ae ewe Iasi ss COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE > HOLE OCEA NOGRAPHIC | iN UTIO} iAL OU ALITY REFERE EN : ING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS: | FIRST SESSION ON The Washington, D.C., Conference on the Organization, Utilization, and Implementation of the Coastal Zones of the United rae Including the Great Serasia A - October 28, 29, 1969 fi Serial No. 91-14 (vee aot eats Se eos ag “g Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries ae U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICH 37-487 WASHINGTON : 1969 COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Maryland, Chairman LEONOR K. (MRS. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN, WILLIAMS. MAILLIARD, California Missouri THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio JAMES R. GROVER, JR., New York JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts ALTON LENNON, North Carolina G. ROBERT WATKINS, Pennsylvania THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin: JAMES A. BYRNE, Pennsylvania ~ JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida HOWARD W. POLLOCK, Alaska FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky PHILIP H. RUPPH, Michigan JOHN M. MURPHY, New York DANIEL EE. BUTTON, New York WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE, Connecticut GEORGH A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania. JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota WILLIAM G. BRAY, Indiana WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, Jr., California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LOUIS FREY, Jr., Florida RICHARD T. HANNA, California JACK H. McDONALD, Michigan ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Ohio FRANK ANNUNZIO, Illinois SPEEDY O. LONG, Louisiana MARIO BIAGGI, New York ROBERT J. ABLES, Chief Counsel BERNARD J. ZINCKE, Counsel NED P. EVERETT, Counsel ROBERT J. MCEuroy, Chief Clerk RICHARD N. SHAROOD, Minority Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY ALTON LENNON, North Carolina, Chairman PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania HOWARD w. POLLOCK, Alaska WILLIAM L. ST. ONGH, Connecticut PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania RICHARD T. HANNA, California LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida ROBERT L, LEGGETT, California — MICHAHL A. FEIGHAN, Ohio ‘ THOMAS A. CLINGAN, Jr., Counsel (1) Hearings held— OCC! 2S 6 Oi) sec a seen ie, We ryt ey a ee OctoWerkZOTWOGOE dees Se ye eee he ep Ne ee Panel 1—A national program for coastal zone administration___________ Panel 2—The need and nature of land use regulation__________-____-_-_- Panel 3—Interstate and intrastate problems in coastal zone management_ Panel 4—Federal and Staite roles in the coastal zone_________-_-__-=--- Panel 5—The Federa! focus of coastal zone mnaagement_--___---___-.-- Panel 6—Research requirements for coastal zone management_________- Panel 7—Federal action in the coastal zone_____-------=-------------- Panel moderators— Adams DniDavyidyAe(pameloe))) 3528 e ke ee Se MexandersD remlnewisuvies spaniel ya) eesii ys See Nya ay See ee ee ChapmansDrisw) Nit} G@oanel Qe Ch pee | ee ee Nye ose tee Clingan, 2homas A. Ins(pamel 4) hess SRN e yas a ee ge hye Dri PauléNMBa (panel) G) 2 a. sect h ape poe Nee Be eee ee Spragues/(Georgeak &'Qnanel(3))jeerey see E Soya Le hg ee en Oe Wienk. aor) Mdwrand ) Jared (oem ipl i ye ee es a ee eee Statement of— Hi] TT Te Hl] | 433 7 Ol OOb9 0 O3 Abel, Dr. Robert, Director, National Sea-Grant Program, National SELENCE AO UNG GVO Nei yes Eee eA Ee aD apa Clotworthy, John H., chairman, Government Reorganization Com- mittee, National Oceanography Association___-.---------------- Dolan, John H., executive director, California Advisory Commission on Marineland: Coastal) Resourcess {25 502) setae ee ee eee Doyle, Robert G., director of the Office of Science, Technology, and Mineral Resources, Maine Department of Economic Development; iMGlichings gray AAC MINE MG A He oe ee ee Duddleson, William J., director of policy studies, the Conservation ROUT a TOI acy iy BRN eS NN OS RPE Fae ae Garmatz, Hon. Edward A., chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives_--_-------- Goodsell, Leonard J., executive director, Great Lakes Commission__-- Crees; R. Frank, New England River Basin Commission, Boston, IY GVSica seul eM Se Capea ce aria eke ees Me ee ee 8 OE CH OS ee Haefele, Edwin T., Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C---_-- Hargis, William J., Jr., Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Glouces- VSI EXOD ey Y/N iA pf LN lpn gal lp Knauss, Dr. John A., provost for marine affairs, University of Rhode Island, and former chairman, Panel on Coastal Zone Management, Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources- ---_-- Lawrence, Dr. Samuel A., former executive director, Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources____-___----_------- Linton, Dr. Thomas L., North Carolina Department of Conservation EHaVGU! IDYENAEN Oy ova Dey ON yee ee AA Le DS ES ie a See ee McGuinness, Col. William V., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - ----_-- Porro, Alfred A., attorney at law, Lyndhurst, N.J_-___-__-_____-_- Quarles, John R., Assistant to Under Secretary for Environmental Pinning Deparimentiof Ghellnterlones 2652 oss. esse eee ee Rouse, Frederick O., Jr., chairman, Great Lakes Basin Commission, ANTOWAN VATE OXOES IVT) OS RE case a ee pun rm np em Sm le Schwan Charlessh= rr Washing von, DsCx ej. nee es aes ee Roy T., vice president, Freeport Sulphur Co., New Orleans, Sea Cine In ae ciate dN eesti ay Pend te aalleg eb toed £10 cam td pn Gch 5 Mae Additional information supplied by— IV Statement of—Continued Stewart, Dr. Harris B., Jr., Wenk, Dr. Edward Jr., executive secretary, National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development________________ Agnew, Hon. Spiro T., document outlining a 5-point interim marine science: programs oo Site SRDS LS Aare ee yan eevee ge eed Bissell, Harold, executive secretary, California Interagency Council for Ocean Resources, document entitled, ‘“‘Coastal Zone Management in California’’=.<22===2 000" yeu) Bi CE eee ‘Clingan, Thomas—Attendance list at Coastal Zone Management Conference). 222222 UU SERS Ae 2eO a 0) ee eee Krueger, Robert B., letter dated November 18, 1969, enclosing the proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the California Advisory Com- mission on Marine and Coastal Resources; a resolution; biography; and! a bibliography=2-=== => == = eee Morr, Fred E., Director, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, letter dated October 31, 1969 enclosing a speech________-________ New England River Basins Commission, a study dated May 1969___ Sessums, Roy T., article from the Louisiana Conservationist, Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, September—October 1968 _-_-__ Stewart, Dr. Harris B., Jr., director, ESSA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories, Miami, Fla., address given October ments COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1969 Hovust or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE COMMITTEE ON MercHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to call, in the Caucus Room, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chair- man of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Representatives Lennon, Garmatz, Rogers, Downing, Karth, St. Onge, Feighan, Mosher, Pelly, Keith, Schadeberg, Dellen- back, and Goodling. Staff Members Present: Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., counsel, Robert J. Ables, chief counsel, and Robert J. McElroy, chief clerk. Mr. Lennon. May I have your attention, please. Ladies and gentle- men, I want to open by extending to all of you a very cordial and hearty welcome. We are delighted and honored to have you, ladies and gentlemen, with us this morning. It is my pleasure now to present to you the distinguished Chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- mittee for his welcome. This distinguished gentleman has been a mem- ber of this committee since back in the forties, and he was the ranking majority member for a great many years of that time. He became chairman of this committee on January 10, 1966. I think it would be interesting to you, ladies and gentlemen, to know the wide spectrum of legislative authorization jurisdiction that this committee has. Chairman Garmatz, the chairman of the full commit- tee, has under his direct supervision and control, the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine, the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Con- servation, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Geodetic Survey, and Navigation, the Subcommittee on Panama Canal, the Subcommittee on Oceanography, and the Subcommittee on Maritime Education and Training. It is my great pleasure now, ladies and gentlemen, to present to you our distinguished Chairman, the Honorable Edward A. Garmatz. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, CHAIRMAN, COM- MITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Garmatz. Thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen. Mr. Lennon, your program chairman for this conference, tells me that we are honored by the presence of many dis- tinguished representatives of our coastal and Great Lakes States and (1) 2 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I wish to take this opportunity to welcome each of you to our Nation’s capital. I suspect that your interest In coastal zone management is much the same as that of my State—Maryland—because of our borders on the Chesapeake Bay, one of the Nation’s great estuaries. And for that reason, I am particularly pleased to note that Mr. Sachs and Mr. Capper, from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, are present here this morning. It is my pleasure to open the Conference on Coastal Zone Manage- ment. As you know, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries hhas taken an active interest in learning how man should respond to the complex problems in the zone where the land meets the sea. We know that as population crowds coastal areas, pollution of rivers and estuaries increases. Recreation space for urban centers becomes scarce. Location of industry in near proximity to transportation calls for large portions of coastal land for factories and port facilities. Yet, at the same time, space must be reserved to insure protection of breed- ing grounds for fish and waterfowl, and also for public use. Some uses of the coastal zones are compatible. What we need is the machinery in government to tell us which uses can live together in the same space. Where different uses cannot be accommodated, we need the means to make a logical selection among them. We believe, as did the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Development, that the problems of our coastal zones can be solved only by the people most directly affected. The States and the munici- palities, through their normal political processes, must remain the focus for coastal planning. The Congress and the executive branch cannot successfully under- take this critical business. What the Federal Government can do, how- ever, is to assist the States to do the job by providing for the coordina- tion of State and Federal programs, and by assisting the Statcs to form effective organizations for management, with adequate func ing. There are many ways that the Federal Government could become involved. There are different methods for funds to be distributed, and a multitude of possible guidelines for administration. To begin the arduous task of sorting out these alternatives, we are turning to you. Mr. Lennon suggested that it would be helpful to convene this meeting to receive your viewpoints. While this is certainly an unusual way for a Congressional committee to proceed, I believe that it is a sound and productive way to gather and distill new information. I look forward to receiving the benefit of your knowledge. I welcome you to this important conference, and assure you of our strong and continuing interest. I would like to turn the program over at this time to my colleague, Congressman Lennon. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceanog- raphy, he has worked tirelessly to bring a truly national program of the oceans into reality. This conference is an example of his energy, and I might add here, that of his right arm, Thomas A. Clingan, professor and many other titles, but familarly known to our col- leagues and to the staff as Tom. Mr. Lennon will also introduce to you his colleagues, who are pres- ent. I hope that you will find this meeting to be productive and worthwhile and I want to personally thank you for coming. 3 Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your words of welcome. I think some of you gentlemen know that there are 23 legislative com- mittees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Each of those major legislative committees has an average of six to eight subcommittees. Some of us serve on as many as eight or nine subcommittees. They meet at the same time. For that reason this morning rather than following, which I intended to do, the remarks by the distin- guished chairman of the full committee, it will be my pleasure at this time to introduce those members of the Subcommittee on Oceanog- raphy, who are present. At least five members of the subcommittee have contacted me this morning to express their regrets that they could not be here to extend a welcome. So, as I call the names of those members of the subcommittee who are here, I would appreciate if you would stand and you gentlemen can withhold your applause until all have been introduced. The Honorable Paul Rogers of Florida. The Honorable Thomas Downing of Virginia. The Honorable Joseph Karth of Minnesota. The Honorable William L. St. Onge of Connecticut, and I believe that, is the extent on the right side of the aisle. I will withhold the introduction of a subsequent speaker. The Hon- orable Thomas M. Pelly of Washington. The Honorable Hastings Keith of Massachusetts. The Honorable Henry Schadeberg of Wis- consin. The Honorable John Dellenback of Oregon. The Honorable George Goodling of Pennsylvania. The Honorable Louis Frey of the State of Florida. Thank you, gentlemen. (Applause. ) Mr. Lennon. Now, at this time, I would like to add my own words ot welcome to those that have already been expressed. The opportunity for us to meet and exchange ideas with people from as many different States as we have here is indeed a rare and unique privilege. I might say to you gentlemen, that this is an innovation for a conference to be sponsored by a legislative committee or a legislative subcommittee. Tt is usually done at the executive level of our Government, but we simply cannot wait. I am enthusiastic that the ideas developed here will be of great assistance to us in our efforts to create meaningful programs for the coastal zones. I am certain that all of you share with me and my colleagues a sense of your general situation in dealing with the problems of our coastal waters. The reason for urgency was properly identified by the Marine Science Commission report, which I hope most of you have read, particularly that relating to the coastal zone recommendations, which stated as follows: Today, man’s damage to the environment too often is ignored because of im- mediate economic advantage. To maximize tthe present economy at the expense of the future is to perpetuate the pattern of previous generations, whose sins against the planet we have inherited. If adequately protected, the sea and shoreline can provide unique and valuable opportunities for recreation. The growth of the country’s population, most pro- nounced in urban areas along the shoreline, and the increased wealth and leisure of many of our people, are creating inexorable pressures for access to the sea. Contamination or destruction of beach, marsh, waterway, and shoreline aggravates these pressures by denying use of the sea and shore to a growing population. 4 I don’t have to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that this same admonition apples equally to our Great Lakes. Against this background, the Congress is being asked to move toward the establishment of a more rational management system. While we are armed with excellent studies and recommendations from several sources on management and development of the coastal zone, we have found that there are many unanswered questions as to how those rec- ommendations are to be translated into specific legislative language, either at the State or Federal level. For this reason we have invited you to this conference and through this proceeding, contacts and discussion, we hope to obtain information that will lead us one step further, and perhaps it will be a jumbo step, toward developing a sound management system. It is significant that represented in this room are a number of differ- ent points of view. I am cognizant of that. We are honored with the presence of people from the coastal and Great Lakes States representing a wide variety of governmental func- tions. We have persons who are familiar with the specific problem of small subdivisions. Others have already come to grips with the broad coordinating problem of interstate and regional organization. We have people from universities, research institutions, and indus- tries. We also have distinguished members of the executive branch of the Federal Government. We welcome them here too. Some States have already studied or are in the process of studying their coastal zone problems and their contributions will be most im- portant to this conference. We believe too, ladies and gentlemen, that there is a goal to be attained, simply by bringing this group together, as part of an educational process for what each of you can contribute to one another’s understanding of mutually conflicting interests. Second, we have asked you to come to educate us, to assist us in wres- tling with some of the questions of policy and detail that are plaguing us. Your collective wisdom and judgment will be valuable to the legisla- tive input. For this reason we will raise some of the broadest and most penetrating questions about what we are all here about, the coastal zone. In the interests of time, I will not attempt to enumerate the many coastal zone problems that will be considered, but I want you, ladies and gentlemen, to know that the Oceanography Subcommittee, and each and every member thereof is vitally interested in these problems and is determined, if humanly possible, with your help, to move ahead to solutions. On behalf of the subcommittee, I welcome you and wish you well in your endeavors and want you to know that we appreciate your inter- est, your time, your dedicated assistance. Now, in closing, I want to stress and make crystal clear one point: in all of the deliberations of this subcommittee, which go back almost 11 years, the Subcommittee on Oceanography has always acted in a com- pletely bipartisan manner. It is significantly acting the same way now. I think it would be interesting to you, ladies and gentlemen, to know that every single member of this subcommittee joined in the sponsor- ship of the legislation that was introduced to implement the Stratton Commission report relative to Government structure. For we are in- terested, I assure you, solely in what is best for your and all our national interests. 5 In this spirit of unanimity, I would like to call upon my good friend, Charlie Mosher, the ranking minority member of our subcommittee, for his always distinguished and eloquent comment. Mr. Mosurr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that speaking for the minority members of the subcommittee, I can say all of us join with Mr. Garmatz and Mr. Lennon in their opening remarks and we want to be associated completely with them. I will make no attempt to expand on the comments of our distinguished chairman. However, I would like to reiterate what Mr. Lennon has said—that in all the de- liberations of this subcommittee we have acted on a completely biparti- san basis. T think this is due in part to the subject matter, which as yet has not lent itself to partisanship. And I hope it will not in the future. But I think I should say that this unanimity of action also is in part due to the great fairness of our chairman, Mr. Lennon, and his generosity in equal treatment of the minority members and the majority members, and we certainly appreciate that, Mr. Lennon. I know that are many Republicans here representing States. Being cognizant of the fact that the majority of State governments now are Republican controlled, I hope that we have a majority of Republicans here in this group. I ask you as a fellow Republican, not to be too rough on the other party, and that you, too, act and discuss on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to add one other remarks as a repre- sentative of one of the Great Lakes States. It happens that my district borders on Lake Erie of which some of you have heard. As a representa- tive of a Great Lakes States, I might say to this group that one of the points that we in the Congress who represent the Great Lakes area constantly make, is that, by definition, the Great Lakes must continue to be considered as an equal participant in all of the coastal zone efforts of the Nation. Therefore, I think it is completely appropriate that most of the Great Lakes States be represented here. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to say a word of welcome. We wish on this side complete success to your conference. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Mosher. I wish it were possible for each of the members of the subcommittee to express his personal apprecia- tion to the respective representatives from his respective State, but we don’t want to spend a lot of time talking from this level. We want to hear from you. Now, I am going to ask the counsel of the committee, Thomas Clingan to kick the conference off with the first panelists and moder- ator. I really do believe, ladies and gentlemen, that this innovation, this new approach that we are taking, is going to be helpful to us in our sincere efforts to accomplish something really worthwhile. Thank you very much. Mr. Curnean. I will now call, if I may, Dr. Edward Wenk to come forward and bring his panel to start the day’s proceeding. Panent 1—A Nationa PRoGRAM FoR Coasrat ZONE ADMINISTRATION MODERATOR Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr., executive secretary. National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. 6 PANELISTS Dr. Samuel A. Lawrence, former Executive Director, Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources; Dr. John Knauss, provost for marine affairs, University of Rhode Island, and former chairman, Panel on Coastal Zone Management, Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. Dr. Wenk. Ladies and gentlemen, before introducing the members of this panel and proceeding with the implementation of your part in the proceedings, I would like to express appreciation to the chair- man of this committee and to Chairman Lennon of this subcommittee for their courtesy in inviting representatives of the executive branch to this meeting. I believe this hospitality reflects another dimension of marine af- fairs. It has been bipartisan as Mr. Lennon has said, but there has also been a unanimity of view, although not always simultaneously on the two sides of Washington, that the oceans are important to this Nation and to its people. I want to say on the part of the Vice President and the Marine Sciences Council that we applaud the initiative of this committee in calling this meeting. We are pleased to see this attendance, because as I will mention shortly, this interest in coastal matters takes on meaning only in partnership with the States. May I also go on to say that this meeting and those attending it reflect a major, and I believe profound, change in marine affairs. A few years ago there was interest in the oceans on the part of a small but eloquent group of scientists and they, working very hard, called attention to the potential of the sea to our legislators. The most important act, I believe, that has been legislated in recent years began with this committee and became a matter of law in 1966, which, apart from the machinery that set up the Commission and the Council about which you have heard, for the first time established a mandate, a mandate to this Nation that it pay attention to the sea. Now, we are beginning to see the fruits of that mandate and we are seeing that not only are oceanographers interested in the oceans, but others as well: industrialists, bankers, economists, lawyers, executives in State government, your Governors, and at the policy level in Wash- ington, the Cabinet Officers, the Vice President and the President. Indeed, this is a major transition and it characterized by one further consideration and that is a determination to overcome this past neglect. Once I referred to the oceans and the inshore areas as our 51st State. I also had the occasion to remark that sadly enough nobody lives there and any representation that it may have either in Govern- ment or in public affairs has had to be by proxy. So, beginning at this moment, I should like to ask each of you to assume an additional identity if you will, and I invite our panelists to do it as well, as residents of that 51st State. The story that you are going to hear in this short interval this morning is one of problem identification and problem solution, and it is not often in the affairs of Government that people live long enough to see both things happen. But as you will hear from your two panelists, and subsequently from your moderator, this has happened, talking about a concern now for the coastal zone. 7 I would like to call as the first panelist, Dr. Samuel Lawrence, who, as everyone knows, has been Executive Director of the Marine Science Commission. Professionally he received his education at Harvard University, his doctorate at American University in political science. He became associated with the Bureau of the Budget in 1954 and remained there until 1967 when he assumed the role as staff director for the Commission. That service was broken by a 1-year sabbatical when at Brookings Tnstitution he prepared a book, perhaps his first professional emersion in the sea, this one dealing with the U.S. Merchant Marine. It must be something of a labor of love because Sam, after leaving the Com- mission has returned to the Merchant Marine, and he is well on the way with his second book. STATEMENT OF DR. SAMUEL A. LAWRENCE, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND RESOURCES Dr. Lawrence. Thank you very much. It is good to be with you today to report the work of the Stratton Commission. I think we are now entering a period of the conference when we really are going to have some dialog. Both John Knauss and myself have designed our remarks to be very brief * * * sufficient, we hope, to introduce those who have not already been thoroughly familiarized with the Com- mission materials to know what the background has been for these conferences and the problems which you are going to be discussing here. We do want to have time so that there really will be some discus- sion and some questions. It is always a pleasure for one who has been associated with an effort to see the recommendations emerging from it brought forward for public debate and action. There has been a great deal of action in the past several months when the commission filed its report with the Congress and the President. Draft legislation is now before the appropriate committees and subcommittees of both Houses of Con- eress; the administration only a week ago has announced its inten- tion to take action through coastal zone management to support the creation of the coastal zone laboratories and move ahead with a pilot project for the restoration of the Great Lakes and I expect I may want to comment a little more on that myself. At a recent Governors’ Conference, I understand that a resolution was passed that there should be a marine States association which would provide a vehicle at the State level in considering mutual co- ordinating activities. Now we have this very useful forum provided by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Subcommit- tee on Oceanography. This gathering momentum of concern reflects very real and growing problems which vitally affect the people of our coastal States and indeed the entire Nation. You know them well. They include the urgent need to halt the deterioration of our Great Lakes and estuaries, provide more adequate seaside recreational opportunities, improve our ports, accommodate expanding industries seeking shoreline space, capitalize on opportunities to make more effective use of the water- 8 fronts of coastal cities, and protect our coastlines from accidental oil spills and other forms of pollution. We need to establish a firmer legal framework for ownership and use of coastal and offshore lands. Above all, the commission concluded, the pressures for multiple use of these limited coastlands require an organized approach in order to coordinate the separate plans and activities of Federal, State, and local government agencies and of private corporations and persons. Dr. Knauss in just a moment will amplify