extinction, and their environment, concluded March 4, 1972, or on the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever date is later.

The United States ratified the 1972 Convention on May 8, 1973, and it entered into force on Sept. 19, 1974. The only substantive change to the 1918 Act effected by P.L. 93–300 has to do with products. The Convention prohibits the taking of migratory birds or their eggs, and also prohibits the sale, purchase, or exchange of such birds or their eggs, taken illegally, alive or dead, and the products thereof or their parts. The 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not contain language prohibiting the taking, sale, purchase or exchange of products therefrom. P.L. 93-300 makes it clear that the prohibition applies also to any product of any such bird, egg, or part thereof. See H. Rept. 93–936, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Mar. 26, 1974, p. 2.

Biosphere Reserves

The United States and the Soviet Union, on July 3, 1974, issued a Joint Communiqué at the conclusion of President Nixon's visit, which included the following undertaking in the field of environmental protection:

Desiring to expand cooperation in the field of environmental protection, which is being successfully carried out under the U.S.U.S.S.R. Agreement signed on May 23, 1972, and to contribute to the implementation of the "Man and the Biosphere" International Program conducted on the initiative of the United States Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), both sides agreed to designate in the territories of their respective countries certain natural areas as biosphere reserves for protecting valuable plant and animal genetic strains and ecosystems, and for conducting scientific research needed for more effective actions concerned with global environmental protection. Appropriate work for the implementation of this undertaking will be conducted in conformity with the goals of the UNESCO Program and under the auspices of the previously established U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Committee on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection.

Dept. of State Press Release, No. 282, July 3, 1974, p. 10; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXI, No. 1831, July 29, 1974, p. 190. The 1972 U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement, mentioned in the text above, entered into force on May 23, 1972, and is at TIAS 7345; 23 UST 845. The U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Committee on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection was established pursuant to Art. 5 of the 1972 Agreement.

Colorado River Salinity

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320) was approved by President Nixon on June 24, 1974, thus implementing the 1973 U.S.-Mexico Agreement on a "Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River" (TIAS 7708; 24 UST 1968). For background, see the 1973 Digest, Ch. 11, § 1, p. 426.

Title I of the Act authorizes the programs necessary to maintain the differential in salinity called for in the 1973 Agreement between the waters at Imperial Dam (the southernmost major diversion point in the United States) and the waters entering Mexico. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to (a) construct a desalting plant capable of treating 129 million gallons per day using advanced commercially available technology, with associated facilities including roads and a railroad spur; (b) rehabilitate the existing Coachella Canal, a Federal irrigation project in southern California, to salvage water for use as an interim source of higher quality water until the desalting plant is built; (c) advance funds to the International Boundary and Water Commission for transfer to a Mexican agency for construction of a canal within Mexico to convey brine water from the desalting plant to Santa Clara Slough in Mexico; (d) acquire by purchase, eminent domain, or exchange certain lands for specific purposes described in the Act and take other specified actions relating to rights-of-way and construction needs; and (e) build a system of wells on some 23,500 acres to be acquired along the U.S.Mexico boundary, for the purpose of counteracting the effect of a Mexican border well field on U.S. surface and ground waters.

The Act authorizes the appropriation of $121.5 million for construction of the desalting complex and associated actions, $34 million for the well field along the boundary, and such sums as may be required to pay condemnation awards and to operate, modify, and maintain the works described in title I.

Title II of the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to carry out an extensive salinity control program in the Colorado River Basin. Initially there will be constructed two salinity control units in Colorado, one in Utah, and one in Nevada. The Secretary is also directed to expedite planning reports on twelve other units in the basin and to submit such reports simultaneously to the President and to Congress. The Act authorizes $125.1 million for construction of the four salinity control units, with the Federal Government to pay 75 percent of the total costs of their construction. Power rates in the basin are to be increased to cover the remaining 25 percent.

See the Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXI, No. 1830, July 22, 1974, pp. 147– 149; House Rept. No. 93-1057, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., May 22, 1974; Senate Rept. No. 93-906, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., June 7, 1974.

Whaling

On April 23, 1974, the United States and Japan signed another Agreement on an International Observer Scheme for Whaling Operations from land stations in the North Pacific Ocean (TIAS 7823; 25 UST 732; entered into force April 23, 1974). The 1974 Agreement is almost identical to the 1973 Agreement (see the 1973 Digest, Ch. 11, § 1, p. 427).

The Agreement allows the parties to station international observers at each other's whaling land stations in the North Pacific Ocean. Since the United States does not engage in whaling, this in practice means only the stationing of selected U.S. observers at Japanese stations. The duty of the observers is to report to the International Whaling Commission any infraction of the regulations of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (TIAS 1849, 4228, 7471; 62 Stat. 1716; 10 UST 952; 23 UST 2820; entered into force for the United States November 10, 1948).

The only difference between the 1974 Agreement and the 1973 Agreement is the elimination from the earlier Agreement of a provision permitting only one observer to be present at a land station or group of land stations at one time. The U.S. observers after the 1972 season had found that this provision was a handicap in carrying out their duties. The United States had sought, but failed to achieve its deletion in 1973.

