to 

 Secretary Rusk on the breadth of the continental shelf, and reaflBrmed in the 

 6 March 1969 letter from Secretary Packard to Secretary Rogers, is pertinent. 

 Briefly, our view is the following. First, a continental shelf regime limited to 

 the 200 meter isobath coupled with a clear aflarmation of the continued freedom 

 of the superjacent waters and air space beyond the limit of the territorial sea 

 would be the most compatible with our national security interests. If other 

 U.S. government departments and users propose limits to the continental shelf 

 beyond the 200 meter depth curve, they should be asked to demonstrate that 

 these overriding interests and activities will generate real values that would be 

 unobtainable to the nation without some wider limit. The interests of the United 

 States would be best served if the territorial seas and straits questions were 

 settled before any international agreement is reached on defining the outer 

 limit of the continental shelf. 



As indicated in the above paragraph, I attach great importance to the settle- 

 ment of the territorial sea question prior to submitting any initiative on the 

 seabed problem. The main reason is because the limited jurisdiction of the 

 coastal states, insofar as seabeds are concerned, might be extended unilaterally 

 to include other rights if there is no firm prior international agreement on the 

 extent of total sovereignty. 



In consonance with this quoted position, I generally support the rationale con- 

 tained in pages 141-157 of the Commission report and consider the detailed 

 recommendations worthy of further study. However, no national decision should 

 be made on such matters without full consideration of the vital national security 

 interests which could be significantly affected by them. The important caveat 

 represented by the Commission's qualifications on page 147 must be emphasized 

 and is quoted as follows : 



"We also would like to stress that our major recommendations are inter- 

 related. Rejection of any one of these recommendations would raise serious 

 questions in the minds of the Commission as to the advisability of continuing 

 with the others." 



It should also be noted that I continue to support strongly the position de- 

 veloped in the Committee on International Policy in the Marine Environment 

 to the effect that the most important immediate task is the general interna- 

 tional acceptance of a moratorium on further claims of sovereignty and juris- 

 diction until the whole set of questions on regimes can be adequately studied and 

 negotiated against a background of fact. Exploration and exploitation at all 

 depths should continue, with the agreement that these activities would not be 

 considered as prejudicing the determination of the regime. Existing exploitation 

 should be considered as either exceptions to the regime, or treated by compensa- 

 tion, in the event that the regime excludes them. 



May 28, 1969. 

 Hon. Alton Le>'non, 



Chairman, Suhconimittee on Oceanography, 

 House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. 



Deae Mk. Lennon: In response to your letter of May 20, 1969, the U.S. Army 

 Corps of Engineers will be pleased to testify before your Subcommittee concern- 

 ing the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, 

 entitled, "Our Nation and the Sea." Either I or key members of my staff will be 

 available for this purpose at your convenience. 



The Corps of Engineers has major and continuing interests in the coastal 

 portion of the marine environment. The Corps involvement in the coastal zone. 