on the recommendations which were made by the commission in reference specifically to the coastal zone. Tom thought that it might be useful if I were to fill in the background on the commission’s overall assignment and the man- ner in which it went about it in its proposal for a national ocean program. The legislation which established the commission designated as Public Law 89-454, was enacted in June, 1966. This law set the over- all policy framework for an expanded marine effort; called upon the President, aided by a Cabinet-level council, to make immediate improvements in the Federal Government’s planning and program- ing for marine affairs; and provided that the President should ap- point a public commission to provide a firmer basis for planning over the longer term. More specifically, Public Law 89-454 gave the com- mission four major tasks: To examine the Nation’s stake in the development, utilization, and preservation of our marine environment. To review all current and contemplated marine activities and as- sess their adequacy in reference to the overall goals established in the 1966 act. On the basis of these studies, to formulate a comprehensive, long- term national program for marine affairs, and finally— To recommend a plan of Government organization for such a program’s implementation, together with estimated costs. The commission was a temporary body composed of 15 members under the chairmanship of Dr. Julius Stratton of the Ford Founda- tion and previously the president of Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology. Membership was drawn from Federal and State Governments, industry, and the universities, and it had a very broad geographical base. I think it was a truly representative commission. All of the mem- bers assumed their duties as commissioners in addition to their other responsibilities. Yet it was a working commission, one that spent 2 to 4 days every month, and many of the members much more time than that, in pre- paring the studies and report. The commission’s final report to the President and the Congress was submitted last January after 2 years of intensive inquiry, ex- pressed the commission’s unanimous conclusion that the Nation’s marine interests required major strengthening of existing programs and initiation of certain new activities (such as coastal manageiment) under the leadership of a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. Throughout its work, the commission enjoyed the close and cordial cooperation of the national council, yet the two bodies were independ- ent of one another and each separately reached its own judgments 9 on matters within its purview. The commission also benefited sig- nificantly in having the support and help of four congressional ad- visers (two from the Senate and Mr. Lennon and Mr. Mosher appointed from the House), who generously make themselves avail- able to advise and assist the commission in numerous ways, although refraining, per the statute, from participating directly in its work. A large number of excellent studies and reports had preceded the formation of the commission and provided a secure foundation for its work. The assignment to the commission, however, extended well beyond the scope of all previous studies in requiring a searching and comprehensive review of the totality of the Nation’s nonmilitary interests in the seas. The commission interpreted its mandate broadly. Pursuant to the clear intent of Congress, it undertook to formulate a plan of national action, which would embrace the activities of local govern- ments, international organizations, and the private sector as ‘well as of Federal agencies. Whereas previous reports had concentrated largely on scientific and technical matters, the commission looked to the whole range of the Nation’s civil marine interests including resource development, environmental! prediction, the maintenance of environmetal quality, and on a more limited basis, recreation, transportation, and military uses of the oceans. Its recommendations were directed to improving institutional frameworks as well as to advancing knowledge and improving tech- nical capability to make more effective use of the oceans. A major portion of the commission’s work, of course, was addressed to con- sidering the most effective way to. organize the very broad spony, um of persons and groups having a stake in marine affairs so as to mobilize effective action, not Just within the Federal Establishment, but across the entire Nation. One of the most important contributions made by the commission, in my mind, was its differentiation of three major zones of geographic interest within the overall plan. Whereas the science of oceanography had focused mainly on the deep oceans, and previous reports had re- flected this view, the comimssion concluded that it was Nation’s coasts, estuarine areas, and Great Lakes which presented the most urgent problems and the most immediate and tangible opportunities * for improvement. Development of the sea’s resources, while conducted in a variety of environments, required improved technology and survey informa- tion chiefly at Continental Shelf depths, which defined a second zone. Beyond the shelves stretch the deep seas, of which present knowledge permits only limited use, and here the major tasks seemed to be exploration and scientific inv estigation and to establish a monitoring and prediction system to maintain watch over the coupled movements of the global air-sea envelope. The commission conducted its basic investigations through seven panels, drawn from its membership and supported by staff and con- sultants. The reports of panels—dealing with marine science, tech- nology, resource development, industrial and investment issues, environmental matters, education and training, and international law—provided the primary source material upon which the com- mission as a whole based its conclusions. 10 These reports have been published by the commission and con- stitute an extraordinary rich fund of information and analysis in these more specific fields. You have received copies of one of the vol- umes, but you might be interested to see all three. There are eight reports within the three volumes entitled, among others, “Science and Environment,” “Industry,” and “Technology.” In addition to these reports there were a number of other studies, some taken through contract and some by staff which have been made publicly available through the Federal Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical Information and several may be of interest to this group. They are described at page 283 of the commission’s report, “Our Nation and the Sea.” Those are available if you would like to order them. At the time that the Commission began its work, no one to my knowledge had yet coined the term “coastal zone” or formulated the concept that it represented a zone having unique characteristics or requiring a special approach. However, as the panel on environmental interactions, headed by Dr. Knauss, deepened its investigations it concluded that the scope of problems within its purview did not permit a single, unified approach. The scales of motion to be observed differed too greatly, the parties in interest were too diverse, and the problems to be addressed too varied to be covered in a single report. Dr. Knauss accordingly proposed to the Commission that his panel prepare two reports: One dealing with systems for monitoring and prediction of the global environment and the second with management of the coastal zone. Undaunted by the complexity of its assignment, this panel plunged with really extraordinary energy and dedication into its task. Over a period of roughly 1 year and supported by only two full-time staffs, Dr. Knauss and his associates held hearings throughout the country at which 126 witnesses presented formal statements. Over 600 additional persons were interviewed or supplied material by mail. A conference organized by resources for the future provided addi- tional inputs, as did the National Council Committee on the Coastal Zone and several Federal agencies. There were several staff and con- tract studies and monthly meetings of the panel to review materials and compare notes. Finally, after all of this labor, the mass of material finally was dis- tilled into two reports running some 300 pages, which I believe have gained recognition as the authoritative works in their fields. I might mention that throughout this period, Dr. Knauss also was directing the marine program of the University of Rhode Island and dedicating 2 to 4 days each months to the meetings of the Commission as a whole. In sum, whether or not you may agree with the panel’s pane) you must credit it with having turned in a truly remarkable job. T would like to qualify our next panelist as a real expert and turn the microphone over to Dr. Knauss. Dr. Wrenxk. Thank you very much, Dr. Lawrence. Dr. Knauss is well-known in the field of oceanography and now has graduated to be well-known in the field of marine science affairs. He received his under- graduate degree at MIT and his graduate degrees at the University of Michigan and Scripps. He is world-renowned as a specialist in ocean 11 circulation. Dr. Knauss has been at the University of Rhode Island since 1962 as dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography, and for the past year now, in a new reflection by that university of the impor- tance of the oceans, has been Provost for Marine Affairs. Dr. Knauss. STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN A. KNAUSS, PROVOST FOR MARINE AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, AND FORMER CHAIR- MAN, PANEL ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND RESOURCES Dr. Knauss. Thank you. “The coast of the United States is in many respects the Nation’s most valuable geographic feature”—in this way the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources opened its discussion of the coastal zone. Sketched in the Commission report, Our Nation and the Sea, and rather fully elaborated in the report of the panel on Management and Development of the Coastal Zone are a variety of ways in which the shoreline and the coastal waters are being used. Many of you have read these reports, and all of you are concerned with the coastal zone. There is no need for me to repeat, except insofar as I believe it useful to emphasize one major premise underlying our recommendations. The premise is as follows: The uses of the coastal zone are increas- ing. This trend will continue and probably accelerate. The increasing pressure on the coastal zone is causing an increasing variety of manage- ment problems. Some uses of the coastal zone are in conflict and some uses may be incompatible with one another. As we look to the future, one can see that these management problems will increase. THE USES OF THE COASTAL ZONE The most intensive uses of the coastal zone occur at the water’s edge. Seaward the problems become fewer, if not simpler, and at the edge of the continental shelf, problems of conflicting uses are the exception today. But we on the Commission were persuaded that problems of multiple uses of the coastal zone are moving seaward and will continue seaward. Without going into detail, let me remind you of some of the coastal zone problems : Pressures on shoreline space have mounted dramatically over the past 20 years. The reasons are clear: the shift of the population from rural areas to the cities (the Nation’s seven largest metropolitan areas are on the Great Lakes or the sea coast), the spread of suburban devel- opment into coastal areas, and the increased affluence and leisure time of a large part of our population. The revolution occurring in the shipping industry as we move to jumbo tankers, large bulk carriers and container vessels necessitates major changes in our ports and related transportation facilities. Electrical power production has doubled every 10 years. We need space for the large nuclear power plants of tomorrow and we must locate them in such a way as to minimize the consequences of the large amount of waste heat generated by these plants. One estimate indicated 12 that by 1980 the power industry will use the equivalent of one-fifth of the fresh water runoff of the United States for cooling water. Recreation is one of this country’s fastest growing industries and marine recreation is becoming more popular and varied. Scuba diving and surfing have become major sports in the last 20 years. I think California’s plan to develop underwater parks is the trend of the future. I believe we will see small submarines and underwater habitats widely used for recreation in another 20 years. Rather than talk about all the fishing problems, let me mention something about aquaculture. If we are to consider aquaculture seriously, we must face up to some of its implications as to water and shoreline use. There are those who believe the major problem facing” aquaculture is not learning how to grow seafood economically, but overcoming the variety of local, State, and Federal laws and manage- ment practices necessary to encourage such programs. For example, developing a raft oyster industry in navigable waters may be a difficult problem in some States. The growth of the offshore oil and gas industry is well known. There are now some 16,000 offshore walls in the United States alone. Offshore production accounts for some 16 percent of the total produc- tion today and is heading toward 33 percent. Industry investment in offshore programs 1s about a billion dollars a year and still growing. Last but far from Jeast, the coastal zone is used as a receptacle ‘for pollutants. Tf there is one common rallying cry around the country today it is that we must do something more to stop pollution. Pollution is more than a coastal zone pr oblem, but I think our proposed coastal zone authorities will aid in this effort. THE MANAGEMENT PROBLEM OF THE COASTAL ZONE A major conclusion of our Commission was that the primary problem in the coastal zone was a management problem with al! the attendant problems that proper management implies. It is true that the Federal, State, and local governments share the responsibility to develop and manage the coastal zone. In reviewing the situation, we concluded that effective management to date has been thwarted by the variety of Government jurisdictions involved at all levels of Govern- ment, the low priority afforded to marine matters by State govern- ments, the diffusion of responsibility among State agencies and the failure of State agencies to develop and implement long range plans. Having said all this about the problems in the States, I would also add that until relatively recently, navigation—over which Federal authority is preeminent—has tended to “dominate other uses of the coastal zone, and perhaps for this reason, States have been slow to assume their responsibilities. The Federal role in the coastal zone has grown haphazardly. Closely related functions are discharged by the Coast Guard, Army Corps of Ene Department of Housing and Urban Development, a num- ber of bureaus of the Department of Interior and several other Federal agencies. “The Federal Government has sponsored planning activities in certain coastal areas through river basin commissions and Federal activity is itself coordinated through the Water Resources Council and the 13 Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. How- ever, neither of these groups can be expected to be concerned with the detailed management of particular coastal areas. If you believe, as did the Commission, that a more effective manage- ment system is required, one of the first questions to be settled is the level of Government at which it operates. Our second major conclusion was that the management task was primarily a State responsibility and that the Federal Government should encourage the States to accept this responsibility. Even the most ardent federalists amongst us despaired of ever doing an effective job at the Federal level. It seems highly unlikely, even if it were considered desirable, to put together in a single agency all of the authority and functions related to the coastal zone that one now finds scattered throughout the Federal establishment. Probably the most that one could expect would be a somewhat more powerful and effective Marine Council or Water Resources Council. However, we in the Commission were of the opinion that the proper level of Government was the State level. Most of the management functions we are suggesting are traditionally State functions. The. extent to which any State wishes to delegate authority to local or regional groups can, within certain limits, be determined by the State. THE COASTAL ZONE AUTHORITY Coming to our recommendations, the Commission was of the opinion that the States must be the focus for responsibility and action in the: coastal zone. We also concluded that in most cases the States now lack adequate machinery for that task. We believe an agency of the State is needed with sufficient planning and regulatory authority to manage coastal areas effectively and to resolve problems of competing uses. Such agencies should be strong enough to deal with the host of over- lapping and often competing jurisdictions of the various Federal agencies. In addition, a strong State organization is essential to sur- mount special local interests, to assist local agencies in solving common problems, and to effect strong interstate cooperation. Specifically we recommended that: A Coastal Management Act be enacted which will provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in-aid to. facilitate the establishment of State coastal zone authorities empow- ered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent land. We recognize that the Federal Government cannot compel a State to: develop a special organization to deal with coastal management prob- lems. However, by such an act it can encourage a State to do so. We also recognize that the great diversity of resources, scope, and activities of coastal State governments will prevent adoption of a uniform administrative approach to State coastal zone authorities. In some States a single authority might appropriately be given juris- diction over the State’s entire coast; in others, several groups might be established under a single authority within a State to deal with sep- arate estuarine areas. and The form of a State authority may vary from a volunteer commission. with a small staff to an agency like the New York Port Authority with major development authority buttressed by the power to issue bonds. Tn our review, the guiding principles for the authorities should in- 37-487—69-__2 14 clude the concept of fostering the wildest possible variety of beneficial uses so as to maximize net social return. When necessary, public hear- ines should be held to allow all interested parties to express views be- fore actions are taken or decisions are made changing or modifying the coastal zone. All information and actions of such an authority should be made a matter of public record. The authority must represent all legitimate interests in the coastal zone, and not be dominated by any single interest whether it be fishing, recreation, industrial development or conserva- tion. : The Commission believed the following powers should be available to the typical coastal zone authority: | 1. Planning—to make comprehensive plans for the coastal waters and adjacent lands and to conduct the necessary studies and investiga- tions. 2. Regulation—to zone; to grant easements, licenses, or permits; and to exercise other necessary controls for insuring that use of waters and adjacent lands is in conformance with the plan for the area. 3. Acquisition and eminent domain—to acquire lands when public ownership is necessary to control their use (condemnation procedures should be used if necessary ). 4. Development—to provide, either directly or by arrangement with other government agencies, such public facilities as beaches, marinas, and other waterfront developments and to lease lands in its juris- diction, including offshore lands. With respect to the latter point, I should note that the Commission recommended that : States develop procedures to permit the leasing of offshore areas for new uses consistent with the overall plan of the State coastal zone authorities for the development of these areas. We referred to these leases as “seasteads” in analogy with the Home- stead Act of 1862. QUESTIONS CONCERNING COASTAL ZONE AUTHORITIES Of the various questions and objections that were raised to the idea of State coastal zone authorities during the formulation of our report, I’d like to mention two. The first 1s that State boundaries are usually not natural division lines for the coastal zone and, for example, Lake Michigan, Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bay are shared by more than one State; thus regional authorities would be preferable. The objection is certainly a valid one, but I don’t believe most States are willing to transfer to regional groups the kinds of power and au- thority we have suggested for coastal zone authorities. Furthermore, the Commission was persuaded that “in most cases sound planning and management undertaken by one State probably will not differ greatly from that undertaken by an adjacent State. When differences do arise, they may be settled by direct negotiations between the parties con- cerned or by the establishment of ad hoc interstate committees or an interstate commission or compact. Strong coastal zone authorities rep- resenting the variety of State interests will facilitate such agreements.” The second question concerns the Federal role vis-a-vis coastal zone authorities. The Federal Government has strong interests in the ef- 15 fective management of a State’s coastal waters and a number of special interests and responsibilities including navigation and security. The Commission felt that some kind of Federal review of coastal zone authorities was desirable to insure that national interests are pro- tected. Recognizing that any action of a coastal zone authority must be consistent with such programs as the Department of Interior’s con- tinuing recreation, wildlife and mineral development plans and with those of the Army Engineers relating to navigation and flood control, we were of the opinion that there should be a single agency in the Fed- eral Government with primary responsibility for reviewing the pro- oram of State coastal zone authorities, for coordinating Federal activi- ties in these areas, and for planning, coordination, and management for that part of the coastal zone within Federal but beyond State juris- diction. Tt was our recommendation that these responsibilities be assigned to the new, independent agency recommended by the Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. COASTAL ZONE RESEARCH LABORATORIES Finally, let me say a few words about coastal zone research labora- tories. Proper management of the coastal zone requires a continuing program of monitoring and research. It also requires a continuing flow of trained people. As a teacher and a scientist, [ can’t emphasize these points too much. The problems of the coastal zone cut across many dis- ciplines; most of the natural sciences and fields of engineering, as well as law, economics, community planning and political science. An important aspect of the coastal zone recommendation of the Com- mission is that concerning the development of coastal zone laboratories affiliated with academic institutions, the possible interaction of these laboratories with coastal zone authorities, and the suggestion that uni- versities affiliated with these laboratories play a more active role in training personnel in these areas. We considered these coastal zone laboratories as an integral part of the coastal zone recommendations. Further the Commission recom- mended that these coastal zone laboratories be developed through the sea-grant program. Thank you. STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD WENK, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT Dr. Wrens. Thank you very much, John. I have been identified on your program as the moderator, and those of you who are acquainted with the physics of nuclear engineering appreciate that in most in- stances moderators are present to prevent unwarranted heat from arising from nuclear power reactors. I am going to depart from that role if I may, to join this panel as a third speaker with the encouragement, I might say, of Dr. Clingan and the committee, because the Administration has had the oppor- tunity of examining these recommendations and has made a decision which was announced on Sunday, October 19. 16 I would like to share that with you because I believe you are inter- ested in the outcome of this novel, and I at least might tell you what the next to last chapter sounds like. The last chapter will be written: sometime next spring and probably on this side of Washington. First of all the Administration is supporting a five-point program: in marine sciences, four of the elements of which bear on the issues that were raised here today : On coastal zone management, on the estab- lishment of coastal laboratories, on the restoration of Great Lakes, and a fourth one having to do with the ecology of the Arctic. The fifth of these concerns support for the International Decade of Ocean Exploration, and considering the scope of this meeting, I will not comment further on the fifth, although it is a very important and very significant element in this program. Let me say too that this is not simply a proposal from the Council to the President. This is a proposal that has already gone through the process of Presidential review and approval, and therefore what: I am going to report to you is now part of the President’s program that he will amplify in his submissions to the Congress in January— amplify both in terms of proposed legislation and in terms of requests: for additional funds over and above the current phase of activity in. these areas. With regard to coastal management, I think that the problems that have been enunciated by the Commission, and even prior to the forma- tion of the Commission, by those in the Congress and in the executive branch concerned about our coastal affairs and reflected bv activities of a large number of different Federal agencies, have been brought to a point of necessary action in order that we better manage these scarce. resources. The legislative proposal that will be submitted to the Congress will be to establish a national policy for the development of coastal areas,. to authorize Federal grants with matching State contributions that will encourage and facilitate the establishment of State management authorities. Such legislation will assist to assure that rapid coastal development does not destroy limited coastal land and water resources and that all interests in the coastal areas would have consideration. Grants are- anticipated in two phases, the first for the initial development by States of planning regulatory mechanisms and a second phase sub- sequently for the operation of those State management systems that are developed. The latter grants would be made available to a State contingent on a State demonstrating a capability to propose plans that proved, first, for balanced use of the coastal margin both land and water, second, for access to management-oriented research including coastal ecology studies, third, for regulatory authority, fourths, for consideration of” interests of adjacent States, fifth, for land acquisition and power of eminent domain necessary for implementation of the plan, and finally, for review of proposed Federal assistance to State and local projects to assure consistency with the plan. States already have the responsibility for the management of these: resources. They have often lacked the regulatory management ca- pabilities needed and they have been faced with a diversity of coastal’ Jurisdictions and the absencé of ecological information. | 17 The intent of the program therefore is to strengthen the States’ capabilities, lessen the need for Federal intervention, and facilitate integration of planning, conservation, and development programs among diverse public and private interests. With regard to coastal laboratories, steps will be taken toward establishment of coastal laboratories, supported by the Federal Gov- ernment, but strengthening and consolidating existing facilities wherever possible, intending to provide information on resources de- velopment, water quality, and environmental factors to assist State authorities and others in coastal management. Existing facilities will be strengthened and consolidated as necessary to provide capabilities vo Develop a basic understanding and description of the region- ally differentiated ecology of our 13,000-mile coastline ; Anticipate and assess the impact on the ecology of alternative land uses, of pollution, and of alterations to the land-water interfaces ; Operate coastal monitoring networks; and Perform analyses needed for these State-managed coastal authorities. Establishment of these capabilities will be phased with the devel- opment of coastal management plans to foster State access to environmental data and research capabilities. With regard to the Great Lakes, the step that is being proposed now is to examine the feasibility of restoring the Great