much of the 25% in private hands is not susceptible to filling. From an engineering standpoint the fill material is simply not available to accomplish what Mr. Scott fears and certainly not on an economic basis. However, the political groundswell is well underway and the conservationists and their fellow travelers are already dominating the hearings. The thrust of the present movement is to create a state commission that would control all filling while two to four years are taken to prepare a master plan. However, in practice this could well be a moratorium. The burden of proof rests on the applicant to prove that his project is in the public interest and not on the State to demonstrate that it would injure the public interest. In large measure I can embrace the views of Mr. Scott and his sect. I wholeheartedly agree that the Bay is a priceless heritage and its development should be controlled in a manner that protects the public interest and enhances the contribution that this asset can make to the enjoyment and welfare of our citizens. My quarrel is in what should be done and how it should be done. 1. I contend that the contribution that the Bay can make to the enjoyment and welfare of our citizens will be enhanced by doing something and not by doing nothing. As it stands, much of the Bay is unsatisfactory either scenically or for recreational purposes. Let's determine the area that should be reserved for public use of all kinds and then let's develop it so in fact it can be used for swimming, for sailing, for fishing, for airports, highways, etc. With 7 5% of the Bay already controlled by the State, local, or federal governments certainly -5-