368 



Vn. ALTEKNATIVES 



Once the Convention is ratified and conies into force, the United States gov- 

 ernment will have the legal authority established by the Convention. If rati- 

 fication fails, the government will not have the legal authority to act against 

 foreign vessels in international waters. 



A. Alternatives if the convention is ratified 



1. Should no action be taken on this or any other bill to implement the 

 Convention, the U.S. would nevertheless, upon ratification and entry into force 

 of the Convention, have the internationally recognteed right to act pursuant 

 to its provisions. There would, however, be no legislative direction as to the 

 proper administering agency and no authorization for the necessary funding. 

 The inconsistency of ratification without implementation is readily apparent. 



2. The proposed bill could be changed to include strict limitations on when 

 action could be taken. The bill would specify what conditions should exist before 

 action could be taken. This would reduce the possibility of inappropriate actions 

 that could lead to an increased discharge. Because of the varied nature of each 

 individual casualty, these limitations would be extremely diflicult to define. 



3. The proposed bill could be changed to include specific limitations as to the 

 actions that could be taken to prevent or reduce a threat of oil pollution damage. 

 A study would be necessary to determine what types of action are appropriate 

 for each specific situation. Because of the large number of variables in each situ- 

 ation, the determination of "appropriate action" for each case would be very 

 diflicult. 



B. Alternatives if the convention is not ratified 



1. Prevention or reduction of pollution of the coast by a source outside the 

 territorial seas could be accomplished by developing rapid action plans and re- 

 moval methods to control the oil before it reaches the coast. At this time, it is 

 not feasible or possible to control oil at sea in most instances. This creates dif- 

 ficulty in preventing oil from reaching the shore. At the water-land interface, oil 

 pollution causes substantial environmental damage because of the high density 

 of organisms in the area. The base of the food chain for fish and shellfish origi- 

 nates in the estuaries [5]. Removal at the shoreline is costly and ecologically 

 damaging to the area. Prevention of the discharge would clearly be a better 

 alternative than removal of the oil in territorial waters, or when it reaches the 

 shore. 



2. New legislation might be adopted that would extend the government's right 

 to act in eases of a threat of oil pollution of the coastline by a si>ecific number 

 of miles out at sea. This would limit the government's ability to act in all cases 

 where a grave threat of oil pollution is present. The specific distance from the 

 coast that would be internationally acceptable would be in the limiting factor. 

 Forty-three percent of all oil discharges occur within 50 miles of the coa.st [9]. 

 Regardless of where an incident occurs, the oil my reach the shore. Action at the 

 earliest possible moment will allow time to reduce the effects of the discharge. 



VIII. IRREVERSIBLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS 



The proposed legislation would not involve any irreversible or irretrievable 

 commitment of natural resources. 



REFERENCE LIST 



(1) Clark, R. B., "Oil Pollution and the Conservation of Seabirds", Oil Pollu- 



tion of the Sea, Rome. 1968 



(2) Tanis, J. J. C. and Brugns, M. F. M.. "The Impact of Oil Pollution on Sea 



Birds in Europe". Oil Pollution of the Sea, Rome, 1968 



(3) Marx, Wesley. Oilspill, Sierra Club. 1971 



(4) Neiring, William A.. "The Delemma of Coastal Wetlands : Conflict of Local, 



National and World Priorities", The Environmental Crisis (Helfrich, 

 H. W.) 1970 



(5) Ketchum, Bostwich H., Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Singer. 



S. F. ) 1970 

 1971 