Lakes with tech- nological as well as with regulatory mechanisms by a pilot study using a lake of manageable size. Existing environmental technology and techniques will be tested, including pollution measuring devices, methods of artificial destratification by aeration, mixing, and thermal upwelling techniques, thermal pollution control and enrichment, arti- ficial bottom coating, filtering, harvesting of living plants and ani- mals, and restocking of fishery resources. The program is intended to reinforce current investigations, and bring together additional competence from industry, academic insti- tutions, and Federal laboratories. The fourth one I realize is of interest to just one State but neverthe- less concerned with coastal ecology. It is focused on the arctic environ- ment. Here is a program directed to understanding better the polar icepack, including its impact on transportation and global weather and climate; the polar magnetic field and its effects on communication ; geological structures underlying the arctic lands and polar seas both as potential mineral sites and as hazards to construction and resource development; balance of the arctic ecosystem; the presence of perma- frost; and slow degradation of liquid and solid wastes under arctic conditions. Behavior and physiology of man in this environment also will re- ceive increased attention. Initial emphasis will be on strengthening and broadening arctic research capabilities. Consideration will also be directed to formulating an overall policy framework for arctic- related activities. The administration has further determined that these programs are not just desirable, not just important, but they are urgent. The ad- ministration is studying the Commission’s proposal to establish a new independent agency, but it was decided not to wait for that resolution 18 before proceeding with the development of these programs and as a consequence the responsibilities for planning these programs on an interim basis until this issue on NOAA is determined have been as- signed within the Government on a lead agency basis, responsibility for drafting legislation for the State authorities with the Department of the Interior; preparation of plans for coastal laboratories with the Department of the Interior; the preparation of plans for the pilot study of lake pollution with the Office of Science and Technology later to be assigned to the operating agencies, and the study of arctic ecology, a matter of interest to a number of Federal agencies, to be coordinated by the National Science Foundation. I want to say one thing further though, that this is not going to be done just in Washington. The Commission quite adroitly consulted with you and your colleagues as they developed their plans and so have the Federal agencies historically as they have developed plans. I think you see a growing interest in this matter of partnership intensifying the desire and need for consultation with representatives of the State government. So I am sure that the Department of the In- terior for example, will increase within the next 2 months is con- sultation with you as individual States action collectively through the Council of State Governments and other such councils, even consid- ering local and municipal affairs. I would like to conclude, and then open this meeting for discussion with just one comment, if I may, to you. Because I think most of you in the audience are officials of State governments, I feel that you have a special responsibility and special opportunity in this matter and I will tell you why. We have a problem that has developed as a consequence of neglect, of ignorance, and just plain human greed. Someone has to look out for the public interest. I believe the officials of State governments have wanted to do this. We want to make this possible. T think that you as individuals have a further opportunity now to articulate some of your vision and some of your dreams as to ways and means to see some of these goals in understanding a very complex institutional framework that right within your own State government I imagine involves the same bureaucratic rivalries that exist right here in Washington between our agencies, conflicts between public and private interests, and the need for political courage to make your recommendations stick. To do this, however, means more than simply desire. It means knowledge. Here, I think you see a pattern reflected in all of these, including the fifth of these proposals by the administration, to pay more attention to the environment and to undertake that research hecessary in order that we can assess the impact of man on our eco- system. This is not an easy job to do and there are not many equipped yet to do this, and it is going to be necessary during the months and years ahead to understand better the kind of skills and intellects and talents needed for this job and this is where the sea grant program will be so very important. We are going beyond science. We are using science and this is a message that I, not as an oceanographer, but as a practitioner of this limited art of science policy, am trying to communicate in every way possible, that science is for people, and it is through an example in 19 marine affairs that I think we can see so very clearly how the talents of the scientific community merge with those in public administra- tion, with those in industry, and with those of us who go down to the Chesapeake Bay to boat and swim and fish. One of the principles of this meeting has been from the outset to invite questions and comments from the floor and I realize we have run a little bit over half of the time. I don’t know how much indul- gence the chairman has for the panel to run over, but at this point, I would like to open the meeting for questions. Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is yours. Dr. Joun C. Carnoun. I am Dr. John C. Calhoun. Voice. Who is the individual? Dr. Calhoun ? Dr. Carnoun. One of the representatives from the State of Texas. I work for Texas A. & M. University. It seems to me a point of clarification is desirable. I have read most of the stuff that the Com- mission has published on this, but I am interested in the matter of definitions. Do I understand when you say “coastal zone authority” that you are talking about the outer boundary as being the coastal water boundary? That is, you are talking about the waters and lands within the 3-mile limit or its equivalent in those States that might have a greater limit, but you are not talking about Continental Shelf lands or Continental Shelf waters? Dr. Knauss. When we discussed the problems of the coastal zone we talked about the problems irrespective of jurisdiction. When it comes to the recommendations for State managed coastal zone authori- ties, regardless of what some States might like to do to extend their authority further seaward, the only thing we could possibly recom- mend was State coastal zone authority over that area of water and land over which the State has jurisdiction which at this time is 3 miles: an a States except Texas, and the West coast of Florida which has miles. Mr. Wir114m H. Stott. Bill Stoll, Texas. The Texas Legislature has appropriated some funds for the State to begin a comprehensive coastal planning program. I am very curious when you mention that some funds will be available from the Federal Government in 1970 to begin to establish some type of planning machinery within the coastal and Great Lakes States. My question is, has any thought been given to what type of grants these funds will be used for? Will it be 50 percent, 100 percent funds? What is the thinking on approach- ing this funding problem ? Dr. Knauss. We on the Commission made some recommendations about matching funds. On the other hand, I think that this really is now in the lap of the administration and Congress since they have now made some decisions on this. I think Dr. Wenk should be allowed to answer that question, if he will. Dr. WENnK. Let me repeat again as I did at the outset, that you see a clear and conspicuous similarity between the Administration’s pro- posals and the Commission’s recommendations. Nevertheless there are details of this kind that need yet to be worked out. It is my impression that unquestionably this will be a matching fund grant, but it is also my impression that some of the officials in Washington are of the belief that the Federal share may be larger at the beginning and may trend toward a 50-50 grant certainly in phase 2 of the planning. 20 These details will be worked out during the next 2 months, and although it is presumptious on my part to forecast when the Presi- dent will transmit a proposal to the Congress, it is my guess that this will be transmitted in January. T feel very sure that there will be consultation with representatives of the States prior to that time to determine what makes sense. Remember, now, we are talking planning grants and these are something perhaps on the order of several hundred thousand dollars to each State. These are not operating land grants. These are not land acquisition grants which obviously are going to be in order later. Dr. Kwauss. I think I should also add that there has been legislation on coastal zone authorities, introduced in the Senate by Senator Magnuson and although I don’t have a copy of that bill with me and I don’t recall details, I do believe it makes specific provisions for planning grants. There is also legislation that may be introduced by Mr. Lennon’s committee which has rather specific references to the form of the grant. Dr. WenxK. If there are no other questions, let me say on the part of this panel, the three of us, how much we appreciate your attention and interest. And I know I can speak for my colleagues here in saying that what you heard this morning could not have been done without your help prior to this meeting. Thank you very much. Mr. Crinean. I would like to call for Panel No. 2, 1f I may, “The Need and Nature of Land Use Regulation,’ and introduce to you Dr. David A. Adams, of Wilmington, N.C., formerly of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. Panet 2—Tuer Neep anp Nature or LAnp Use REGULATION MODERATOR Dr. David A. Adams, National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. PANELISTS J ohn R. Quarles, assistant to Under Secretary for Environmental Planning; Dr. Thomas L. Linton, North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development; and Roy T. Sessums, Freeport Sulphur Co., New Orleans, La. Mr. Apams. The concept of management involves the ability of manipulating the resource concerned, and manipulation involves some means of controlling and regulating the use of that resource. This panel is going to discuss the nature and need of such regulation over coastal zone resources. Our first panelist, the Honorable Boyd Gibbons, was unable to be here with us, and is being replaced by John R. Quarles, assistant to the Under Secretary for Environmental Planning of the Department of the Interior. Mr. Quarles is a resident of Massachusetts, did his bachelor’s work at Yale, with a LL.B. in Harvard Law School in 1961, and his present position in the Department of the Interior is that among many of the environmental problems that he is concerned with, he represents 21 Interior in negotiations with the Corps of Engineers over Corps per- mits which have met opposition somewhere along the line. Without further ado, I will turn the session over to Mr. Quarles. STATEMENT OF JOHN R. QUARLES, ASSISTANT TO UNDER SECRE- TARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I am speaking as a pinch-hitter for Mr. Gibbons, who was extremely disappointed not to be able to come to this program, which he had looked forward to with a keen anticipation, but he was required to go out of the city on this date. I am not speaking from any prepared statement and I think prob- ably I should make it clear that my comments will be my own, rather than representing any positions which have been reviewed and adopted by the Department of the Interior as a whole. I want to get as quickly as I can into the meat and marrow of this problem, and therefore I intend to talk only briefly on the basic ques- tions reviewed this morning, as to the questions of whether there is a need for new approaches of management in the coastal zone, and whether there is a problem. I would say in response to the question of, is there a problem, the answer certainly is, “Yes.” We all recognize the growth of competing demands for the limited resources in the coastal zone, and we certainly can see at this point in time that the prospect has no direction to head in other than the direc- tion of increased intensity and increased squeeze upon limited areas and limited resources of the costal zone. In terms of whether this problem is being adequately met by the existing conditions under which use of different resources is deter- mined, I think we probably would also agree that the present situation is not entirely satisfactory. At this time the determination of usage is made on the basis of the free marketplace, of individual owners using their land for what they want to use it for, or selling it for what they want to sell it for. This is in keeping with our American tradition. I don’t think it proper to be critical of people for taking this approach, but the results of this approach applied across the board are not very satis- factory in terms of meeting our long-term national needs. In terms of the system that presently exists, the determinations are made primarily on the basis of short-range considerations, and pri- marily on the basis of economic determinations. These are not perfect mechanisms for achieving the long-range, overall public interest. This brmgs me to the first point that I would like to place some emphasis on, and that is, assuming that there is a need for better techniques of management, what is the level of government at which this new emphasis of management should be placed ? There appears to be developing something approaching a consensus that responsibility should be vested primarily in the State government and exercised at the State level. I don’t believe anyone who has seriously focused on the problem thinks that the Federal Government can, from Washington and from 22 the Federal level, devise management plans which properly would anticipate the use that each acre of land should be devoted to over the years ahead, so that the Federal Government needs to be ruled out as being the primary responsible agency in management of coastal areas. We certainly recognize this in the Department of the Interior. The choice therefore really becomes one of whether you leave respon- sibility to the States, or to their subdivisions, the towns and cities, which I will refer to as the localities. The localities, I would suggest, are not suitable for exercising these functions. It has been fairly widely recognized that localities suffer from deficiencies of not having strong staffs, skilled people to deal with some of the complex problems. Also, of course, they are subject to local political and economic pressures, and they are extremely con- cerned with development of their individual tax bases of assessable property within the town limits. : These considerations, however, I would suggest, overlook the princi- pal difficulty with leaving responsibility at the local level, which is that good planning from this time forth needs to encompass a range of vision beyond town limits. There is a necessity for looking at a coastline that may be 50 miles in length, or 100 miles in length, or, hopefully, even of a greater length, and picking out areas within the coastline which will be devoted to one use or another. We recognize that some of the uses for coastal areas are consistent with other uses. Others are not compatible with other uses, and there- fore certain ones need to be established which will be devoted to indus- trial uses or recreational uses, preservation of marine habitats, or what-have-you. But it will not be satisfactory if we allow development to occur on a patchwork, “crazy quilt” basis in which one parcel of land is used for one use, and the immediately adjoining parcel used for an incom- patible use. Development cannot be done well on a local basis. In this connection, I would call your attention to a statement on page 65 of the Stratton Commission report, which states that, “* * * the maintenance of a major port in every major coastal city is no longer justified.” This is just one indication of the type of problem we have, but in getting good planning for the overall needs, it is necessary to consider what areas will be devoted primarily to one use or another. I would next turn to the question of planning for competing uses, and here I simply want to make the point that I believe good planning must face up to the fact that different uses have different priorities, and that we cannot assume that every use should be given equal treat- ment. The resources available to meet the national needs are not proportional to the needs themselves. For one example, at least in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, we recognize that there is a developing shortage of suitable sites for electric power generating units. Areas which present good sites for that se may in some instances need to be preserved for that use, even thoueh there are other uses which are present, and certain people ~- ->xions to devote the sites to such other uses. 23 In this connection we should recognize that some uses can only be satisfied within the coastal zone. An obvious example of this is marine transportation. If we are going to have shipping, that has to be accommodated within the coastal zone. Similarly, the preservation of adequate marine habitat to support the fishing industry, shellfishing and the lke. Another use which can only be satisfied in the coastal zone is certain recreation. Swimming obviously cannot occur elsewhere than on the beaches. These comments may seem like platitudes, but in application to specific instances they are intended to suggest that careful planning re- quires us to face up to the fact that some of the alternative uses must be subordinated to give way to the priority of uses that must be satisfied within the coastal zone. As an example, and really more than an example, I would refer to residential development. On page 52 of the Stratton Commission re- port, the statement is made as follows, and let me quote: “Private housing has exercised and will continue to exercise the greatest demand for shore property; for example, the Boca Ciega Bay area of the west coast of Florida has been completely transformed by housing developments in the past 20 years. But there are other needs that must be met * * *” I think that, regarding this problem on a national level, serious consideration must be given to whether we can continue to allow areas which can be seen as needed to meet other needs to be used for residential development. The Boca Ciega example is a good one. Last summer I flew over that area by helicopter, and flew over most or many other parts of the Florida coast, and it is positively striking to look down and see the way an entire area is transformed. Our technology of earth moving equipment has developed to the point that it is possible for man to transform whole areas, and the rate at which areas can be consumed for residential housing is tremendous. Therefore, good planning is going to have to recognize this fact, and perhaps face up to some hard questions as to the extent to which this can be permitted to continue. Another plea which I would make along the line of competing uses, is that high consideration be given to esthetics. We need to look at this problem not only in terms of critical needs for people, such as housing or food. These things are important, but these things in many cases exist in abundance in the United States, and our concern and our focus must shift also to the quality of life. A broader concern should extend to such items as recreation, which in today’s world Americans want, and in many cases it is fair to say they need. We are beginning to recognize that a strictly economic and com- mercial evaluation of life is leaving something out, and one of the things that is left out, particularly in our urban and metropolitan areas, is the matter of esthetics. Accordingly, good planning should take into account the importance of preserving areas which will be esthetically pleasing, not only for the 24 recreational use, but also for the contribution that they make to the quality of life for people who may simply be driving by or working in the area, or conducting other human activities in addition to recreation itself. Perhaps I am running longer than I should, and I will try to draw my comments to a close. T would like to refer to the tools for implementation. These are primarily going to be acquisition of land, and development, which probably will of necessity have limited use, since the State or the towns cannot go out and buy up all the land along the coast. Permit authority is another approach, but this also is hard to ad- minister, and it does tend to result in this crazy quilt type of develop- ment, because it does not really have a foreseen program of how the areas will be developed. Accordingly, one is drawn to something that in essence amounts to zoning, as really the only approach which will be effective in pro- ducing sound management, sound implementation of planning in the coastal areas. This is really what we are talking about, and I think that we need to face up to the need for zoning, and then, if my earlier comments are valid, I would also add zoning with a substantial influence from the State level rather than merely from the local level. Finally, I will just add this thought: That the essence of planning is to alter the natural development according to the immediate mone- tarv concerns and advantages of the owners. It is not, however, strictly fair to take some areas and say there shall be no development of these areas, and other areas and say there shall be substantial development of these areas, and let the chips just fall where they may in terms of who gets the benefit of the increased land values that result from this type of zoning. There is a need to develop some sort of tool to balance out the advantages and disadvantages that will necessarily accompany the implementation of good planning. This relates both to individual land owners and also to towns. Tf you take a major part of the shoreline of a town and say there will be no development along here, and in the next town you allow the installation of a multimillion dollar electric generating unit, you are obviously giving a tremendous advantage to the second town that you are denying to the first. Some development of means to balance these things out in fairness is required. I think, in summary, there runs through these points a move from the simple and obvious to the complex and obscure. I think we would all agree that there is a problem, and a need for action. There is general agreement perhaps that this action should occur at the State level. Our planning for competing uses raises some difficult problems. In terms of tools of implementation, IT think more needs to be done in recoenizing how we will work out the development of zoning, and finally, in the area of developing devices to even out the fairness of it all, a great deal of development and experimentation and work must be done. That will conclude my remarks. 25 Dr. Apams. Thank you very much. As it was the purpose of this get-together to stimulate thinking, and I think to bring to the surface and define areas of disagreement as well as agreement, I wish to encourage all of you sitting out there to develop your comments and questions as we go along, and hopefully, after we have heard the speakers, we can get an interesting discussion going. Our next speaker is Dr. Tom Linton, who is currently Commissioner of Commercial and Sports Fisheries for the State of North Carolina. Tom got his Ph. D. in fisheries from the University of Michigan, and served on the staff of the University of Georgia Marine Institute. As Commissioner of Commercial and Sports Fisheries, he has been very successful in getting a rather comprehensive coastal zone manage- ment program through its State assembly in the 1 year that he has had this job. Tom. STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS L. LINTON, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Dr. Linton. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and express tlie view of the State of North Carolina. Although I will limit my remarks to activities in the State of North Carolina, I do believe land use regulations initiated and enforced or coordinated by any State government should be given the consideration T want to talk to you about. These activities were endorsed by the citizens of the State as a whole, and in the Federal level. The people of North Carolina are very interested in the coastal zone, as is evidenced by legislation passed by our 1969 State legislature, which was supported and endorsed by citizens from the whole State. In addition, at the county and at the Federal level, there is tremendous interest shown by elected officials. For example, the chairman of this conference, Congressman Len- non, a North Carolinian, has been very active in oceanographic and marine science activities through efforts of this subcommittee. Congressman Walter Jones of this subcommittee and Congressman Richardson Preyer, both from North Carolina, are sponsors of the pro- posed legislation which would establish a National Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology. Legislation sponsored by Congressman Lennon would establish a coastal zone authority and national coastal and estuarine areas. This is a reflection of the interest in marine science of the congres- sional delegation from North Carolina. At the State level, I would like to quote to you a portion of Gov. Robert W. Scott’s legislative message, and I quote: One of these great gifts of nature is the majestic and mysterious Atlantic Ocean washing our shores. The Atlantic Ocean and our inland waters are frontiers where lie natural resources as yet untapped. With the new emphasis being placed throughout the world on the scientific study of seas, oceans and water resources. I believe that the State must join in the intensive search for answers to the problems and potentials of the ocean and rivers. This administration will move to a position of leadership in the field of marine science. We will look for ways to determine how the sea can vield more food ; how 26 our coastline can be protected from winds and tides; what mineral resources can be tapped from these depths and how the beaches and shorelines can be conserved. This is from the Governor, and honored by the State legislature, and we fared auite well. Last December. the State Board of Higher Education approved the establishment of a marine sciences curriculum and master’s and doctoral degree programs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. In July, 1969, the General Assembly added a campus at the Uni- versity at Wilmington, giving the university for the first time a campus located in a coastal county. Plans are underway to establish marine science studies at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. There are several pieces of recent legislation which has placed North Carolina in a very advanced position in establishing order in the coastal zone of the State. In North Carolina, we are realizing the potential of the coastal zone, and, importantly, doing something about it. Plans for the coastal area gain momentum and profusion almost daily. Let me briefly go through the various regulations we have initiated to at least slow down and guide certain ceastal activities until we have time to complete studies that will determine which areas will be used for what, and how to go about development in an intelligent manner. These regulations have been instituted over a long period of time by the State as it faced specific problems. Therefore, a comprehensive, overall plan does not exist. In this sense, much of the State’s regulating legislation could be classified as stopgap measures. You will see how these regulations readily fit into another category: that of long-range lanning. The first type regulation I would like to mention is a law which makes it necessary, effective January 1, to obtain a permit from our Department of Conservation and Development, through the Division of Commercial and Sports Fisheries, for any dredge-and-fill work in the coastal zone. Any modification within the estuarine area must have: this State permit, as well as the Corps of Engineers’ permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act. This will, in addition, require the Corps of Engineers’ permit. We have initiated a “capacity water use” system in the coastal zone for industries and municipalities, who use millions of gallons of water each day. A permit is now required if the ground or surface water used daily exceeds a certain amount. The third category is an estuarine beautification bill, which regu- lates certain acts that would mar the beauty of navigable waters, such as the erection of signs and the disposal of waste materials, trash, debris, et cetera. We have been using commercial fishing regulations as stopgaps