States shall be measured in accordance with the terms of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, including the 24 mile rule. In Alaska the Supreme Court's mandate was applied to Yakutat Bay, and the 24 mile rule was duly promulgated. (U.S. v. Alaska, 353 F. 2d 210). 3. Cook Inlet. This brings us to the hub of the problem in Cook Inlet. The question there is, in view of the Supreme Court's rule and the provisions of the Convention, where is the baseline for determining the breadth of the territorial sea drawn? As expected, the United States' position is one of limiting the teritorial waters as much as possible. Applying the 24 mile rule, it comes up with a baseline across Cook Inlet roughly at the seaward end of Kalgin Island. Three miles further to seaward is drawn a line limiting the extent of territorial waters. Again as expected, the State of Alaska is rather more expansive. It considers all of Cook Inlet (to a line Cape Douglas-Barren Is.-Cape Elizabeth) to be an "historic bay," therefore, all of Cook Inlet to be territorial waters and covered by the Submerged Lands Act. (Op. Atty. Gen. Alaska, No. 25, Nov. 30, 1961. This opinion advises the Alaska Commissioner of Natural Resources to proceed with leasing the waters of Cook Inlet for oil exploration, thus making the issue more than academic. The problem should come to a head by such time as oil removal from the reaches of lower Cook Inlet becomes more than token). At stake: the immense oil reserves expected to be found between Ka'gin Island and the Barren Islands. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide the question if the federal and state governments do not amicably resolve their difference (which I doubt. absent effective political pressure or the type of dealings which led to the Submerged Lands Act). A'aska, in my opinion, does not have a strong case. The only federal court judicial support its Attorney General could come up with is dictum in one obscure federal district court case. (The Kodiak, 1892, 53 F. 126). Otherwise, its argument rests on the fact that the federal government has asserted some measure of sovereignty over the whole of Cook Inlet by means of fish and game regulations. (It is interesting to note that, since the date of the Attorney General's Opinion, a State court has held that all waters of Bristol Bay landward of a line 160 miles in length across the bay are territorial waters. (Alaska v. Artic Maid. Fisheries, No. 7093-A, Super. Ct. Alaska, 1st Jud. Dist., 1962). The United States filed an amicus brief in the Alaska Supreme Court urging reversal, but the case was subsequently dismissed). When faced with a question such as this one, which the Supreme Court tends to categorize as more a political question than a judicial question, it gives a great deal of weight to the official position of the federal government as expressed by the President through the Department of State (absent Congressional action). While my only source of information as to the position of State is a chart it has pub'ished marked “unofficial," if the executive branch formalizes its opinion, I would expect to see the Court go along, unless overwhelming proof of a continuing and exclusive assertion of jurisdiction over these waters by the federal government can be shown. The Court has been consistently on the record that the greatly superior national interests at stake in determining the breadth of the territorial sea (such as foreign relations and national securities implications) should be given the greatest of weight. One of these implications with which we are most familiar is brought in by the new Contiguous Fishing Zone, for when the baseline used as a starting point for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is moved outward, the Contiguous Zone moves along with it. J. E. BROWN, JR. STATEMENT OF J. STEELE CULBERTSON 1. My name is J. Steele Culbertson. I am a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland. I am Director of the National Fishmeal and Oil Association with offices at 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 2. I was an agent for the Bureau of Fisheries in 1936 stationed on the Alaska Peninsula. I was an agent for the Bureau of Fisheries from 1937 until August of 1939 stationed in Kodiak, Alaska. From August of 1939 through 1941 I was Assistant Supervisor of Fisheries for Alaska stationed in Juneau. During the years 1944 through 1946 I was the Supervisor of Fisheries for Alaska stationed in Juneau. From 1946 through 1960 I was Assistant Director of the Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc. in Seattle, Washington. 3. During all of the years set forth above, that portion of the Regulations for the Protection of the Commercial Fisheries of Alaska defining the Southeastern Alaska area was administratively interpreted to include, among other waters, all of the waters between the islands of the Alexander Archipelago, all of the waters between such islands and the mainland, and all of the waters extending three miles seaward from lines extending from headland to headland across all bays, inlets, passes, straits, sounds and entrances in the Alexander Archipelago. There was no foreign fishing activity permitted in the waters I have described. During the years I was involved with the Alaska Fisheries I observed no foreign fishing carried on within the above described waters with the exception of occasional Canadian vessels fishing in American waters near Dixon Entrance. Those vessels were arrested. 