Regional Cooperation

The United States and the European Communities, through an exchange of letters dated June 4 and July 1, 1974, agreed on the establishment of a method for cooperation in the field of environmental protection. The U.S. letter, dated June 4, from Christian A. Herter, Jr., Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs, to Carlo Scarascia-Mugnozza, Vice President of the Commission of the European Communities, notes areas of common interest in which the two parties may cooperate through exchanges of information.

The areas include, inter alia, measurement of pollutants and their harmful effects, possible trade problems resulting from environmental measures, effects of energy production on the environment, toxic wastes, and programs for public awareness and education. The two parties agreed that they might also organize joint conferences and symposia.

The exchange of letters was considered by both parties as "outlining the scope and form of [United States-European Communities] present cooperation on environmental matters."

The letter from Vice-President Scarascia-Mugnozza to Special Assistant Herter, dated July 1, confirmed the agreement of the European Communities on the program outlined in Mr. Herter's letter.

See Dept. of State Press Release, No. 275, July 2, 1974; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXI, No. 1832, Aug. 5, 1974, pp. 236–237.

The Environment Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) met at ministerial level at Paris November 13-14, 1974. Christian A. Herter, Jr., Deputy Assistant

Secretary of State for Environmental and Population Matters, made a statement to the Committee on November 13. The following are excerpts from his address:

*

Turning to the future work of the Environment Committee, I would first like to make a few general remarks. While the United States fully appreciates the pressing need for budgetary restraint in this and other international organizations at this time, we hope the resulting impact on the work program of the Environment Committee can be minimized.

Furthermore, the United States would favor the concentration of our program on a more limited number of high-priority projects than in the past. We would hope the committee could create some sort of overall review mechanism to promote this end.

As to program content, my country recognizes that in the field of toxic chemicals, including carcinogens, we face enormously complex problems. The difficulties we in the United States are encountering in how to deal with vinyl chloride serve as just one example of many. The OECD is making, and can continue to make, useful contributions in this area by encouraging nations systematically to identify potentially toxic chemicals prior to use. It also can continue to encourage the adoption of common techniques to facilitate the comparability of data and harmonization of policies and to follow the movement of key chemicals in international commerce.

The concept of framing general principles to govern significant episodes of trans-boundary pollution from land-based sources has occupied much of the committee's recent attention. Like others around this table, my government ascribes considerable importance to this activity. In some respects we consider the action proposal on this subject to be one of the most important before this body and a good touchstone of our willingness to cooperate in solving common problems.

We further strongly recommend that the Environment Committee, which has been considering this matter, now address itself to more concrete ways nations can cooperate to redress or adjudicate significant trans-boundary pollution problems.

There are a number of practical activities to which the committee might usefully direct its attention in addition to those studies of legal questions already underway. An area of interest might be the development of joint contingency plans for response to incidents of pollution affecting more than one country. Further, we might develop compatible procedures for the identification of trans-frontier pollution problems and for correcting them. Such measures as cooperative air and water quality baseline studies might be undertaken. Joint air and water quality objectives might be developed, and consideration could be given to developing compatible national programs to realize such agreed-upon objectives.

Procedures related to environmental assessment offer another area where the OECD can do useful work. As you may be aware, the United States is required by law to prepare environmental impact statements concerning all major Federal actions likely to signifi

cantly affect the human environment. The purpose of this requirement is to help assure that environmental implications are factored into the decisionmaking process. We support the action proposal that would urge us all to assure that meaningful assessments are performed on significant projects and to exchange information on our experiences. For our part, we are attempting to improve our procedures for quantifying the environmental data that go into our assessments. We shall be happy to share these results with others.

Our experience within the United States has impressed us with the fact that there are some real gaps in ecological data and hence in our ability to perform meaningful assessments. We suspect this is true of other nations as well. This, in our view, underscores the absolute necessity for the members of this Organization to vigorously support environmental research in the years ahead and exchange the products of their efforts.

As environmentalists, one of our most serious concerns for the next decade relates to the need to assure that our pattern of energy consumption and use will take place under terms that appropriately safeguard environmental values. As the consuming nations move together in developing new energy sources and policies, they have a companion interest in assuring that the environment is protected. This committee has already been supporting useful and relevant work in this area, in the air and water sector groups; and we commend the action proposal captioned "Energy and the Environment," which urges the Secretariat to inaugurate new and timely exchanges in this field.

We need to move further in assessing the ecological effects on aquatic systems of thermal and chemical discharges; and the change in effects and costs of alternative control techniques.

We need to continue to concert our efforts in developing a consensus and understanding of the magnitude of the sulfate problem, including the contribution of natural and manmade sources, the health implications, the transnational effects, and the contributions being made by powerplants and other sources, as well as the merits of alternate control strategies.

We also should continue to study the international environmental implications of energy resource development, particularly in the sensitive coastal zone and near-offshore areas. The United States has performed a number of studies in this area, the results of which we shall be pleased to make available.

Clearly, conservation of energy should be one of our prime mutual objectives in the decade ahead, and it is noteworthy that the recent Energy Coordinating Group highlighted this as a priority topic. Obviously, if we can reduce our demand or better utilize our energy resources, we will be fostering our environmental goals, adding to our self-sufficiency, and helping to reduce inflation. Projects aimed at studying the environmental implications of husbanding our energy resources, including recycling, waste-heat utilization, and demand restraint, all merit this committee's support.