for many years. ee As I mentioned before, we can very easily classify our regulatory controls as long-range plans, too. Included in our long-range plans are: a comprehensive estuarine study that will result in a coastal zone use plan, establishment of a State Marine Science Council and a Sea- shore Commission. Funds were appropriated by the legislature for the State to buy marshlands, and adding to the attorney general’s staff a lawyer, who: 27 is the first in the United States to receive a master of laws’ degree specializing in ocean law. A law was passed that directs the Commissioner of Commercial and Sports Fisheries to conduct a study of the estuaries of North Carolina. A comprehensive coastal zone plan, you might say, is the short title. The title may be short, but if we take the word “comprehensive” in a literal sense, we have a study of tremendous scope. We have set up meetings with the Boards of County Commissioners in each of the 26 coastal counties of North Carolina. In addition, we have asked that liaison agents from various State agencies that have activities going on in the coastal zone be named to work with the Department of Conservation and Development in putting together the comprehensive coastal zone use plan. Twenty agencies were contacted. All of these agencies have desig- nated liaison officers. We have held meetings and explained the purpose of the legislation, and asked for their initial contributions. So far we have received excellent cooperation. The completion report for this comprehensive plan is due in 1973, and will include recommendations of needed legislation, funds, areas that need to be purchased, and all the items that must go into a sen- sible and workable plan that will result in maximum benefits from our coastal zone. A staff of biologists, clerical help, draftsmen, and support personnel were provided by legislation to help with the estuarine study, which will eventually determine the essential areas of State acquisition. We feel that an estuarine system should be established wherein utilization and development can be accomplished while maintaining the quality of the environment. There was $500,000 appropriated and earmarked for the acquisition of estuarine lands, as a start in this program. Another activity which occurred during this past legislative ses- sion was to remold the functions of our seashore commission. The seashore commission was originally set up to bring into State owner- ship the lands that would be eventually transferred to the Department of the Interior to establish a National Seashore. The seashore com- mission, as originally intended, served its purpose. It was abolished this year, and then reinstated within the Depart- ment of Conservation and Development. Its function now, as spelled out in the legislation, is to guide orderly industrial and recreational development, and other activities that take place in the coastal zone of North Carolina, as well as serve as a liaison agency between the State and Federal Government in coastal matters. This is a comprehensive and parallel operation to the coastal zone plan that we are compiling. As commissioner of North Carolina marine fisheries, the seashore commission and the estuarine studies and permits section are under my supervision. These two sections will work in very close harmony in planning for the future use of our coastal zone. We also have the marine science council, established during the past administration, and given statutory authority by the last session of legislature. Congressman Lennon was very interested in this council and worked with State officials. | _The council was formed, and as a result of council meetings and discussions, a program for marine science development for the State 28 of North Carolina has been developed. One of the council’s concepts is to encourage the expansion of marine science laboratories in three centers along the coast. State money of $1.8 million was appropriated for council use by the State legislature to serve as matching funds for any Federal funds available for marine science development. ‘As I mentioned earlier, an ocean law specialist has joined the staff of our Attorney General’s office. He will work with the department of conservation and development and the department of water and air resources. : do! His major role will be to determine land ownership in the coastal zone, working with and advising State officials in pending lawsuits, including the case that the Federal Government has initiated against 13 Atlantic coastal States. The latter controversy involves ownership of the seabed beyond the 3-mile limit. He will also be involved in negotiations with South Carolina and Virginia to establish the lateral seaward boundaries of North Carolina is respect to these neighboring States. There are three essentials in the North Carolina coastal zone pro- gram: (1) cooperation, (2) planning, and (3) funds. I feel that no program can operate if these three factors do not exist. In addition, we must have cooperation within the State from the people at large, from the local units of government, from the State government, and the university community, and we must have close working relationships between State and Federal Government. We feel that we have this cooperation in North Carolina at the present time, and that it will continue. The second factor in our approach is a plan to direct our conserva- tion and development activities in the coastal zone. On August 6, 1969, Governor Scott of North Carolina testified be- fore this subcommittee. At that time, he endorsed the coastal zone authority and the idea of coastal zone laboratories. We are in the process of establishing such laboratories as have been endorsed and recommended by our marine science council. The Governor stated that a State-Federal partnership is essential in this regard. We feel that not only is a State-Federal partnership essential, but to take one step further, Federal-State-local partnership is essential, because the people who live in and visit the coastal zone are the ones who profit or suffer by any decision relating to their area, such as restrictions. A State-oriented framework in regards to decisionmaking would be best for North Carolina. I believe the role of the individual States has been underplayed in the Stratton report. Of the many proposals laid down by the commission, few recom- mendations distinctly specify the State’s role, or distinctly specify the State as a participant or a recipient. The call to arms, in general, seems to be to the university-industry-Federal Government trio. We are working to establish better cooperation within the State to the best of our ability. Better cooperation is also needed among the many different agencies of the Federal Government which are involved in ocean affairs. Some 20-odd Federal agencies have an interest in this area, and the Federal-State relationship is thereby confused. Possibly the establish- ment of a Federal agency of the type envisioned in NOAA would tend 29 to solve this problem at the Federal level concerning Federal oceano- graphic matters. During the creation of our comprehensive coastal zone use plan, to insure that we maintain good communications at all levels within the State, we have asked that not only the county commissioners in the coastal counties meet with us, but that representatives from the Federal agencies also be designated, that are located in North Carolina, for example, the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife. Asa result of our request, individuals of these Federal agencies have been designated to work with us. In addition, the industries that are located in the coastal zone could either be helped or harmed by any comprehensive plan. If we do not have a consensus of all parties who have a vested interest in the coastal zone, any plan that we put together would be an exercise in futility. This means we must communicate. We must take into consideration and cooperate with all groups, agencies, and the people in general in the coastal zone who will be influenced by this comprehensive plan. Were this not accomplished, any plan we put together will be, in my opinion, an exercise in futility, and will not stand a chance of being enacted by our State legislature. The third factor in our program is funding. We have received, rela- tively speaking, excellent funding at the State level to conduct our coastal zone study planning activities and regulatory activities. However, the State is limited in the amount it can allocate in this large-scale operation. It is impossible for the State to carry the full financial load alone. We must seek financial aid from the Federal Government. However, North Carolina has not stood idly by awaiting the arrival of Federal gravy trains and waiting for Federal funds to come to us before we do anything. We have put our money where our mouth is. The States must partially foot the bill. North Carolina has. The brief outline I have presented is the approach that the State of North Carolina is taking. The need is there, and we realize there is a need. The regulations that I have mentioned will be influenced by infor- mation obtained from local, State, Federal, and industry representa- tives. Without a plan which will be acceptable to a majority of these interests in our coastal zone, the plan will be an exercise in futility and will be wasted efforts. However, [ think that due to the response that we have received so far, we are going to continue to get the cooperaticn. I am confident that in 4 years we will have a workable plan. The State of North Carolina will be able to more fully realize the benefits from the tremen- dous assets they have in 2,500 square miles of salt water bays and sounds, 15,000 square miles of continental shelf offshore, 265 nautical miles of intracoastal waterways, and 220,000 acres of coastal marsh- lands. We have a valuable resource here. The people realize this and are interested in doing something about it. We are beginning te make progress in the right direction by planning for the future use and development of these valuable resources. I believe that the people of North Carolina are intelligent enough to have both conservation and development at the same time in their 37-487-- 69——— 3 30 coastal zone. The time is right, the statutory authority is there, and part of the financing is there. In Our Nation and the Sea, it is recommended that university national labs be set up, and that universities control these coastal zone laboratories. Gentlemen, in any legislation that is put forth concerning the coastal zone area, the State agencies should not be overlooked. We have some very competent people. We are making contributions that are valu- able. To use our Governor’s words, I believe that we should have a Federal, State, and university partnership in this regard. The coastal zone authority is a necessity. Coastal zone laboratories are very important. But there are problems that we must answer in our day-to-day activities as State agencies, with statutory authority for regulating coastal zone matters. There are research areas that are beyond the capability of State agencies. These should be handled by the university research commun- ity. There are other problems that the State agencies are best equipped to handle, because they have the capability as well as the statutory authority. Aside from these, there are other problems which involve State boundaries. For example, in North Carolina, Currituck Sound extends into Virginia, and Albemarle Sound receives drainage from Virginia. This is beyond the area of responsibility of the State. This, in my opinion, is a valid responsibility of the Federal Government. Therefore, in North Carolina, there are a variety of problems, with some falling under the purview of the university research community. There are some which could best be handled by State agencies, and yet a third group which could best be handled by the Federal agencies. Therefore, we have the ingredients for the university-Federal-State partnership which I referred to at the beginning of this discussion. The local units of government and others who are interested in the problems have certain responsibilities and capabilities. We must capi- talize on our strengths, which are different, and cooperate in devising the wisest use of our coastal zone through research and development, which is what we are attempting to do. Under broad Federal guidelines, the State should establish the coastal zone regulations, and have the primary responsibility and authority to regulate their coastal zones. I cannot speak for the other coastal States, but I know that in North Carolina we can do this job. Thank you. Dr. Apams. Thank you very much, doctor. Our next speaker is Mr. Roy T. Sessums, vice president of Freeport Sulphur Co., New Orleans, La. Mr. Sessums is the former director of public works for the State of Louisiana, and former dean of the School of Engineering of Louisiana Polytechnic Institute. He is also a former member of the President’s Advisory Board on Water Pollution, and is presently serving as a member of the Mississippi River Commission. In his capacity as vice president of Freeport Sulphur, he has first- hand experience in multiple use of the coastal zone of Louisiana as it affects the sulfur, oil, and gas, and saline industries. ol STATEMENT OF ROY T. SESSUMS, VICE PRESIDENT, FREEPORT SULPHUR CO., NEW ORLEANS, LA. Mr. Sxessums. Dr. Adams, panelists, and ladies and gentlemen, in addressing the subject of this panel, I feel that we seek an answer to the question: “To what degree is a management system required for the coastal zone ?”’ This question suggests that current management may be less than adequate to cope with the conflicts which have arisen increasingly in recent years between the varying demands made upon the air, earth, and water of the coastal zone. Certainly there is no lack at this time of government bodies at all levels—local, State, and national—which concern themselves with one or more aspects of the coastal zone. Insofar as man’s adverse influence on the coastal ecosvstem is con- cerned, it is generally of two types: Pollutants and water management projects. Pollutants come from municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes, the organic and inorganic contaminants, and the physical and radio- active influences. These, of course, are in addition to nature’s own pollutants, such as exposed saline outcrops, natural oil seeps, soil erosion, and decaying vegetable and organic matter. I respect the seriousness of pollutants, but my concern about their effects has lessened as response from municipalities and industries rise to the fore. Under the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and other related legislation, pollution from municipal and industrial sources is abating, and will continue to decrease as the Federal Government meets its commitments to provide grants for municipal sewerage treatment works, as the FWPCA continues to fund demonstration projects aimed at fincing efficient ways to treat and stabilize waste materials, and as public awareness manifests itself through individual action and will- ingness to pay a reasonable share of the cost for improved water quality. J do not mean to suggest that we will eliminate pollution entirely. Problems will continue, but I am confident of man’s technology—I feel that at some point “downstream,” he will cleanse the water faster than he despoils it. The other type of influence is generated by water management proj- ects, such as dredging and filling, dams and impoundments, naviga- tional and water diversionary measures, and other such projects. The Bureau of Reclamation has built over 300 dams. The Corps of Engineers and TVA have built hundreds of others. All of these water management projects have produced incalculable benefits for our increasing population in the heartland as well as in the coastal zone, and have served hundreds of beneficial purposes. Such projects must continue, unless we are to lower the quality of our life. Yet, the consequences remain. The estuarine areas are losing the enrichment from the rivers they need to sustain their productivity. These water management projects have produced innumerable bene- fit to man—water for potable purposes, for irrigation, for power, and for many others. Even so, however, a disagreeable question must now be posed—do we want a particular project that upon completion 32 will provide great benefit to us, or te we want to forgo or modify a project to pr ‘otect an estuarine system ? The effects of these water management projects are often irre- versible, and when this occurs, it is of even greater concern than the effects of pollution. This is a difficult decision to make. Although the problems which face us as we look upon the coastal zone scene are complex—and some of these problems are just now beginning to emerge—it does not necessarily follow that our response needs to be equally ‘complex. Rather, I feel that our response should be a measured one. We should seek to use to the fullest extent those agencies which are already pro- viding able management of the many ‘elements which together com- prise the coastal zone. We should help them by providing funds and intelligent counsel. I do feel, however, that their efforts should be better coordinated. Although our panel’s primary purpose is to consider the extent to which a management system is required for the coastal zone, I feel compelled to comment br iefly on the nature of the management which is needed. Having had some personal experience at several levels of govern- ment—local, State and Federal—and being employed now by | a com- pany which has pioneered the sulfur mining industry in the coastal zone, I feel that [ may have some understanding of the advantages and disadvantages, the pros and the cons, the pluses and minuses vot having such control placed at each of the several levels of our govern- ment, ‘and with va rying participation by government and business leaders. T think that we have all seen the depressing effect of too rigid con- trol by a centralized agency. Such agencies sometimes lose sight of the real needs of the area, and the desires of local interests. ‘Their opinions become law. Their actions become increasingly dictatorial and lacking in reason. In this area of control of the coastal zone, we must deyean the right blend of local, State, regional, and existing Federal authority with the proper ratio of covernment- -business participation to assure that the interests of each are considered in arriving at decisions which pro- tect the interests of all. I feel that we can best achieve this blend by assuring proper local participation in the administration of regulations developed by State and regional government—business agencies acting on guidelines established by an executive agency at the national level. The control structure developed should provide only that degree of control which will be necessary to assure that the interests of all parties concerned shall be properly considered. AJl matters should be resolved at the lowest echelon possible. Matters which in the normal course of events do not extend their effects beyond the geographic limits of a town or city should remain the concern of that town or city. Should the foreseeable effect of a planned activity extend beyond the limits of a town or city, it should then become the matter of concern for the next higher echelon of government which has jurisdiction over the total area affected by such activity. At each level of authority, there should be an advisory panel con- taining representatives of those businesses and industries most effected 33 by the authority’s actions. The functions of such panels will be advisory only. However, the panel or any of its members should be empowered to refer any matter to the next higher echelon should he or the panel feel that the best interests of the area are not being served by a particu- lar decision or action. Let me give you one example of how industry and government have worked together during an earlier period of emerging technology relating to use of the coastal zone. I refer to offshore production of oil, gas, and sulphur in the Gulf Coast area of Louisiana and Texas. Intensive deveiopment of these industries was accomplished during the past 20-25 years, without interference with shipping, shrimping, fishing, or cther more tra- ditional marine industries. As a matter of fact, the growth of the sport fishing industry off the coast of Louisiana coincides with and was derived largely from the growth of the offshore mineral industry. A good account of this erowth is continued in an article in the Conservationist, the official publication of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, the September—October issue of 1968, which is entitled “Twenty Years of Sport Fishing Along the Gulf Coast,” written by Mr. McFadden Duffy. [From the Louisiana Conservationist, Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, September—October 1968 ]; TwENTY YEARS OF SPORTFISHING ALONG THE GULF COAST (By McFadden Duffy) Twenty years ago, sportfishing along the coast of Louisiana as we know it today simply did not exist. True, there was plenty of fishing and many fishermen ; but not anything like it is today. Gulf fishing was limited to private yachts, fishing boats that could be hired when they were not engaged in shrimping activties, boat and bait livery camps where skiffs could be rented, and private boats that were kept near favorite fishing spots along the coast. Fishing in the inland coastal bays, lakes, bayous and passes has not changed a great deal during the years; although the overall pattern of fishing along the gulf coast has changed greatly during the past two decades. About a dozen species of fish which were only read about in sporting magazines 20 years ago by Louisiana fishermen are commonplace at the docks and marinas all along our coastline from the Texas state line to the Mississippi state line. Twenty years ago, no one dreamed that there would be three big game fishing clubs in the state and that anglers would be catching blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, bull dolphin, hefty tuna and speedy wahoo with more than consistent regularity. Bay fishing consists mostly of speckled trout, redfish, white trout, croakers, flounders, jackfish, drum, Sheepshead and tarpon during certain months of the year. Offshore anglers take amberjack, barracuda, bonito, cobia, dolphin, jackfish, jewfish, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, red snapper, sailfish, wahoo, tuna, tripletail, spadefish, speckled trout, sheepshead, blue marlin, white marlin, bull redfish and pompano in season. It was just about twenty years ago that a major oil company erected a test platform near the present sulphur mine seven miles south of Grand Isle. It was dubbed the “umbrella”? because it was a small square platform on a single piling. Fish began to congregate around the structure, and it soon became a favorite fishing spot with gulf anglers because it was only seven miles from shore and the island was visible. This marked the start of a twenty-year period of transition that enhanced Louisiana’s appeal to fishermen-tourists, and greatly broadened the scope of salt water fishing for Louisianians. One after another oil drilling platforms sprung up. Like an army of towering steel spiders, they spread down the Louisiana coast ' 34 and began marching even farther into the gulf, growing bigger and bigger—at- tracting more fish. And, with this gulfward march of the petroleum industry’s drilling platforms went Louisiana’s fishermen. The only single true charter boat of twenty years ago was soon augmented by the conversion of fishing boats to accommodate the growing number of anglers who wanted to try Louisiana’s expanding gulf fishing. Private yachts that for- merly had fished only inland coastal bays and lakes soon followed and a new breed of anglers was born—gulf fishermen. Marinas, coastal launching hoists and boat sheds were built eloser and closer to the gulf, and the outlets to the Gulf. Bay fishing and coastal lake fishing still attracted a large percentage of angling activity, but gulf waters became increas- ingly popular. It was not an overnight transition, but the trend was set. Throughout the 1940's gulf anglers began to push farther offshore. They were exploring and the hopes and dreams of those early explorers began paying off. ~ In 1953, a well-known fisherman from Metairie, Louisiana, claimed to have seen what he believed were sailfish off Grand Isle. Folks scoffed at him, but he was convineed that what he had seen on several occasions were sailfish. He boned up on sailfish and how to rig for them. Then he went after them. People secretly laughed each time he ventured out and came in empty handed. But he was determined. In October, 1953, he scored in waters off Grand Isle. It was a top score because his 96 pound sailfish still remains at the top of the Louisiana Outdoor Writer’s Association list of the ‘“Top Ten” in each species. Since then, hundreds and hundreds of sailfish have been caught in Louisiana waters. Highly respected, they are considered commonplace; and one finds them listed on all of the major fishing rodeo ‘‘eligible fish” categories. Other things were happening in the gulf. Underwater spearfishing, a sport that blossomed after World War II, found the divers bringing in huge jewfish that ranged in the hundreds of pounds. Baracuda, a species that had never before been taken by hook and line began congregating around the mushrooming offshore petroleum drilling platforms. The spearfishermen were the first to catch them. With the jewfish and the barracudas came the groupers. As the number of offshore platforms increased, another new species began showing up. There is still much to be learned about where the pompano come from and where they go in the spring; but in the fall and winter months, rig fishermen began catching the highly-prized food and game fish. At first, pompano catches at best numbered a dozen fish. The falls and the winters rolled by and catches mounted. The hundred-per-trip-mark was first reached in 1960; and since that time, catches of pompano by numerous fishing parties of six persons, or less, frequently number in the hundreds today. Pompano. considered a mild water fish in Florida, along the coast and at the mouths of the rivers entering the gulf and the Atlantic, developed a fondness for the offshore platforms. Prior to erection of the offshore platforms, a few were taken along Louisiana’s shoreline; but with construction of the rigs, the annual migration began to build up to where today the princely pompano is one of Louisiana’s leading “winter” fish in popularity with fishermen. While moody at times and inclined to move from one rig to another during the fall and winter months, they can be sought out. Once a school is located there is plenty of action. There are two other changes that have occurred during the past decade for the average gulf fisherman. One is blue fish. While always present in considerable numbers; as the years rolled by, they increased in size. Instead of two-pounders or three-pounders ; blue fish ranging five pounds and upwards began showing up. They have increased steadily in size and the present state record is a 10-pound, 6-ounce fish caught in July of 1968. Six and seven-pounders are pretty common. Possibly due to the more than two thousand rigs and platforms a new species of “white trout’ alsc began showing up in gulf waters. Some fishermen call them silver trout; but they are a member of the weakfish family, and far greater in size than the common “white trout” found in the inland coastal lakes, bays. bayous and brackish canals. And at the same time that massive pompano schools began to arrive in season, it was noted that Spanish Mackerel began to become more numerous and much larger in size. These changes which greatly enhanced gulf fishing to charter boat parties marked only the start of the big changes in sportfishing in the gulf that were to follow. 