71 



For example, we did not have any legal authority in the Miami 

 Jetport case. Tliere was a case if it kept on goin^ in the general di- 

 reaction it was going, it would have had drastic effects we thought on 

 the Everglades National Park. Eather than Vvaiting until it became 

 an insurmountable problem to get an injunction, we sat down and dis- 

 cussed this with the Dade County authorities, the Governor and with 

 our own people, to try to see if we couldn't come up with a recom- 

 mendation prior to the time that it became a greater problem. 



So I just want to say that from a legal standpoint we were really 

 acting now rather than reacting sometime in the future when it 

 would actually become a problem. We are committed by statute to 

 protect our national parks. 



In South Carolina, that was a case of anticipating the problem of 

 what pollution might do to the oysterbeds and shrimpbeds and only 

 alerting them to the fact. We wanted to insure that the base plans, if 

 implemented, would not pollute the surrounding area. B}^ so doing, we 

 thought we would be by far further ahead not only in the protection 

 of the fisheries' resources, but also in helping the plant get underway, 



Senator Hollings. You talked of the injunction in the Florida case 

 under the protective legislation for the national parks. But, with 

 respect to the estuaries, under what section would you get an in- 

 junction? 



Secretary Hickel. First, we didn't get an injunction against the 

 Miami jetport. 



Senator Hollings. No, I know that. But let's say they didn't take 

 heed. Do you think you have sufficient authority to get an injunction? 



Secretary PIickel. Yes; we did not, however, get an injunction 

 against the South Carolina plant. 



Senator Hollings. No; but do you think you have sufficient au- 

 thority to ? We are talking about changing the law now. 



Secretary Hickel. No; I think at this point we could only react 

 after they once polluted the waters down there so far as obtaining an 

 injunction is concerned. I think that would be reacting too late. But 

 on the other hand, I believe we are entitled to notice of plans of indus- 

 try to insure that industry intends to comply with water quality 

 standards. 



Senator Hollings. I am inclined to agree. But what do you think 

 the authority is now ? I will put it in a harsh fashion. Suppose they 

 went ahead and built anyway, what would you do ? 



Secretary Hickel. Then we would have to get an junction after 

 they polluted. 



Senator Hollings. You would have to wait for the pollution to 

 get an injunction ? 



Secretary Hickel. That is right. 



Senator Hollings. So what you are saying to the committee is that 

 you are not really legally in a position to act. In other words, under 

 the law you don't have legal authority to give advance notice, you have 

 just done that as a matter of policy, because if they disregarded the 

 advance notice, legally they could go ahead and construct and you 

 would have to sit and wait and watch and then if they did pollute 

 you would act ? 



Secretary Hickel. That is right. But by requiring advance notice 

 of plans to ascertain compliance with applicable water quality stand- 



65-319—76 6 