4. During the time period described in paragraph 2 above, the Regulations for the Protection of the Commercial Fisheries of Alaska defining Kodiak Island area were administratively interpreted to include, among other waters, the Shelikof Strait lying north and east of the line extending between Cape Ikolik and Kilokik Rocks and all of the waters extending three miles seaward from that line. There was no foreign fishing permitted in the above described waters of Alaska. 5. During the period of time described in paragraph 2 above, the Regulations for the Protection of the Commercial Fisheries of Alaska defining the Alaska Peninsula area were administratively interpreted to include, among other waters, all the waters between the Shumagin Islands, between the Shumagin Islands and the mainland, and all of the waters extending three miles seaward from lines extending from headland to headland across all bays, inlets, passes, straits, sounds and entrances in the Shumagin Islands. There was no foreign fishing permitted in the waters of Alaska described above. 6. I have examined the provisional baseline charts now said to pertain to the Alexander Archipelago, Shelikof Strait and the Shumagin Islands. Those charts do not accurately depict the area of the United States Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction or United States Bureau of Fisheries jurisdiction or United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries jurisdiction as it was exercised in the years described in paragraph 2 above. 7. I was present as an industry representative at the 1957 conference for the Coordination of Fishery Regulations between the United States and Canada. The American position at that conference was that the United States managed and exercised control over all fisheries carried on within the boundaries of Alaska described above, including Southeastern Alaska. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 82-091 0-72-13 SOUTHEAST ALASKA COMMERCIAL FISHERIES REGULATORY DISTRICTS AND SECTIONS U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 40679 STATEMENT OF SETON THOMPSON 1. My name is Seton Thompson. I reside at Redington Beach, Florida. 2. During the years 1947 through 1957, I was Chief, Branch of Alaska Fisheries, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. During those years I was directly responsible for the management of the commercial fisheries of Alaska, and directly responsible for the enforcement of the laws and regulations of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service applicable to those fisheries. 4. While carrying out my duties as Chief, Branch of Alaska Fisheries, the Southeastern Alaska area was interpreted to include all of the waters between the Islands of the Alexander Archipelago, between the Alexander Archipelago and the mainland, and all of the waters extending three miles seaward from lines extending from headland across all bays, inlets, passes, straits, sounds and entrances in Southeast Alaska. 5. The definition of the "waters of Alaska" in the Regulations for the Protection of the Commercial Fisheries of Alaska, Section 101.20 (1959) was the codification of the administrative interpretation I have described in paragraph 4 above. 6. Foreign fishing was prohibited in all the waters of the Alexander Archipelago, landward of a line generally connecting the headlands of Clarence Strait, Summer Strait, Chatham Strait, Sitka Sound Cross Sound, and including all waters three miles sea ward of that land. 7. The only foreign fishing activity carried on in the waters I have described in paragraph 6, of which I am aware, resulted in arrests and in some cases the seizure of vessels and gear. For example I can recall an incident involving a Canadian halibut boat in Icy Strait where the captain was arrested. 8. While carrying out my duties as Chief, Branch of Alaska Fisheries, I administratively interpreted as a part of the Alaska Pennisula area all the waters between the Shumagin Islands, between the Shumagin Islands on the mainland, and all of the waters extending three miles seaward from lines extending from headland to headland across all bays, inlets, passes, straits, sounds and entrances in the Shumagin Islands. 9. The definition of the "waters of Alaska" in the Regulations for the Protection of the Commercial Fisheries of Alaska, Section 101.2 (1959) was the codification of the administrative interpretation I have described in paragraph 8 above. 10. There was no foreign fishing permitted in the waters of Alaska including all of the waters of the Shumagin Islands described in paragraph 8. 11. I am unaware of any foreign fishing activities carried on in the area I have described in paragraph 8. 12. I am unaware of any arrests arising out of foreign fishing in the area described in paragraph 8. 13. I have examined the provisional baseline charts as they pertain to the areas described in the foregoing paragraphs. These charts do not accurately depict the area of the United States Fisheries jurisdiction in these areas, during the time I was in charge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Seminole, Florida, this 25th day of May, 1972. Dated at |