30 In 1950, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began operating an exploratory research vessel, the Oregon, in the gulf. Berthed at Pascagoula, Mississippi, most of the four years it operated in the Gulf of Mexico were spent in shrimp investigations, but attempts were made to catch the tuna that were occasionally sighted. Blackfin tuna were seen in 1950. In 1951 large yellowfin tuna, the species commonly canned, were sighted. Efforts were made to take them in purse seines, but they failed. The following years, efforts were made to take by traditional West Coast methods. That called for chumming with live bait and “slaughter” poles. In 180 days at sea, only one yellowfin tuna was taken. In June of 1954, the Oregon employed the Japanese long line method and reported taking large yellowfin tuna, swordfish, marlin and sailfish. The Japa- nese long line is actually a long trot line. The main line was fished at a depth of 120 feet and was about eight miles long. From it were drop lines about 25 feet long and connected to two-foot-long cables, to which baited hooks are fastened. In short, the Japanese long-line resembles a trot line eight miles long and strong enough to hold tons of fish if they take the bait. One particular “set”? was made by the Oregon about 40 miles from the mouth of South Pass. When the mechanical puller had been stopped and the end of that set made there were 15 yellowfin tuna, two blue marlin, one white marlin, three Mako sharks, eight silk sharks and three white-tipped sharks. The fish were weighed and measured—all but the blue marlin. It was more than 12 feet long and too heavy to weigh. The second set on that particular trip was made closer to South Pass, about 30 miles south and east. Only 300 hooks were put out on the long line. That set brought in 15 yellowfin tuna, seven white marlin, one sailfish and a yellowfish tuna. This triggered the imagination of a number of Lousiana fishermen. There were big game fish here and in 1956, three relatively small sportfishing boats ventured out of South Pass seeking big game fish. They stayed fairly close together because sport fishermen had never gone that far offshore. It was pay dirt. The first two white marlin, and one yellowfin tuna, were taken. Word of big game fishing so close to South Pass spread like wildfire through- out Louisiana. Other anglers made trips and additional big game fish were hooked and lost. Some were taken; but none added up in size to the catches made by the Oregon. The fish were there and could be taken by rod and reel, yet there was much to be learned. In 1958, Louisiana’s angling fraternity was startled when a Shreveport angler brought in a 46314 pond blue marlin, taken on rod and reel. This was the start of intensified big game fishing that led to formation in 1961 of the first big game fishing club in the state. Today there are three such clubs. Louisiana’s big game fishing did not stop at South Pass. It spread westward virtually to Texas. Finding new haunts of big game fish wasn’t easy. There were countless thousands of man hours spent in the fighting chairs; and boats ventured farther out into deeper water. They found what they sought—the big ones. But this is not the full story of two decades of gulf fishing. During the twenty years that have passed, addition of barracuda, pompano, huge blue fish, big “winter” white trout, larger Spanish mackerel, jewfish and larger schools of red snappers; mark only progressive steps in more fishing opportunity in gulf waters for sport fishermen. There was another development that greatly enhanced the coastal lake, bay and bayou fishing in the southeastern half of Louisiana. We’re referring to the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, a 70-odd mile long ship channel that was dredged by the U.S. Corps of Engineers as a straight, shorter outlet to the Gulf of Mexico from the Port of New Orleans, linked to the port by the Intracoastal Canal. From the outset, it was also dubbed the “tide-water channel’. That means that it was an infusion cut that remained at gulf level and introduced gulf water and more salt water fish into the lakes, bays, bayous and canals of south- east Louisiana. This greatly improved fishing by increasing water salinities and bringing salt water fish close to the “average fisherman’s” reach. How much has this twenty year change in the pattern of gulf fishing meant to the people of Louisiana in the form of outdoor recreation? That would be difficult to answer, but there are signs everywhere that serve as symbols of what all of this has meant. About twenty years ago, there was only one full time fishing boat available for charter. Today, from Cameron to Mississippi, it 36 is estimated that there are at least 75 charter boats at principal marinas or fishing ports, along the coast. Perhaps another symbol of what two decades of gulf fishing has meant to Louisiana fishermen is the trailer hitch. Twenty years ago, the sight of a trailer hitch on an automobile was a rarity. Today, it is commonplace. Boat sales have increased at a staggering rate during the past twenty years and sales have not ceased to climb. The same is true of larger and more powerful outbeard motors. About the only thing that has not changed as far as the gulf sport-fishing picture is concerned is the deep-rooted interest in fishing. The Gays of the sput- tering motor and skiff and the slaughter pole are gone—just as the horse and buggy days are gone. The rods and reels of twenty years ago appear like broom sticks with winchlike reels compared to today’s fast-tapered rods and silk-smooth reels. Fast fishing cruisers, with outriggers have replaced the hired luggers and modern standards of living have placed a boat within the reach of middle-class families. ; There have been many changes in gulf sport-fishing but the best is yet to come. Going back to the production of oil and gas off the shore of Texas and Louisiana, out of this situation of the production of oil and gas industries in the coast emerged a panel of advisers to the Commandant of the Coast Guard on offshore operations. This panel has representation from the offshore industries of oil, gas, sulphur, construction, and crew boat operators. The panel mem- bers meet and work together with the Coast Guard to advise on the off- shore industry in the area of the Coast Guard jurisdiction. The result has been that problems are handled more equitably and more expeditiously, each party recognizing and respecting the rights and responsibilities of the other. This is a most constructive manner of attacking and resolving unforeseen problems in an emerging situa- tion. Tt could serve as a prime example of the manner in which we can best cope with the multitude of problems facing us as we attempt to manage the coastal zone, with its Pandora’s box of complex and interlocking troubles. In summary, I feel that: 1. We are making progress in reducing pollution. 2. Our main problem of management concerns the irreversible effects of certain essential water management projects. 3. There is no need for additional agencies or for a superagency. _ 4, There are agencies at all echelons which are now ably provid- ing varying degrees of management. 5. These agencies may need to coordinate among themselves a bit more effectively to capitalize on new data and understanding about the nature of coastal zone problems. _ 6. Management of the coastal] zone should be based on provid- ing control at the lowest echelon practicable and should include adequate industry participation. In conclusion, I feel that we should commend the various elements of the Department of the Interior, the Coast Guard, the Corps of En- gineers, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and others for the effective work they are doing to enhance and improve our environment. They have been in the vanguard. Their tasks have been formidable, and the challenges great. They have met these challenges. The success of their efforts can be seen on every hand. I believe our lives are richer because they have and are performing their jobs so well. Oo” Thank you. Dr. Apams. Thank you, Mr. Sessums. The three presentations that you have heard, although somewhat parallel in approach, contain enough divergence I think to stimulate some comments and questions from the group. Do you have some questions ? Dr. Hersert Frovanper. Dr. Herbert Frolander from Oregon State. I would like to refer to the comments made by the first speaker relative to recreational uses. There are many taxes attached to use of these recreational places, thus I might add a plea for the 99.99 percent of the population of the United States. The plea would be that not only there be recreational areas provided with all the things that they entail, but that these recreational areas be financially accessible to the vast public. There is quite a difference between being accessible and being finan- cially accessible for the families who wish to visit and utilize these areas. Dr. Apams. Could you amplify a little bit more on what you mean by “accessible” and “financially accessible,” how you would go about mak- ing these financially accessible ? Dr. Frotanprr. There are some areas that are set aside, and are not financially accessible to the vast majority. I am talking about the vast number of families who are going to the coast and would like to visit and picnic and enjoy the seashore recreation and cannot stand the tariff developed in many areas. T shudder to think today of the effort that would be involved in, for example, trying to set aside a National Yellowstone Park. Dr. Apams. Thank you. Do you wish to comment on that ? Mr. Quarzzs. I will not comment at any great length, other than to state my agreement with the point made. I think I might refer to the action taken by Secretary Hickel in striving to prepare plans for the Gateway National Recreation Area in New York City, which would, if successful, put large recreational areas within a subway ride of people who are among those most lack- ing In recreational opportunities. This need is very great. It is very staggering to consider how difi- cult it would be to create a Yellowstone today. The only follow-up to that proposition is how difficult it will be to do it tomorrow. We cannot set aside huge tracts like that today, but we can set aside some. I truly feel that we must do so. Dr. Apams Are there any other questions? Dr. Lyte Sr. Amant. My name is St. Amant. I am the assistant director of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. I don’t really have a question. I would like to make a comment. I would like to both agree and disagree with my colleague, Dr. Ses- sums of Louisiana. Louisiana finds itself in a peculiar position, in that it probably has the greatest amount of industrial and multiple use of its coast of any State in the Union. There was a figure given here earlier about the number of oil wells on the coast. I don’t know whether it was accurate or not. My recent figures indicate that Louisiana has about 13,000 active wells off the 38 coast in Federal waters. There are another 24,000 active wells in Louisiana waters, from the 3-mile line to the intercoastal system, which essentially includes the march boundary of the States. Associated with these industrial activities are possibly some 50 or 100,000 miles of pipeline. ; I say this to indicate that there are going to be few States that have this amount of industry in the near future. Feng Associated with this industry has been a multitudinous amount of engineering activity for navigation and just to get the plants and drill- ing operations going. as Our waters are shallow. You cannot move in a drilling operation without dredging. Practically every drilling operation within the coastal area requires that they be dredged, or at least swept. Tn addition to this, every foot of pipeline, every tank battery, every collecting line, including gas lines, requires considerable dredging. The 36-inch line requires a 4-foot channel to an 18-foot depth to move the equipment through, and the accompanying dredging tools that go with it. If you fly over the coast of Louisiana im a plane, it certainly does not look like it did 20 or 30 years ago. It looks like a network of canals, systems that are all man-made. I say this, and yet I am going to tell you in the next moment that as a conservationist, and as a fisheries expert (question mark), I must point out that our production of fisheries over the last 20 years has not been measurably reduced insofar as we can determine. Our production of shrimp in Louisiana has averaged about 60 mil- lon pounds a year. At times we go up beyond that. Our production has been second or third or fourth i the United States throughout this period. Now, we have had a tremendous amount of problems in trying to accomplish this. I think that you can learn from our situtaion, be- cause most of our regulations have been hindsight. We have developed them after the fact. For example, all of the pipelines in Louisiana are so scattered and mixed up that I don’t think anybody can locate them. Some of the old ones have been abandoned. It is true that you can hardly run a transit through some of the areas because there is so much metal. You cannot depend on where your compass is pointing. I think the engineers will agree on this. These pipelines could have been put in patterns. It would have cost the industry more, but they could have been laid out in patterns where we would have had less trouble. We find now that we have quite a big shellfishing industry in Louisiana, and as a matter of fact, it is the industry that actually sup- ports the marine program, because all the funds are dedicated to marine research and development, and it amounts to more than $1.2 million a year in resources dedicated back to the State for this work. And there is conflict between the industries. Yet we find that the pipelines are getting to be involved with these Shell leases, because when you dig up a pipeline, you have trouble. This could have been prevented somewhere along the line. There was a point made earlier that the States had no jurisdiction beyond 3 miles, but we find ourselves faced with the Federal Govern- 39 ment liking its money as much as the State does, so that we have 14,000 wells offshore coming im at the rate of 500 a year, if you take the average, but can the State afford to lose its fisheries because of Federal interest in royalties from offshore mineral development ? This is the kind of thing that we are faced with. We are operating outside the 3-mile hmit. Through agreement with the Department of the Interior and Geological Survey and other Federal agencies, we find that the State is doing all of the seismic regulation. We make the regulations, and then turn around and attempt to enforce them. Wealso try to do something about pollution. It is not easy. The thing that you have to look at when you get involved in multiple uses 1s to beware of the spectacular. These oil wells blow out, and the spills and accidents that occur are inherent in industry. When you industrialize, you are going to have accidents, but no in- dustrial accident, or for that matter no national catastrophe of short duration has ever really destroyed a biological population. There is an inherent insurance in biological populations where they rebuild themselves. The problem is when you permanently destroy the environment, and here is actually a competition for space. You put so much industry in one place, and you cannot have something else. We are reaching this point in Louisiana. We are reaching it offshore. We have problems between navigation and the oil industry. We have problems with navigation and rules of the road between the seismic companies and the fishing industry. This happens to be international. Rules of the road and lighting is a Geneva Convention thing, not done at the Federal level or the State level. One of the our real problems today has to do with who is going to regulate the dumping, and permission of dumping solid waste ma- terials offshore. Dumping of this material will be theoretically in the ocean. Theoretically, we have enough water to disperse it, but econom- ically, we cannot do it that way. All we have is compromise. We get in and debate and argue and talk about it, and say this will not hurt this small area, but a lot of small areas will eventually ruin the entire system and [ think at least in Louisiana we are getting pretty close to it. I hate to disagree with my colleague, but I do think that this is a situation that exists today, and it can exist in the United States within the next 25 or 30 years. Thank you. Dr. Apams. Thank you, very much. Lyle St. Amant has had some very close relationship with these problems in Louisiana. His comment was directed to Mr. Sessums. Do you have any reply ? Mr. Szussums. Actually, I don’t think Lyle was directing that to me. We have worked on these problems for many years, and still work together on these problems. I would like to commend him for his statement. There is no differ- ence in opinion, really. As I mentioned, these problems have to pe resolved. You come to the situation where you either do this or nat. 40) However, I do believe that we will continue to compromise. This is the way of life. You compromise each morning when you decide whether to get out of bed or not. Sometimes you would rather stay there, but you get up, of necessity, maybe. This is a compromise. What you will eat today, if there is more than one choice, will likewise be a compromise, As Dr. St. Amant stated, the best result we can get (and we get this result from his own agency that so ably assists in directing, and has for a number of years) is that our marine population, fishing and such as that, is reasonably stabilized. I would say this is an example of very good, very able management and direction by the agencies in the State of Louisiana in controlling, shall we say, or guiding the industrial development in these marshes where some 20-odd thousand productive oil wells are now located, plus those beyond the 3-mile limit. Some 14,000, I believe you said, Lyle. You know, if I may comment further, and J am not connected with the State in any way at the present time—but have been in the past— other than as a citizen, the State of Louisiana derives approximately 50 percent of its revenues from the mineral resources that are devel- oped in the State. Now, this in itself will pose a problem if you over-regulate. I would say in all sincerity regarding the State of Louisiana, and I believe Dr. St. Amant will probably agree with me, nearly if not totally, that we do have at the present time a fairly high degree of real rapport in the management of our States resources. This includes natural resources as well as the mineral resources and other developments. And his director is the chairman of the Stream Control Commission, which controls the pollution, the effluent, et cetera, and the permits as to whether you can or cannot do something. The reason it is being put in the ocean is because it is being barged down the river as the cheapest way. We find that the companies don’t want to move it to the depths. If we allow dumping of waste materials, impurities to go into this system, we are going to find that the mid-continent of the United States dumps all its waste off the Mississippi Delta, because it is the cheapest way to get 1t somewhere. It will be dumped within 100 miles of Southwest Pass, and no company is going to be able to afford to move it there. We have had a request to dump such materials as caustic peroxide in quantities of one and a half million pounds within 20 miles of the mouth of the Mississippi River. I don’t believe there is a scientist here that can tell me what would happen if somebody dumped a million and a half pounds of such a toxic in the Gulf waters near shore. They want a continuous permit to dump. These are things that need handling. It is true that you have agencies that are set up to do it. I must agree that perhaps we have too many agencies, and maybe we are too strict, but what we find is that we constantly, in this great democratic society, compromise ourselves to death. I make decisions, but I cannot be arbitrary. I have to do what is best for the State, at least at the moment, and I compromise with this and that and the other thing, but compromise to the degradation of 4] the environment, and I think there is going to come a time when we go beyond the point of equilibrium, when we slip over and lose environ- ment in total. To go back to the original statement which kind of set me off, if you will excuse me, the fact that we do have good fishing off Louisiana around the oil wells is because they act like large collecting devices of the undersea systems, but this does not indicate that we have a greater population of fish. The second thing is most of the fish on the Continental Shelf are dependent upon the nursery areas in at least some part of their life cycles. If the Louisiana nursery area, its coastal 5 million acres of marsh, is destroyed, then there will be no fish around these oil wells. That is a point that a lot of us lose sight of, and I think it is time that we do set up a system. It is not going to be easy for those of us regulating to handle this. What we need is someone to stand up with enough courage to say that this type of thing shall not happen, or this has priority, or that has priority. We don’t have that now. IT commend not only the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in the State of Louisiana, but the other State agencies. There are another dozen that have some degree of control over these developments. I think it isa well balanced control. Certainly anything could be improved upon. I would like to expand this. Texas will have certain oil operations, and are faced with essen- tially the same problem. Problems will be generated m this particular type of industry, Iam sure, in Alaska. I have been fortunate to visit up there a couple of times in the last 4 or 5 months, not on oil business at all, but one purely a pleasure trip— hunting; another a business trip with some vacation delay en route. But wherever you have these things, as we pointed out, and will be again pointed out, I am sure, time and time again in the next day and a half, it is just a process, I believe—and I hate to use the word again— of compromise. This is the way we make progress, in compromising. Dr. Apams Thank you. It is good to see that the level of interest is reflected on the number of hands coming up, increasing as we go along, but the clock runneth, and we have time for one more question from him who gets to the mike first. Mr. James M. Topras. I really would like to make a long statement. Dr. Apams. Would you identify yourself ? Mr. Tosias. Jim Tobias, from the South Carolina Port Authority. There is an old saying that if you say something often enough, peo- ple will believe it is true, and I have to take exception to one thing that Mr. Quarles said, which is in the Stratton Report on page 65. That statement is that there is no longer justification for maimtain- Ing a major port in every major coastal city. I am sure that Chairman Garmatz would quarrel with that in the ease of Baltimore, and Congressman Lennon would quarrel with that in the case of Wilmington and Morehead City. I think there is not sufficient time to debunk that whole argument at this very moment, but it is sort of a shortsighted type of thing that seems to be prevailing where the Corps of Engineers 1s addressing it- self to the problem of dredging in the harbors of the United States. 42 The shortsightedness comes from the old case of penny wise, pound foolish. On the one hand the United States goes devoting much atten- tion to the development of the 50 States, and on the other hand we are trying to cut short development by decreasing the maintenance of harbors. That same paragraph notes that many of our major cities are coastal cities, and it is no accident of history that many of our major cities are coastal cities. Water has something to do with it. If we cease to maintain and to dredge the major ports of this coun- try, we will tend to worsen all the problems that this country now has. We address ourselves more to the problems of the cities, the urban problems. Let us take, for example, the case of New York. Say that we only maintained New York and one other port on the Atlantic coast. What a tremendous influx of population and industry would again center in the Northeast. I think that this statement needs a continual debunking, that it needs a lot more study. . In that same paragraph it mentions the fact that in the future pack- aged cargoes, oil cargoes and container cargoes will all find their sep- arate ways to the world. This is quite erroneous. It is not true. Speaking from the standpoint of a port authority, we can see in the future perhaps a great number of ports developing as container ports. We do not believe, for example, that you can designate a port lke Baltimore as a container port, and expect all the cargo from the South- east to move through that port. This kind of folly can really tend to not cure the economic ills of this country, but to foster them. Tt would like on this occasion, and any other occasion, to debunk this statement, and will be glad to do it in more detail. Dr. Apams. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobias. Mr. Quarles. Mr. Quarzizs. I will try to respond briefly, because my reference to this example was meant primarily to be illustrative rather than to focus on this particular case. But what [ would strongly urge is the overall importance of plan- ning to meet large community needs, not necessarily the needs of an individual town or an individual city. Your reference to Baltimore, for example, New York, and so forth, does refer to major cities. How far it would make sense to go in terms of trying to develop large-scale port facilities in cities of that size, or slightly smaller cities is certainly not a question that I am prepared to comment upon. This perhaps illustrates the desirability of leaving the final decisions as to particular uses to the States, rather than trying to hit them from the Federal level. But there is a need to do this from an overall point of view. Now, I think closely related to this is the need for dialog between Dr. Sessums’ assessment and their reference to preservation or not of marine habitat. In view of the dredging and fill permit orders of the Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior is required under the Fish 43 and Wildlife Coordination Act to consider the adverse impact of any proposed projects upon marine habitat. In many cases we can see that a particular project would in fact reduce the existing marine habitat, and therefore it is impractical, and from that viewpoint alone is negative. On the other hand, a project may have important values from other social needs. The question therefore is presented as to whether this use should be permitted in the proposed location. We really are helpless to review these in a meaningful way without having some overall plan as to what marine habitat is going to be preserved, and what is not going to be preserved. It really is essential that there be agencies evaluating what is re- quired to meet the total national needs 30 or 50 years in advance. Whether that calls for major port facilities in your city, I will not try to comment, but I think that the basic approach is entirely valid. Dr. Apams. Thank you. Tam afraid a very short one, sir, and then we are going to have to go. Mr. Tosras. It is not a question of port facilities in South Carolina, but in every State in the country. On the concept of coordination, we get along quite well. In fact, South Carolina has a legislative proposal next year for an agency which will coordinate multiple use, so that we have no quarrel there. My quarrel is with the concept of limiting the dredging to particular cities on a national level. Mr. Quartes. I would agree with that point. Dr. Apams. Thank you. I commend all of you for the eagerness with which you jumped in today to the discussion here, and the contributions that you have made by doing so, and request that you continue to be thinking over lunch. Now I will turn the meeting back over to Tom. Mr. Cuinean. Thank you, Dr. Adams. We appreciate the efforts of you and your panel, and the panel that went before. We will adjourn to meet here at 2 o’clock. Thank you very much, gentlemen. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the conferences adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. Crinean. We will start the afternoon panel. