|
ated into a debate between pro and con on
the question of conservation.
I am a conservationist. It seems to me
what this really is is a question of bad law
or good law.
If you would listen to Judge Henderson
here, this question of conservation is not
the issue here. The question of how
the General Assembly will act in this area
is really a question of balancing interests
between how much money you have to
spend for conservation, and how much for
education and other public services.
Making the legislature protect the devel-
opment or prevent the development of land
will apparently create a new cause of ac-
tion and require the courts to write laws
and I think it is a very important principle
that we are involved in here. "May" is im-
portant, because it does not create the bad
law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Are you ready for the question?
Do you desire to be recognized, Delegate
Taylor? Do you desire to speak on the
amendment?
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: I want to
speak against the amendment. I feel that
this concept should be included in the con-
stitution. I feel that it should be manda-
tory, because the Department of Conser-
vation needs this sort of thing. We find
that in our cities and in our counties and
rural areas, the streams are becoming pol-
luted, many factories are dumping chemi-
cals and other types of pollutants into the
streams, and this should be addressed by
some sort of law that would top this type
of water pollution.
I want to read a short statement from
an article called "The Fallacy of Single
Purpose Planning by the States":
"If the proposed highway would dis-
rupt a neighborhood, displace homes, in-
crease air pollution, destroy forests or
invade the park, these detriments should
be calculated and subtracted from the
potential benefits in determining whether
the highway should be built. They seldom
are. Normally the highway engineer's
forthright concern is to speed automobiles
on their way. To accomplish this he be-
lieves that he is justified in uprooting
thousands of people, uprooting trees, de-
stroying civic values."
I feel that the General Assembly should
pass laws to solve these problems. I feel
that if we make it permissive, the General
Assembly will not act.
|
At the preent time we do not have laws
covering these problems, and if we try to
bring in a new concept for conservation,
we would see that we would be meeting
certain needs, and also the need of conser-
vationists.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 2 to Committee Recom-
mendation GP-3. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of the Amendment No. 2. A vote No.
is a vote against. Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 29 votes in the affirmative
and 100 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
Are there any other amendments to Com-
mittee Recommendation GP-3?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion of Committee Recommendation
GP-3?
Delegate Beachley.
DELEGATE BEACHLEY: I would like
to speak in favor of Committee Recom-
mendation GP-3.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE BEACHLEY: I have no-
ticed in the Committee memorandum ac-
companying GP-3 that marine life and
shore lines are included within the scope
of the recommended language upon con-
servation.
Along that line, in a recent popular book
about a trip through the big city, and by
that they mean the megalopolis, the author
made several comments which would indi-
cate reasons for conserving our marshland
on the Atlantic seaboard. There is one that
is very familiar to you all, about the places
for protection of our wildlife. You all rec-
ognize that. It is very important in our
State.
He made also the remark that in pro-
tected marshlands, a greater amount of
protein in the forms of seafood can be
found or raised than the amount of protein
which could be raised per acre on cattle
land.
|