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to open our afternoon session by introducing to you Mr. George Sprague, Department of Natural Resources of Boston, Mass., heading the panel dealing with interstate and intrastate problems. Panet 3—INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PROBLEMS IN CoASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT MoprrAtor Mr. George R. Sprague, director, Division of Conservation, Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Boston, Mass. 44 PANELISTS John H. Dolan, executive director, California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources; R. Frank Gregg, New England River Basin Commission, Boston, Mass.; David Wallace, director, Marine and Coastal Resources, State of New York. Mr. Sprague. I know each of you looked on the program and have seen Robert L. Yasi. Don’t be confused because he is in Boston. Mr. Yasi was formerly with the Department of Natural Resources in Massachusetts and is now executive secretary to the Governor of Massachusetts. He is in traction with a bad back. I don’t know whether that is an occupational hazard from being on the Governor’s staff in Massachusetts or not, but he couldn’t be here today and sent his regrets. This is the panel on interstate and intrastate problems in coastal zone management. I think it is appropriate that two of the three members of the panel come from the Northeast where the areas of the States are so small that almost any problem that we face becomes intrastate. The first speaker to my left is Mr. John H. Dolan, who is presently executive director of the California Advisory Commisssion on Marine and Coastal Resources. Mr. Dolan received a bachelor of arts degree from Holy Cross College in Worcester, Mass., subsequent to receiving an engineering degree from the Navy. He was the first program man- ager for the Navy’s deep submerged systems project and is now involved with all of the problems which California is faced with, particularly it comes to my mind around Santa Barbara. Tnow give you Mr. Dolan. STATEMENT OF JOHN H. DOLAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALI- FORNIA ADVISORY COMMISSION ON MARINE AND COASTAL RESOURCES Mr. Doran. Thank you, sir. It is indeed a privilege to have been designated by Governor Reagan as one of his two representatives to participate in what we consider this most important conference. The issues Involved in coastal zone management are of urgent concern to both the legislative and executive branches of California State gov- ernment and are actively being examined with high priority. _ The conservation and development of the coastal zone involves the mterests of numerous State departments and agencies and the situa- tion resembles in many respects, the fragmentation of effort existing in the Federal structure. As you in this group are well aware, the widely separated manage- ment responsibilities for marine oriented activities at the national level promoted the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources to recommend establishment of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and has led to such legislation as H.R. 13247, and the proposed drafts of September 16, 1969 on coastal zone authorities. Of course, Mr. Lennon’s bill is parallel to Mr. Mag- nuson’s bill in the Senate and there are others. California, I think, has been aware of and investigating solutions to these problems within the State for several years. Within the past 45 18 months, and particularly the past year, I feel we have made excel- lent progress in resolving some of our intrastate problems and it is to these activities that I will address my remarks today ; leaving inter- state considerations to the other members of this panel and to the general discussion sessions which will follow. This approach is due in part to the time limitations and the fact that I am also submitting a statement for the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). It is also in- fluenced by the prevailing view of our Commision that we should concentrate initially on getting our own house in order prior to any deep involvement in interstate considerations. This is not to say that we are not interested, but we have been initially proceeding on the premise that we should first get our own house in order. I should point out that Mr. Harold D. Bissell, executive secretary of the Interagency Council for Ocean Resources (ICOR) 1s Governor Reagan’s other designated representative and will be participating in the discussions during these 2 days. He is present here today. In addition there are four CMC Commissioners present : Dr. Russell Keim, Dr. F. Gilman Blake, Mr. Robert Krueger, and Col. T. R. Gillerwaters. CMC Chairman, Dr. W. M. Chapman will also be present tomorrow. These gentlemen that I have mentioned, have been working on aes such as we are discussing today for many years at the local, tate, national and international levels of Government and I am certain that they can and will make valuable contributions to the discussion periods. Background. In assessing how California is proceeding with respect to coastal zone planning, I believe a very short historical review will be useful. In late 1964 Governor Brown appointed a group known as the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources (GACOR). This 18-member commission met for the first time in January 1965. With the change in administration GACOR resigned and after a brief lapse was reappointed by Governor Reagan. By 1967 the im- portance of marine and coastal resources had received increased recog- nition and the GACOR was replaced with the statutorily established California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources, the CMC. The membership was increased to 36, including six legis- lators, three State asemblymen and three State senators. The other 30 were appointed by the Governor and embodied an expertise drawn from executives and top management in industry, the scientific, academic and legal communities. With the establishment of this Commission as a legal entity in November of 1967, its modus operandi assumed a more formal and legally responsive approach. Most of the old GACOR members were included on the new CMC. But now, rather than a group appointed as advisers to the Governor, they were a legally established body acting under a mandate of the legislature. In much the same manner as the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources reporting to both the President and the Congress, the CMC reports to both the Governor and the legislature. We now submit annual reports to both these branches of State government with letter reports on a more frequent basis on specific priority issues. 37-487—69 4 46 CMC Responsibilities. With respect to CMC responsibilities, in its advisory capacity CMC is required on a broad basis to review known and estimated future needs for natural resources from the marine and coastal environment necessary to maintain an expanding State econ- omy. With special reference to the coastline, the CMC reports to the Governor and the legislature in terms which define the total public interest in this valuable asset. : Bear in mind that the enabling legislation which established CMC is entitled the Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act of 1967 and our interests very definitely include both elements; that is, conservation and development. In addition to the broad responsibilities referred to previously, there are a number of specific points outlined in the legislation with respect to the CMC’s responsibilities. Alphabetically they are spelled out (a) through (1) and include such subjects as land use in the coastal zone, conservation and utilization of the mineral and living resources of the marine environment, recreation, wastes management, et cetera. One of the broader responsibilities assigned to the Commission, how- ever, 1s that of reporting again to the Governor and the legislature each year on the activities and accomplishments of the various State agencies and departments involved in marine oriented activities. This had led to a committee structure within the commission which generally focuses monitoring responsibilities on one or more CMC com- mittees with respect to one or more State departments. For example, our Living Resources Committee is primarily involved with following the activities of the State Department of Fish and Game. We have nine such committees plus a steering committee, or a policy committee group. Progress in the executive branch of California government. As far as progress, I will now allude more to the executive branch of California government, the old GACOR recommended, and the new CMC re- affirmed, that if the vital importance of marine and coastal resources was to be placed in proper perspective, it would take recognition at the cabinet level. This was done in late 1967. By executive order the Governer estab- lished the Interagency Council for Ocean Resources (ICOR). ICOR is chaired by Lieutenant Governor Reinecke now, and Lieutenant Gover- nor Finch originally and its composition includes the Secretaries for Resources, Business, and Transportation, Human Relations, Agricul- ture and Services and the chairman of the State Lands Commission. The primary and vital responsibility of ICOR was to develop the California Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP). The legislation establishing CMC levied this requirement upon the Governor. He es- tablished TCOR and during the past year, I think ICOR has become a viable entity. The initial difficulties can be briefly summed up. TCOR was estab- lished but with no budget and no staff. As an individual I was hired by CMC and, on a double-hatting basis, loaned to ICOR as their executive director for nearly 1 year. It did not work. One man could not do both jobs; the budget was too thin to split; and the tasks of the two shifts were not always congruent. It is a rather difficult task for one individ- ual to participate in the development of a plan by ICOR and then turn aud and convince the reviewing authority, CMC, that it is a great plan. 47 CMC therefore recommended that ICOR have its own budget and an independent staff. Last year I had the dubious pleasure of preparing both CMC’s budget request for another year, plus [COR’s initial budg- et request. Both went through and ICOR now is budgeted in terms of money from the general fund; services from marine oriented depart- ments; and a 701 Federal grant for the development of the COAP. ICOR is proceeding with the plan and the CMC monitors its develop- ment ona step-by-step basis. The New Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. GACOR and CMC have long felt that we needed a NOAA in the State of California much like this subcommittee has proposed on a national level. On March 5, 1969, the Governor submitted Reorganization Plan No. 2 which would establish a new department called the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. Actually it changed the name of the existing Department of Harbors and Watercraft and transferred some ocean-oriented activities to the new department. It does not yet go far enough, but it is a start. This department becomes a legal entity on November 10, 1969, within a few days. Eventually it will be their responsibility to implement the COAP now being developed by LCOR. Department of Navigation and Ocean Development as CZA. Vt has been proposed, and ICOR has endorsed the view that the new depart- ment become the Coastal Zone Authority (CZA) for California. At this time our Commission has not taken a ratified position on this subject. I expect this to occur at our December 5-6 meeting in San Diego. A few of our Commissioners, as individuals, have expressed some doubt that this is the proper place for the CZA to be installed. One questions that it should be within a department of a single agency, in this case the Resources Agency. Another feels that perhaps we should expand the BCDC concept to include the entire State. Stil] another feels that it should be established along the lines of our State water resources control board with a master board in Sacramento and regional districts throughout the State. I believe this subject will take up a significant portion of the time at our December meeting and I would expect that we will have taken a position when that meeting is concluded. At the present time we have not and there are some mixed views. T would like to make one point clear, however, CMC will do its utmost to advise and assist in the implementation of whatever course of action is selected. If CMC expresses a view that the new department is not the proper place for the CZA to be located, and this is purely hypo- thetical, and if the Administration decides for other reasons that it is the proper place, the CMC will redouble its efforts to make whatever selection is made a workable and successful one. Summary. We believe that with the close cooperation of the line departments in the State government, which we now enjoy, that we are moving forward in approaching solutions to the management of the coastal zone. We believe that if CMC is to be effective it must retain its status of reporting to the Governor and the legislature. It cannot be subservient to any one department with its particular special interests, but must continue to advise and assist all departments with marine and coastal interests. 48 Things are moving. The COAP is being developed, and we recognize that we must keep pace with, if not ahead of, developments at the national level. On the other hand, we are keenly aware of the necessity for close cooperation and coordination with local government at this city and country level and by no means do we intend to slight the importance of coordinating with the private sector. This entire problem of coastal zone management is a perplexing one that will tax the ingenuity of our best experts, but we believe that we have such experts, that it can be done and more importantly, that it will be done for the benefit of our State, the Nation, and the world at large. I am going to skip the BCDC report. Mr. Spracur. Thank you, Mr. Dolan. Since that is his primary responsibility, the next speaker will, I am sure, focus on some of the interstate problems of coastal management. Frank Gregg is chairman of the New England River Basins Com- mission with headquarters in Boston and has been since September of 1967. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado and prior to coming back to Boston to head up the New England River Basins Commission, he was vice president of the Conservation Foundation here in Washington. I think he has a monumental task in Boston to coordinate all of the water management efforts of the six New England States all of whom are very individualistic and I hope that he will tell us some- thing about what the New England River Basin does. Frank? STATEMENT OF R. FRANK GREGG, NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, BOSTON, MASS. Mr. Greece. Thank you very much. What I will try to do in these remarks is to offer some comments on the question of priorities which have nothing to do with the subject of this particular panel, but which I feel called upon to volunteer anyway. JT will argue that effective management will require joint State and Federal planning for use and development of the coastal zone and as distinct from State planning without Federal participation, which is the pattern that seems to be developing. I will report to you on some of the ways in which the New England States and the Federal agencies who are members of our commission are trying to work to improve interstate and Federal-State planning and in the region, and I will offer comments on how our commission’s efforts relate to some of the proposals that are before this conference and the Congress. On the question of priority, everyone who has been involved in this national effort for the last 3 or 4 years to develop a system for effec- tive management of coastal resources has recognized the unique values of estuaries and other natural systems in the coastal zone and everyone has also recognized and devoted explicit recognition to the conflicts and demands for use of the coast, but I don’t see in the implementing pro- posals that are now before the conference any suggestions of the pri- orities that might be followed in attempting to reconcile these conflicts and I would suggest that public policy, and we are talking here about what Government can do for management of the coastal zone, should 49 accord to the protection and management of the natural systems themselves a priority over other uses. Current decisionmaking processes tend to place these natural sys- tems in a defensive position relative to development of initiative, the initiative for change. It seems to me that if these natural systems and the human values that they produce are going to be preserved, that congressional policy might well assert that it is the intent of the Con- gress to protect the value of natural systems in the coastal zone and to provide for the accommodation of developmental uses in ways which don’t destroy the value of the natural systems. The natural systems can’t be replaced. Many of the other demands on the coastal zone can be met in other ways. Some cannot and this suggestion, of course, that a clear secondary order of priority should eo to marine dependent uses as distinct from those kinds of uses which can clearly be satisfied elsewhere. On the second point, the question of joint Federal-State planning, the draft bill which was distributed for this conference envisions financial assistance to strengthen State planning and also implementation perhaps for the coastal zone. The Marine Commission, the Magnuson bill, Mr. Lennon’s bill, and the administration proposal announced a few weeks ago by the Vice President, all identify the States leading role in making decisions about the coastal zone. There is unanimity here and I have no objection to this finding. The State does have the logical constitutional as well as operational responsibility to establish the goals and objectives in the use of its own resources and it should lead to the formulation of plans for programs to make use of these. But the degree of national and re- gional interest in the programs in the coastal zone and the impact of Federal agency programs suggests to me that planning for use and management of these resources ought to be a joint State and Fed- eral enterprise from the beginning and I mean in the field from the beginning. There is a procedure implied in the bill which was distributed for us to read before this conference and also in Senator Magnuson’s bill which suggests that Federal agencies, perhaps NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency or the Marine Council, will review State coastal development plans after they are prepared, and that this constitutes an adequate involvement by the Federal agencies in the actual planning of local goals and objectives. It am pretty sure that this is not a workable procedure. There is a parallel in reverse in the case of river basin planning and I think it is apt here. You will recall that for decades planning for use and devel- opment of waters and related land resources in river basins was dom- inated by Federal agencies, by Federal construction agencies, and the States often participated by invitation and without any Federal finan- cial support so that they could really play a decisive role in making decisions about the development of the rivers. Over a period of time a consensus developed that this wasn’t right, that the State ought to play a vigorous fully co-equal role and this ultimately led to the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 which es- tablishes an interagency Water Resources Council at the Federal level, which exists for the purpose of coordinating Federal programs in this ae ie the same way that a new agency has been proposed for this field. 50 The act also provides Federal grants to the States for water and re- lated land planning which are administered by the Water Council and the act provides for the establishment of joint Federal-State river basin commissions such as the one that I chair for the specifie purpose of making the planning partnership meaningful in the field by getting joint Federal-State planning, the idea being that both States and Fed- eral Government have program authorities which are going to be ex- ercised in the management of these resources and that the only way to secure coordinated management is through joint planning, so that all the parties who have an interest, will share in the management agree on what the management is going to be. Isense some danger that we may be repeating the pattern of the river basin process insofar as the coastal zone, in providing for and stimu- lating and initiating State planning without providing some machin- ery for organized and coordinated and funded Federal participation in the development of State coastal development plans under State leadership. ; T want to emphasize that in suggesting this I am not implying any lack of confidence in the States. On the contrary, I am concerned that the Federal Goverement may have some difficulty in accepting as controlling State coastal plans unless these are prepared through a process that involves the Federal agencies and the interests that the Federal agencies represent. Organized participation by Federal agencies is a way of securing the consent and cooperation of the Federal Government in the im- plementation of State plans. It doesn’t take much imagination to see a number of Federal agencies which have natural responsibilities for certain uses finding it difficult to accept the controlling plans which they have had no opportunity to review until they have been finished and presented to the Federal Government as an accomplished fact, and Tam quite sure that after the fact that Federal review by any Federal agency whether it is NOAA or the Marine Council or the Water Coun- cil, or any other Federal agency is not going to be an optimum way of going about this. We have seen in the case of the State outdoor recreation plans pre- pared with Federal financing assistance under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, but most particularly in the development of State water quality standards and programs for implementing them and in the fact that Federal review of these standards that reconcilia- tion between differing views at the two levels of government at this point becomes a contest between levels of government as often as it is a shared effort to try to identify the public interest. I should note too that the Federal agencies do have a technical com- petence. ‘They have data. If we could place these resources under State leadership in the development of State coastal development plans, we can substantially strengthen the depth and precision of the State plan- ning and, while there are a few coastal States who have fully adequate professionally staffed planning capabilities for coastal resources, many States do not and, given the general scarcity of professional talents in the general field of natural resources, I think it will be some time before all the coastal States can be expected to attract and hold the staff that it may take. 51 The basic point remains however, that if we can get joint Federal State planning we will be bringing together in the field those State officials and those Federal officials who will be called upon to actually design and carry out specific management programs and the shared experience of joint plan development by State and Federal agencies is a substantial argument for joint planning. Let me note briefly that the New England River Basins Commission is involved now in planning for use and development of the coastal zone of the region. The commission is an agency which consists of eight Federal agencies and representatives designated by the Governors of the six New England States and the State of New York. The Congress this year, the House of Representatives, has just approved an appropriation of $200,000 for the New England River Basins Commission for a commission study of water and related land resources of southeastern New England. This area was selected by the Commission as that subregion of New England which was most in need of joint State and Federal efforts to design action pro- grams for the management of resources. The area includes Cape Cod, Narragansett Bay, Hudson Bay, Boston Harbor, a great complex of coastal marshes and of course the rivers and their related lands in this area. The planning program will be directed by the jomt Federal author- ity set up by the Commission. The States of Massachusetts and Rhode Tsland have agreed to provide professional staff to assist in the direc- tion of the study and it is our intent in this study to develop a joint action program with reports addressed both to the Governors and to the State legislatures, recommending the authorization of programs and the appropriation of funds as well as to the water resources council and the President and the Congress at the Federal level. Through studies like these our Commission has assumed from the beginning that we have a statutory responsibility to prepare pians and make recommendations for the management of coastal waters and related lands. I should note that planning programs of these kinds tie together in rivers and estuaries in ways that are responsive to the point made by Mr. Sessums relative to the effects of river development on estuarine systems. We have also been trying to figure out how to get joint Federal- State planning under way in other parts of New England, the Maine and New Hampshire coasts and the Connecticut and Long Island Sound areas. The State of Maine has provided some leadership here and is organizing and now has underway or will soon be on a Maine coastal development plan. They are picking several Federal offers to get money for this; 701, the Water Resources Planning Act, and perhaps one or two others. The interesting thing about this is that the approach we have worked out between the State of Maine and the Commission is that funds will be also made available through the New England Regional Commis- sion, an economic development body, so that our Commission can secure some coordinated Federal inputs in the State plan to accom- plish the kind of coordination that T have been talking about before, and we hope te duplicate this pattern in other coastal areas of New England. yy We have authority in being able to do it. The question is where the funds are to be made available. What we are trying to do obviously is to help the State and Federal agencies work together, not cone plan and then the other sit in judgment but work together on plans that will reflect the needs and aspirations of the States, that will reflect regional considerations and the national interests as these are inter- preted by Federal agencies and that are fully accepted as the basis for action programs by all participants. T want to note that there is not much conflict between the draft bill that we have been discussing here today and the approach that we have been taking in New England. New grant funds from the Federal Government to the States for the establishment of State coastal zone authorities for planning and for implementation as far as we are concerned, simply strengthen the adequacy of the States to provide the kind of leadership that we would like to see them pro- vide in New England. The pending legislation does not preclude the participation of Federal agencies in State-led coastal zone planning and it certainly doesn’t preclude the use of an existing body like the commission as a revional Jeader and coordinator. The principle missing ingredients in the legislation now before the Congress in my opinion are two: one is a policy statement that expresses a priority for the protection and enhancement of natural systems in the use of the coastal zone and setting forth other priorities including priorities for coastal dependent activity and a clear state- ment either in law or legislative history that provides for a joint Federal-State planning as distinct from a separated State planning process from the Federal planning process. T want to emphasize that the river basins commission is, like that in New England, and I should note that there is also one for the Great Lakes and the Columbia River Basin, in terms of coastal areas, is not a regulatory agency. It is not a management agency. We have no authority for these purposes and don’t want it. The utility of the commission is as a device for helping the Federal agencies and the States which do have authority to act to work more effectively together. T think that is all. Mr. Spracur. Thank you, Frank. I am glad to finally learn what the New Eneland River Basins Commission does. Their office is right across the street from mine, but it has always been a puzzle until now. . The last speaker on this panel is Mr. David Wallace, as the director of the Marine and Coastal Resources for the State of New York. Mr. Wallace is a graduate of Washington College and received his masters degree from the University of Maryland in marine biology. He is a member of the United States State Department Fisheries Advisory Committee and prior to assuming his duties in New York in 1962, he served in various capacities in the State of Maryland, meluding a 2-year stint as chairman of the Board of Natural Resources for the State of Maryland. Mr. Wallace. 53 STATEMENT OF DAVID WALLACE, DIRECTOR, MARINE AND COASTAL RESOURCES, STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Wattace. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my role here apparently is one which is more or less the median between the two earlier speakers, Mr. Dolan of California speaking on pretty much the intrastate problem, and Mr. Gregg, speaking on the interstate aspects of this coastal zone management. It seems to me that we have a role which lies somewhat in between both of these viewpoints and my discussion will be along these lines. The management of the coastal resources of the United States his- torically has been the responsibility of the individual States. I am emphasizing management and development. Federal and State Jaws have recognized the States’ role. However, as interstate problems have arisen with increasing frequency in the coastal waters and resources have become shared by more than one State, the interstate compact has become fashionable to have in such matters. Many of these efforts have been confined to planning activities with little delegation of management authority. Some compact commissions have no authority at all either to plan or to manage as for example the three marine fisheries commissions along our three coasts. In other river basin commissions the structure and thrust has been strongly federally oriented, even though again the resources are considered to belong to and be the property and responsibility of the individual States. The States have attempted to cope with the coastal management problem in many ways. Efforts from State to State have varied widely depending upon the financial resources and the legal structure in existence there. Some States have given low priority to their marine matters since many people have had the mistaken idea that the marine resources were Inexhaustable and the bays and the adjacent seas were capable of absorbing unlimited quantities of wastes and dealing with other concentrated abuses. Usually numerous agencies within a State have varying interests in the coastal zone. Often in the furtherance of one goal by one agency the basic resources controlled by another are damaged or destroyed. Local government has frequently tended to disregard altogether the importance of its marine resources and has failed to use whatever mechanisms that might be available to it in preserving the various values. Tt seems to me that the concepts enunciated in the report of the Com- mission on Marine Science and Engineering and Resources having to do with the role of the various levels of government, are sound and should be heeded. It is my strong feeling that the States must take broad steps immediately to structure themselves so that they can bring all of their resources to bear on the multiple-use concept. The Commission called these units coastal zone authorities and for want of a better name, this would seem a useful title at this point. The function of this agency and it seems to me it should be a domi- nant role, would be to develop coordinated plans for the preservation of our coastal environment and the conservation of our renewable and nonrenewable natural resources. 54 This authority should have as its goal to maximize the multiple use of our coastal] zone and to minimize the areas of conflicting use. In New York the General Assembly in 1969 created the division of marine coastal resources within the existing New York State Con- servation Department. The purpose was to strengthen our structure so that resources management and development would be concentrated and coordination could be accomplished. Coordination is attained now in New York between State agencies through the Water Resources Commission on which all major State departments are represented. The Conservation Commissioner is the Chairman of this body. It is obvious however, that further steps will be necessary to bring about the multiple-use concept in the coastal zone authority and plans are already evolving to accomplish this goal. However, it is our feeling that the wise use of the resources of the coastal zone is not just a State responsibility alone. It must be shared also with our local government, preferably on an intrastate regional basis, and also interstate, or such bodies as the one that was mentioned by Mr. Gregg, with the closest kind of liaison and coordination and participation with the Federal Government. T would like to discuss local regional planning for just a moment. In New York a substantia] part of our marine area is encompassed in two counties, Nassau and Suffolk. A few years ago these two counties established a bicounty planning commission which in turn set up a marine resources council to analyze the marine prob!ems and to devel- op local plans for their use and development. This council is pressing forward in its planning efforts and has already contracted with a research group, the Travelers Research Foundation. So far as I know, this is the first effort of its kind on a local basis where this kind of effort has been mounted on a broad scale. The mechanism exists in New York law for regional water resources planning bodies and steps are underway now to effect amalgamation between the local and State structure. Such comparable amalgamation can and should take place between the State and Federal Government. The States need financing support for research on our coastal resources in that manner. They need assistance to do the planning to carry out these mandated programs. The Federal Government can and should participate in this effort. It should be directly involved in programs which affect national interest and its participation is needed directly in dealing with those waters controlled jointly by several States. T might say in New York many of our waters are abutted by several States, both in the marine area and in the Great Lakes. Here, however, the Federal role should be one of a partner to work with the States in developing appropriate plans for some further authority, it seems to me, to require compliance on the part of the participants once the plans have been developed. Thank you. Mr. Spracur. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. [ congratulate all of the panelists for keeping as close as possible to the time limitations so that thers will be time for questions. I would like to add something before we get to the questions. I thought you might be interested in a program that we have in 50 Massachusetts which we call the coastal wetlands program, but [ sup- pose that it could also be considered a coastal zone management pro- gram. This is a program which we carry out pursuant to an act of the Massachusetts Legislature which was passed in 1965. The purpose of the act is to allow the Department of Natural Re- sources to restrict the use of coastal wetlands in Massachusetts so as to preserve them for their marine values and all of the other values that we know they have. To date, hearings have been held and restrictions promulgated for approximately 14,000 acres of coastal wetlands in Massachusetts. This is not an acquisition program. It is a restriction program, al- most a State zoning idea, and of the 14,000 acres that have been re- stricted, we have had only one appeal to the courts which is still pend- ing, and which we hope we can win. Now, if you have any questions or comments, if you would, please use the microphone as you did this morning and identify yourself and the organization which you represent and if it is a question, direct it to one of the panelists. Mr. Witiram L. Ruruerrorp. My name is Rutherford from Illinois. T am afraid that much of this is going over my head. Maybe I am just a country lawyer, but I am at a loss to understand, in this theory of communication between us and our friends in the Con- gress, how we are going to get the job done in the time we have got considering the crisis that is before our country with more commissions and appointments and inputs and outputs and reports and research, when there is so little attention given to some practical action that we need now. We can write books. We can wait another 3 years and come back and have more stacks of data which I am afraid this is leading toward. I heard no comments about the Corps of Engineers that is spending tremendous sums of our money. We talk about relationships between the counties and the cities and the States and some of the Federal agencies a little bit as though they were removed from the big expendi- tures that I am familiar with for the alteration of our environment. Asa very practical matter, I think we have to get some better under- standing of the operations of the Corps of Engineers and maybe some of their operations on the pollution matters. And I think there is another element that has to come into this consideration sooner or later, because as the population explodes and we try to find the room to take care of the industries and the atomic engineering powerhouses and recreation needs and all the rest, we are just treating symptoms. None of us seems to find courage enough to ask the question that sooner or later is going to have to be asked and answered. [ don’t know how, but we have to get it out into the open because with the popula- tion explosion we have to have some population control. All the talk about pollution and disappearance of wildlife and the sea and disap- pearance of either replaceable or irreplaceable resources will mean nothing unless we get right down to the problem for our economy emanating from the complete explosion and mass of human beings. 1 hope we get that in the record too. Mr. Spragun. Does any member of the panel wish to make a com- ment? No comments. Are there any other statements from the audience ¢ 36 Mr. F. G. Buaxer. I am F. G. Blake, member of the California Ad- visory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources. I want to com- ment on Mr. Gregg’s presentation. I quite agree with him that partici- pation of the appropriate Federal agencies in te plannning process of the coastal zone authorities 1s quite appropriate. I also quite agree with him that the establishment of priorities in the resolution of multiple- use conflicts 1s also important, but unless I misunderstood him, I dis- agree with his comment that one of the things lacking in the legislation before us at the present time is the establishment of these priorities. While I agree that the priorities should be established, I do not think they should be established by legislation. It seems to me that that is one of the principal functions of the coastal zone authorities that are to be established. The priorities in New England, or on Long Island Sound, will not fit the priorities that would be best for Chesapeake Bay, or the Gulf Coast, or California. It seems to me that the estab- lishment of priorities should be left out of the present national legislation. Mr. Spracur. Would you like equal time, Mr. Gregg? Mr. Greece. Well, I think I would not want to yield on the basic point that if the Congress of the United States is going to express a statement of policy relative to the coastal zone that it ought not to state that it is the intent of the Congress that the natural system of values which is represented in the coastal zone is going to be preserved. It seems to me that if we can’t recognize that the preservation and enhancement of these natural values is in fact a constraint on other uses of the coastal zones, then we can expect with something approach- ing confidence that ultimately these natural systems will be lost. I think the defensive posture that we have been in where a cost-bene- fit evaluation is carried out tends to weigh the decision in favor of the alteration, because we simply have not recognized this ecological sys- tem as a system. When we keep taking away 1 percent here and a halt percent there and 5 percent here we wind up losing semething which cannot be replaced in order to provide services and values which in some cases can be satisfied elsewhere. It does seem to me that it is appropriate for the Congress to declare an intent to recognize and protect these systems as some sort of priority system. May I add one sentence to my remarks before you begin. This doesn’t mean that other uses are going to be foreclosed because obviously they shouldn’t be. Mr. Spracur. Someone on the aisle there. Mr. KE. C. Srepuan. As I understand it, we are meeting here at the request of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, primarily on the subject of this bill which was given to us as we came In. It is a bill that provides for State-Federal coordination, primarily through the implementation of the recommendations of the establish- ment of NOAA. This is an excellent approach. Again, we have to thank the Congress for taking the leadership, first, in establishing the Commission that recommended NOAA, and now in establishing this much-needed way of coordinating the Coastal Zone operations around the country. : The thing that I question is: Can you tie this to NOAA, which may be 2 or 3 years away from establishment? I think the urgent need for o7 coordination between the Federal Government and the many States that are getting into the picture is growing all the time. A year ago, the Federal involvement, financially, budgetwise, in the Coastal Zone was one-sixth of the total Federal pollution science program. It is going to change drastically if President Nixon’s five areas of emphasis are followed up with appropriation support. Jt will also change drastically as Congress interest in the oceans and in particularly Coastal Zone problems moves from science to pub- lic works. It is important that in the last few weeks the Congress that was talking, or the Federal Government that was talking a total of about a $500 million science program in the oceans, authorized a $600 million public works program to clean up pollution by build- ing a better sewage disposal system in one area. So the need for coordination between the Federal Government and the States in this whole marine problem is great, and there is no way of doing it at the present time. There is no one agency to which the States can come. There is no place where the Federal programs are sufficiently coordinated for the States to work with them. There is no place in the Federal Government that is sufficiently aware of what 1s going on in the various States so that we avoid the very expensive business of all of the States going off in their own direction without the help the Federal Government might give in keeping them from repeating each other’s mistakes, or in turning the wheel a number of times. My point is: Isn’t there some way other than waiting for the creation of NOAA to set up something to coordinate this Coastal Zone, to coordinate the Federal Government’s efforts with those of the many States that are involved ? Tt occurred to me that we might get the National Advisory Commit- tee on Oceans that was heavily oriented toward the States earlier than we could get NOAA. I recognize the disadvantage of this is that it weakens the case for NOAA. Another alternative would be to expand Dr. Wenk’s staff and give it a stronger coordinating capability. He certainly would need more staffing to do it. The third possibility would be to give to some existing agency, such as the Department of the Interior, some authority and staff to help in this coordination. A fourth possibility would be the States’ efforts themselves along the lines of a States’ group to meet here in Washington to help in this coordination. I don’t know which is the right answer, but I think one of the actions of this group would be to recommend to the committee that assembled this Conference urgent action toward setting up some means of State and Federal working together better than exists at resent. y A large part of this problem grows out of the fact that over the past many years the Federal Government has been concerned pri- marily with space and defense, where there is no State action, really. They are having a terrible time adjusting to a program where a Fed- eral program is not the national program. This is why we need this coordinating effort. I hope this conference will urge the committee to which it reports 58 to again take the leadership of getting this sort of an agency set up, and I hope not waiting for what I think may be a long time before we find results. Mr. Sprague. Do any of the panelists have a comment? Mr. Greaa. There are a couple of things going on in this direction right now. One of the Senate bills does recommend this, but leaves open the question of administration of the Coastal Zone program, should the Congress ultimately decide to establish an agency. This is one of the obvious things that could be done to get some decent coordinating machinery at the Washington level. Of course, I can’t refrain from noting that those States that are blessed by commissions, such as the one I represent, have machinery for Federal-State coordination in the field. It is a great asset. Mr. Spracuk. We are running a little bit over, but I will take one more question. Mr. Wituram A. Srernxopr, Jr. Commissioner of the Port of New York Authority, representing the State of New Jersey. As a representative of the State of New Jersey I should like to place on the record some views concerning the potential impact on the ports within the State of New Jersey of the recommendations made by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources in its report, “Our Nation and the Sea.” These same views relate to the port aspects of any coastal zone management legislation to be considered by the Congress. I ask this privilege for two reasons. First, because although much of the discussion at this conference is based on the Commission’s report, examination of the program reveals that none of the sessions is concerned with the potential impact of the Commission’s recom- mendations on the ports of the Nation. Secondly, I wish to note that much of the economy of the State of New Jersey is based upon the efficient and effective planning, develop- ment, and operation of its two major port complexes, the Port of New York and the ports along the Delaware River. In large measure, the dependence of the economy of the State of New Jersey on these two major port complexes is paralleled by the roles played by other major port concentrations in most of our other 30 coastal States. I would also like to observe that the American Association of Port Authorities, whose membership includes the public agencies respon- sible for developing and operating the 75 major ports of the United States, is at this very moment holding its annual meeting in San Francisco. For these reasons I will in my comments speak broadly rather than narrowly on the issues involved. I will be concerned with the potential impact of the recommendations made by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources on the ports of the Nation rather than specifically with the ports located within the State of New Jersey. It is important to point out that this Commission did not include in its membership a single individual with experience and responsibility in port management. I should like to begin by noting that although the Commission treated its general mandate broadly, as evidenced by the scope of the 59 report, its investigation was limited, in the area to which I will ad- dress myself, to the impact of merchant marine technology upon ports. Because of this very limited focus, and a general lack of understand- ing or appreciation of the business of ports and shipping, the Com- mission repeats the classic error common to most recent Federal commentaries suggestive of Federal port planning. This error is the mistake of relating specific trades involving highly specialized deep- draft tankers to the general port requirements of the United States. The error is compounded by the indiscriminate grouping of contain- erships, hydrofoil, and hovercraft with the supertanker and the as- sumption that such vessels are all components of what the Commission felt to be a common port problem, namely, the capability, or lack of capability, of our ports to accommodate all of these dif- ferent types of vessels. From this followed the recommendation by various Federal agencies that what is required is a drastic departure from traditional and historic approach toward port development in the United States. The Commission’s report states that supertankers exceeding 300,000- ton capacity are now on the building ways in Japan, specifically designed for the carriage of Middle East crude oil to Western Europe and to Japan, and then casts these against the depth of a vehicular tunnel in Chesapeake Bay and dredging costs in New York and east Texas. In doing so, it emphasizes a specialized and unique problem in order to justify a conclusion that Federal planning and control of the Nation’s ports is essential for the future of maritime transportation. I am pleased to note that, as a result of strong factual presentations by the AAPA to a number of agencies, the containership is no longer identified as a superdraft threat of the same category, a fallacy in earlier efforts of this kind. Except for the possible need for a realtively few regional oil un- loading terminals served by adequate channels to accommodate deep- draft tankers, the ports which will handle containerships will not require channel deepening of major magnitude and cost. While I am in agreement with the statement made in the report that “a port for containerships in the heart of the city adds to the traffic problem and to the cost of transporting goods out of the port,” T should like to point out that if the Commission had thoroughly stud- ied the existing and planned container facilities, it would have found that they are not being located in the “heart” of cities but are generally being built more on the periphery of the cities, where the necessary upland areas and rail and highway access are available. It follows from such misconception and misdirection that the issue of greatest concern to those engaged in port planning, development, and operation is the underlying rationale of the port phase of the report. What the Commission is porposing it Federal study and pre- sumably Federal direction and possibly control over the entire far- ranging field of port and terminal development (including land trans- portation facilities) which have been historically and successfully accomplished by non-Federal interests. That is unacceptable to the port industry. It is a complete reversal of the traditional relationship between Federal and non-Federal in- terests and responsibilities in this field of activity. The Commission’s report also states “the maintenance of a major port in every major coastal city is no longer justified.” Implicit in 60 such statements is the idea that the Federal Government should allocate or mandate port activity as to type, scope, and location of all port- related facilities and that this is a process superior to the benefits of healthy and vigorous competition which have in reality spurred the pioneering of new techniques in developing the ports of this country, particularly since World War Il. The provision of satisfactory facilities and services will be the best way to determine which of our ports will serve as gateways for the Nation’s foreign trade. Tt is a fact that each port is a driving economic force in its local hinterland and a great portion of the Nation’s industry is centered in the seaports and their surrounding areas. Significantly, almost every city in the United States with a population exceeding 100,000 is located on navigable water. T have felt it important to express these views on behalf of the port industry as the Subcommittee on Oceanography and the Congress give consideration to coastal zone management legislation. So, too, we hope that the States themselves will keep in mind the vital impor- tance of ports to their economy, employment and general welfare. I respectfully urge, therefore, that any coastal zone management legislation which may be passed by the Congress and the individual States include appropriate recognition of the importance and responsi- bilities of commercial ports in their handling of the Nation’s ocean- borne trade and authorize representation of these ports on the member- ship and advisory groups of coastal zone authorities. Mr. Spracur. Thank you very much, sir. The gentleman in the second row. Mr. Kwauss. I would like to address myself to the remarks made by Mr. Gregg for a moment. T am not sure that there is very much disagreement with the opinion expressed by the Commission and that of Mr. Gregg. Let me just outline the reasons why we, on the Commission, went the path of not asking formal Federal involvement. It seems to us that the most important aspect of the problem was the development of strong coastal zone authorities in each State. Granted that the jurisdictional responsibility is a complex one for local, State, and Federal authorities. At some point there will have to be Federal review, both for the national interest; that is, the public national in- terest, as well as the Federal interest, which includes the various statu- tory responsibilities of Federal agencies. It seemed to us that any coastal zone authority would want to have, and would have, cooperation in their planning with the Federal agencies that are involved. But it did not seem to us that it is an all-or- nothing situation. It seemed to us probably better not to have a formal involvement because at some point you have the Federal Government sitting in review of these matters. It seems to me it might not be in the best interest of the Federal Government to be involved formally with the planning and then also be involved in a review capacity. It is for this reason that we went the way we did. Mr. Spracun. Thank you very much. 61 J think any other comments will have to wait until panel 4 complete their presentation. I would like to thank the members of panel 3. We will take a 5-minute break at this point. ( Brief recess. ) Panet 4—F EDERAL AND STATE ROLES IN THE COASTAL ZONE MODERATOR Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., Counsel, Oceanography Subcommittee, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. PANELISTS Alfred A. Porro, Esq., attorney at law, Lyndhurst, N.J.; Charles F. Schwan, Jr., Washington, D.C.; Edwin T. Haefele, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Mr. Crrvean. Ladies and gentlemen, would you be seated, please ? Tn the face of an emergency, I am going to press myself into service as a moderator for this Panel on Federal and State Roles in the Coastal Zone. As you all know, this is a matter of considerable interest to the com- mittee, and one of the crucial questions that will have to be answered before we can proceed with any kind of a gainful management system. Before introducing the members of the panel, I would like to clar- ify ene point in case there is any doubt in your minds. That is with respect to the draft of legislation that is here in this room today. Let me assure you that this is not a hearing on Mr. Lennon’s bill in any way. It is out for discussion. I don’t want anyone in the room to feel compelled that he has to speak for the bill or against the bill. As a matter of fact, it is not even a bill at this point. Should it become a bill in the future, it will go through the usual legislative process and regular hearings will be held on it at that time. An appropriate time will be given for anyone who wants to speak for or against that particular legislation. Our purpose here is to exchange information. So please don’t feel that you have to speak for or against any draft legislation that is in this room. Now we will proceed to our panel. I would like to introduce to you first Mr. Alfred A. Porro, Esq., attorney at law, from Lyndhurst, N.J. STATEMENT OF ALFRED A. PORRO, ESQ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LYNDHURST, NJ. Mr. Porro. Thank you very much. It is certainly a pleasure to be here. Tam usually given the job of being brought to conferences primarily involving State representatives, because somebody has to be the unpop- ular guy, and that is usually me. My views are not the popular views usually, and, as a matter of fact, this is not the first time that the mod- erator didn’t show up when Al Porro as going to be on the panel. I am going to be as frank as I possibly can be with regard to my views, and I will warn you right now, know me as Al Porro, because 37—-487— 69 5 62 I am sure you will be calling me a lot of other names a little bit later on. I see I have some of my good friends in the audience, who have run me out of other places before, like the good old friend from Louisiana, Dr. St. Amant, and also, I think, Dave Adams is floating around someplace. I understand, however, that Dave, since he has been in Washington, has started to get a little bit more to my side of the thinking ; not completely, though. The Commission report, and let’s start at someplace where I think we can agree, I think we can agree that the Commission report should certainly be held as one of the most comprehensive studies and a fantastic job of facts and the presentation of facts, and also a fan- tastic job in terms of analysis and progressive recommendations with regard to legislation and management, Federal review, and the like. T had the pleasure of doing some consulting work, reviewing work, with the Comimssion, and, for that reason, I would like to take this op- portunity to express just a slight dissent. IT know that Crane Miller is in the audience. Crane is from the Smithsonian. He is an extremely capable attorney. He did not agree with me at the time that I expressed this to the Commission, and I don’t expect him to agree today. I am of the opinion that every court has one guy who dissents to something. I am going to take a very small portion with regard to that report and dissent. I think that the reoprt, the proposed legislation and the proposal that you are reading here today, treats too gingerly and too optimis- tically the question of voluntary State participation. I think it treats too gingerly and too optimistically the question of Federal-State relationships. I think in this one small portion of the report it goes contrary to the very strong, creative and progressive recommendations that are made throughout the report. I do not think to premise any program of the magnitude that we are discussing, with the need that everyone readily admits is there on some voluntary participation, on some illusory State authorities that might come into existence, is at all a good premise to start off from. I think that any such voluntary program is much too weak to cope with the fantastic job that is set forth as being its mission. Certainly, we have stripped them already, before we start, from being effective. J have found in my short experience that any such type of permissive action is usually not that tremendously effective. I think we can project, and T am not talking to the gentlemen here who are in their individual States doing a fantastic job, I am not saying that we should start stripping away any areas of sacred States’ rights—I am saying that to draft a bill and to make recommendations, and to say that the core of the bill is going to be a Federal grant—I am saying that that is nothing more than a teaser. It is not a solution. It is the old faithful Federal teaser of a Federal grant. I have submitted a written statement, which I will not go into too much detail on. Particularly, I fill not discuss with you the need, be- cause I think you could tell me much better what the need is. I think 63 you have already expressed from the floor today what the urgency is, and the classic chant of balanced planning. This need, as I see it, and this demand, as I see it, knows no bound- aries. It doesn’t respect those lines that we have drawn on the map and called the United States and the boundaries that designate the various States. Lf we approach it on that same archaic approach, I am afraid that we will be here again and again talking about the same subject matter. Tam also not going to try to impress you with the public interest, nor am I going to define for you the public interest, because that usually ends up being a tidy mess. But I think that it has been stated from. the floor, and I would like to emphasize, there is truly a national in-- terest here. Yes, there is a strong local interest, and yes, there is a strong State interest. But I submit to you today for your consideration that there is also an overriding national interest. What public are we talking about? What interests are we talking about? I will ask them rhetorically, because to try to get in and try to define it would perhaps only bore you and go over old treatise material that you have read time and time again. There is truly, however, 2 national fabric here. There are many in my profession that will dispute that the Federal Government can go to perhaps the extent that I am going to propose to you shortly, and there are many who will say this just doesn’t sound like it fits into the old categories of what we have learned in law school. But I say to you that this national interest that we are talking about provides the jugular vein for national and Federal jurisdiction. The very nature of this subject matter—I repeat—knows no State bound- aries. We are talking here of a problem, at least from what I see, which can only in the ultimate end be treated in totality, and we must then treat it as a totality, and we must then treat it out of necessity with a strong Federal interface. You have heard and you know, and most of you have lived with, the present maze, the present Federal maze and the present State maze that exists. I don’t talk it down. I think we can be very, very proud as to what has been accomplished. I think we are here because we are all proud of our individual roles in trying to help accomplish more and look for a further direction. But to a great extent we have sort of a disjointed parade with many agen- cles or bands playing varying tunes, and many of them duplicating lyrics. On the State level, it isn’t fair at all to criticize, when we have some very, very productive legislation that has come out of many of the States. I usually get in trouble by naming some of them, but I will. I have a lot of respect for some of the things that I have seen come out of California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. But in each instance it has been a piecemeal type of approach. Every time we turn around and pat ourselves on the back in the in- dividual States with regard to the particular work that you individuals 64 are doing in your individual scope, I think we have to recognize that that is a small portion, and it 1s only a piecemeal approach, and that we have not as yet, truthfully, started to put together all of these 1eces. It is my feeling that we now have the opportunity and we now have the base, without doing any further studies—and as was pointed out here before, we have to and should move now. I don’t know what more of a comprehensive study we would want than the study which was put forth by the Commission to use as a foundation. I don’t think we have to waste too much time talking about the old alternatives that are always put forth, the old, weak coordinating body, the new agency that everybody screams about. I think we are ready to move, and I do not think we can move if we keep ourselves in just the cubicles of the State boundaries. T submit that in most instances the State programs have been piece- meal and have not taken the total picture. [ want to give you a little example. I am going to use my home State of New Jersey because I know they will forgive me, because they have been forgiving me for years over there. They know truthfully that I love it. ; Tam going to give you some facts. I think you can relate this pretty much to your own individual States. So forgive me, New Jersey, I am not particularly talking about you. New Jersey has approximately 350,000 acres of estuarine areas. It is a major coastal State, and it has tremendous pollution in some of its major estuarine areas, such as the Raritan and Newark Bay area. Recently in New Jersey, there has been tremendous public interest with regard to these estuarine areas. That interest has been stimulated by progressive State officials. It has been stimulated by private in- dustry, private interests, and the conservation groups. What is happening? Proposals came forward to the legislature re- jecting the opportunity to institute a statewide estuarine planning pro- gram. The legislature was unable to do this, and I submit it was pri- marily because of political reasons, the legislators giving great talks with regard to how important this was for the northern part of the State when they came from the southern part of the State, and what a geen Utopia on overall plan would be for a particular part of the tate. On the other hand, we had two departments competing for the interest in the estuarine, those departments being the Department of Conservation and Hconomic Development and a new department that was created in New Jersey, the Department of Community Affairs, both two completely different missions. So what happened? An area of 18,000 acres out of the 350,000—and perhaps that is not a bad compromise—was put up and I say was sacri- ficed. That 18,000 acres sit in the Hackensack Valley meadowland area, a tremendous estuarine area. it was stripped away, virtually stripped away, from the Department of Conservation and Economie Development and put in the Depart- ment of Community Affairs under a new State agency which was going to take over all of the planning and all of the development in this particular area. A new city was going to be created in New J ersey. It was going to 65 be ripped away from the rest of the estuarine system—and that word “system,” by the way, I got from Dave Adams. I am very happy it fits into my talk better than it does into his, usually. It was ripped away from the State system and now we are going to create a new city in New Jersey. There were many cries, “Gee, I don’t know if legally you can do this. You can’t just rip this away from the rest of the estuarine area and stick it intoa Stateagency.” | By the way, the State agency will govern completely this estuarine area when it comes to planning, when it comes to financing. Related to it, also, it will have a word to say with regard to clearance of titles in that area. Titles always raise a good question in the New Jersey marsh- lands, because in this same State while this was happening, our Gover- nor, who, by the way, has been a very progressive Governor, put forth the well-known term today, a “moratorium.” There is going to be a moratorium in the State of New Jersey with regard to riparian grants. In New Jersey, I suppose it is similar to many other States, as my research has shown, in certain questionable areas the State government will grant away its rights with regard to property rights to private owners. So this moratorium was called. However, it was soon discovered that it was only called for the Hackensack Valley meadowland area. It was not called because of any conservation purpose. It was called so that the State agency could get its feet on the ground and so that the State agency could start building anew, without the problem of private ownership in that 18,000 acres. But then our commissioner of conservation and economic develop- ment was getting pressure from some conservation groups and he called his own little moratorium. Soon it was discovered that that moratorium was only called for the lower part of the system, the southern part of New Jersey. So now we are living with two alleged moratoriums called by two different individuals in the State hierarchy, and in the meantime, in the middle of the State, it was discovered that 16 acres was conveyed to private interests, $16,000, and on the same day reconveyed for $710,000, and 2 weeks later mortgaged for over $4 million. In one State we have had a tremendous difference in standardization. We are working within one set of State boundary lines. I would submit that today we must recognize that we are living with a& hew jurisprudence and a new look at the Constitution, and a new look at government, and a new look at political structure. We cannot be limited by old cliches. I made the mistake in Williamsburg. I said old cliches like “States rights.” I am not saying that here today. Back home, I represent many of the municipalities that are involved in the battle with the State, and they call me “the guy who is sticking up for home rule.” So there isn’t really a conflict here, because what I am saying is that government today can no longer be put in little cubicles and surrounded by certain boundary lines. Government today has to be looked at in terms of problem areas and in terms of function, and where they overlap we have to recognize that they overlap, and legal jurisdictions have to recognize that they are going to overlook. Something occurred down in Williamsburg that I think is very, very 66 important. We took the time out to start listing each governmental function that occurred in the coastal zone. We were kind of surprised to find that there were just many, many of them that fell into a peculiarly local nature, many that fell into a peculiarly State nature, and many that fell into a peculiarly Federal nature. Then there was that gray area that, depending on what your thinking was, it fell either into all the categories or two of the categories. What I am saying to you is, let’s not fall into that same trap in draft- ing new legislation in terms of just creating some State authorities. Let’s not fall into that cubicle trap. Let’s not fear venturing a little bit more. Whether you like it or not, we have to recognize that there are many, many Federal arms that are already in the individual States, already in this coastal zone. Why? To a great extent, out of necessity. I don’t have to start itemizing them here for you. You all know the various Federal agencies and functions that fall into that coastal zone, that. have jurisdiction that is well recognized and well known as being recognized in our individual State boundaries. T submit that there is—and I am not here to debate it from the legal standpoint; I suspect that someday this will occur before some of our courts—that there is valid, legal basis at this time in our history to extend that Federal jurisdiction on the basis of the national interest in the coastal zone. And, yes, I am interjecting the Commerce clause a little bit more. Yes, programs I am talking about stretch, perhaps, in some of your minds, some of the other clauses of the Constitution. We don’t have the time to get into the details of that particular theory. I would like to end by saying to you that I would like to propose today that we forget about this voluntary program, and that we set up truly a Federal umbrella, and that this umbrella be vested with the duty of coordinating the Federal maze, and acting as a top of the pyramid for the regional or “system” programs. I would like to suggest also that those areas not be set up in terms of State boundaries, but rather in terms of regional boundaries. I can think, without being a professional in the scientific and tech- nical end of it, of five good regions, and I am sure that technically there are others that can better set up five regional areas to be treated on a regional basis, and that within these regions, yes, there would be sub- regions, and yes, there would be State representation. I have submitted the details of that proposal in detail today. Eventu- ally, I think, when the record is printed, you can go through it and criticize it. Unfortunately, I am not going to have time to go through the details of it other than to say to you that it 1s not a proposal to give Federal domination, but it is, in fact, a proposal to attempt to coordinate, to attempt to reflect some genuine national interest, but on the other hand, to provide Federal leadership with a responding re- sponsibility in the States, and vesting in the individual States the powers that they presently have. I don’t think we are at the point in history when we have to start being jealous about the powers. They all coexist. But ladies and gentlemen here today, I would like to say to you that it would be a big mistake to pass legislation that is going to be 67 strictly on a voluntary basis. I agree with Mr. Gregg that this is a problem for a joint effort. That 1s what I propose. Thank you. (Mr. Porro’s statement follows:) STATEMENT oF ALFRED A. Porro, JR., Esq., Lynpuurst, N.J. I. A DISSENT The detailed study of the United States on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources has recently released in its report “Our Nation and The Sea” and the supplemental volumes which are to be hailed as the most comprehensive study completed to date regarding the marine resources and problems connected there- with challenging this country. The presentation of the facts and statistics as they are in the estuarine and coastal zone is outstanding and shocking indeed. The comprehensive analysis of the various threats to the estuarine and coastal areas truly irrebuttably presents a case for the need for balancing of interests and balancing of conflicting uses. Likewise, the general proposal of the Commission respecting the management of these crucial areas must be complemented, to- gether with the proposed legislation, especially its definition of the national policy, objectives and guidelines and its concept of federal review. However, as one of the consultants that worked with the Commission, I would like, at this time to exer- cise the privilege of dissent with one small concept, yet perhaps one basic aspect of possible success or failure to the approach. It is respectfully submitted that both the report and its supplement treat too gingerly and too optimistically the subject matter of state participation and federal-state relationship. As compared to the Commission’s strong and creative approach throughout the report and throughout its recommendations in this respect only a token attempt is taken here. The proposal of creation of state coastal authorities is sound and progres- sive. However, the concept of voluntary participation only is too optimistic and far too weak to cope with the massive result that is desired and expressed throughout the other sections of the report regarding the needs and the public interest in the estuarine coastal zones of the country. The gravamen of the proposal before this sub-committee today is likewise per- missive, following the lines of the Commission’s proposal. It provides for the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to deal with and review such proposals for long range planning in the coastal and estuarine areas that may come forth out of imaginary and hopefully actual coastal authorities that may be formed by various states of the Union. Guide lines and objectives are set forth. It provides for the old faithful federal inducement of grants and/or federal guarantees; this is a teaser but not a compeller. Hopefully, through the availability of such grants federal policy can be effectuated and the national interests protected. A state, regardless of how dramatically it may be injuring the national inter- est as a result of its poor treatment of its estuarine or coastal area and regard- less of how tragically a particular system of estuarines may be affected by its action or lack of action, cannot in any way or manner, under this proposal, be compelled to comply with the federal guide lines, planning or proposals for the area. It is in this respect—it is with regard to this weakness—it is with regard to this basie approach that a dissent is cast at this time. The seales of justice, the weighing of interests and the governmental process has shown little bridging with the scientific world here. Nor has the marine resources taken much cognizance of the artificial and vaguely defined jurisdic- tional boundaries, whether they be local, state or federal. The crux of the development has been without proper or balanced planning, without any process of sharing or conservation, and without true economic and environmental consideration of values. Environmental changes, due largely to technological development and advanced engineering techniques have been prin- cipally without legal and administrative control. Here controlled balanced stand- ards and guide lines have been neglected. On the other hand, natural changes continue to effect short line erosion, loss of nutrient areas and diversions in circulation—again, without respect to standard jurisdictional and governmental boundaries. Hstuarine pollution has justifiably become a matter of tremendous federal government concern and study. For years light cries have increased in volume 68 and tone respecting the trend of estuarine deterioration by interstate pollution. Now federal and state government has been attempting to gain knowledge needed to regulate the same. A great variety of approaches are being attempted. Technological, scientific, commercial and industrial advances and progress have found man in a position of out-witting himself. Industrial waste and detergents each invade the wetland, effluents pour indiscriminately and reclama- tion schemes trap and spread pollutants, all without any respect to the standard governmental jurisdictional boundaries. Yes, the multiple use dilemma continues to expand without effective national or regional regulation. The absence of a governmental structure vested with the responsibility and power to fully meet the challenge is shocking. A strong and effective and compulsory type of entity is needed. III. PUBLIC INTEREST-NATIONAL INTEREST The public interest of which we are concerned is a broad one—it is a local one; it is a state one; and overridingly it is a national one. An attempt to define “Public Interest” is always a tidy mess. Thus, no such attempt will be made here. However, the tempo of the public interest can be felt rhetorically in a statement made by General Woodbury right before the conference of the National Council on Marine Resources in Williamsburg, Virginia : “What is this public interest we are talking about? What public are we talking about? Are we talking about the local public—the people who are employed in the Coastal Zone, who live in the neighborhood, who have homes along the shore, the people who commute into the area for jobs? Is this the public we are concerned with? Or is it the using public, people who come from a long way off to swim or to use the marinas or the other facilities of the ocean or the lakes? Is it the users of the facilities that are there or is it the users of the facilities that can’t be there because the use has been pre-empted by some other use? * * * There is a real need obviously, for research of and research in the public interest if the determination of public interest among competing interests particularly where fish and wildlife and aesthetics are concerned, is to be based on facts rather than on emotions. And this research is needed by whomever and however decisions are made in the public interest. * * * And then we need to develop a rational approach in order to make a determination in the public interest. We need to be able to analyze the effects of these alternatives. We need to be willing to plan together and to communicate one with another. It is not enough to just oppose development. * * * Obviously, the use of the coastal zone is a matter of concern to all elements of our national fabric. All elements have a role in the planning for and the regulating of the use of this Coastal Zone. * * *” The public interest in any given instance could be a local interest—it could be a state interest and it could be a federal interest. In the estuarine and coastal zone it is all, ie., local, state and federal. The federal interest reflects the over- riding national interest which provides the legal and constitutional jugular vein for federal jurisdiction. Repeatedly, the nature of the estuarine and the problems that are being generated therein are stated to be unimpressed and unimpaired by state or local boundaries. The pollution in the Raritan River Basin in New Jersey must affect the coastal and estuarine areas of Staten Island and Delaware. The extinguishing of valuable fish and living marine resources in New England must affect the interest of those citizens in North Carolina. The conservation of a basically dead estuarine area in Virginia must affect the present housing need of Washington, D.C. The coastal and estuarine zone constitute a system—they constitute an interrelationship between all states; they constitute a problem which can only be capably handled by a true and effective federal interface. This zone is truly one for national concern—it truly is a concern of the national interest. IV. PRESENT MAZE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL ROLES The present maze of governmental roles, local, state and federal in the coastal zone are basically disjointed and uncoordinated. Essential to a truly effective system and structure is a set system, responsibility, control, coordination, finan- cial strength and public support. The system must be both flexible and rigid. When put to this formula, the present system sadly fails. A disjointed parade of different bands playing varying tunes and duplications of lyrics appears to be the picture of the federal maze. The activities and pro- srams of the agencies have proven to be individually credible and essential. Approximately five departments of the Executive, with numerous sub-bureaus and branches and related foundations and institutions, presently participate in 69 the protection of the coastal and estuarine areas. Here the individual entity varies in function and jurisdiction; great variance appears in effectiveness. Individually none constitutes a fully and independently effective system of coastal zone management. Combined, without coordination, a like result has occurred. Although some state or local programs have reflected substantial strides to more effective estuarine planning and administration, the very nature of this zone disregards technical state boundaries. The jurisdiction of no governmental body coincides with the boundaries of the coastal zone. The multi-state nature of the estuarine is reflected by the unrestrained animal and marine resources, water- ways and uses visiting from state to state. Yes, a great majority of the challenges presented by the coastal zone eould be handled on the state or regional level, providing the benefit of a close local familiarity and expertise with the problem area and a more divers situation. Yet, the short-comings of such a state authority are obvious; no single, con- tinuous plan of development for the whole coastal zone could result ; conflicting estuarine land title and use laws exist; financial inadequacy is likely to occur in many areas. Thus, the present federal maze, combined with the individual state approach, merely compounds the complexity. Yet, it would appear that a means of coordi- nating the activities of all of the existing functional agencies would be an effective solution. Coordinating bodies are inherently weak. No independent strength exists, but rather must be derived from support of other levels, appropriated out of the budgets of other bodies and agencies. Other alternatives readily emerge. The creation of a new agency to handle the whole zone. Oh, no. To contribute to the overwhelming maze of existing agencies and bureaucracy would be a total sacrilege. Yet such an agency could have as its sole mission and purpose concentration on the estuarine and coastal zone as a whole—treatment of all of the related problems, planning and balanced develop- ment of such areas. What about duplication or usurping of activities now carried or by existing agencies and levels of government? Loss of collateral research and experience of related agencies? Perhaps the responsibility should be delegated to an agency, now handling a segment of the problem. Yet this would detract from the overall major aspect of the program. Although some states have commendable programs for various aspects of the estuarine and coastal zone, such as fisheries, recreation, conservation and economic development, few states have truely effectuated state wide comprehensive programs. Basically, it can be stated that in this regard the state governments have failed. This is not to overlook the progressive steps taken in such states as Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, and some other states. A study of the whole picture and the various states individually forces the con- clusion that on the basis of past experience alone, a voluntary state authority system would not be effective. Many contradictions in policies, departments, motives and approaches make this obvious. The pattern in a great majority of the states is absolutely ineffectual insofar as an over-all state wide program is concerned. A case at point, taking the liberty of utilizing my home state, that is the State of New Jersey. New Jersey bas approximately 350,000 acres of marshland and is an important coastal state. It is plagued with extreme pollution in the Raritan River Basin area and the Newark Bay area. Perhaps some of the most valuabie estuarine areas in the country could have been found in these areas and undoubtedly some of the most valuable estuarine areas in the country still exist in this State. Recently, much attention has been given to the estuarine areas of the State, and some extremely progressive concepts put forth. However, the inability of the State Legislature to enact a state-wide program and the tremendous competition between two of the State Departments involved, namely, the Department of Conservation and Eeo- nomie Development and the Department of Community Affairs resulted in a true debacle of a program. It was proposed that a state-wide commission be formed to balance the planning of the 350,000 acres and to protect the same from indis- eriminate development. It was proposed that the continuous estuarine enjoyed by the State of New Jersey, which stretches from the northerly portion of the State through the estuarines of the Newark area through the marshland of mid-state in the Raritan and Middlesex areas trots on through the southerly portion of the State, ail were basically in the same class, nature and need. State politics prevented this. Instead special legislation was proposed and rushed through taking a mere 18,000 acres and sacrificing the same on the basis that the particular area in question, namely, the Hackensack River Basin, was in need of development for purposes of housing and the creation of a new city. Basically, 70 the control of the estuarine was immediately transferred out of the Department of Conservation and Hconomic Development into the Department of Community affairs. Needless to say, the function, purpose and mission of these two Departments are extremely different. What was once an area rich in marine resources and in need of the true balance between the interest of conservation and economic development, was carved out and deicated to a new department, which depart- ment does not contain as its basic mission the technical, scientific and economic acts of the estuarine, but rather the mission of the creation of new cities. A dedication by this local and special legislation immediately relieved any political affairs in the other 330,000 acres and areas of marshland. The politicians had done their piece. The other areas could now remain undisturbed. In the meantime a mounting dispute remained unsolved with regard to the title aspects and ownership in the same Hackensack Valley River area. Different title standards are being used for different areas of the State. For example, in the early part of 1969 the Governor declared a moratorium with respect to any further riparian rights; however, it was recently discovered that this alleged moratorium was meant to specifically and merely apply to the area that had been sacrificed, namely, the 18,000 acres and not the balance of the state. In the meantime the Commissioner of Conservation and Economic Development declared his own little moratorium which was recently discovered to have been meant only to apply to the southern portion of the State, concerning himself primarily with the conservation aspects and interest in the same. In the mean- time while the Governor’s moratorium affecting the Hackensack Valley was in effect and while the Commissioner’s moratorium respecting the southern estu- arine was in effect, a flagrant violation of equal protection of the laws and due process fermented and exploded. In the middle, powerful political area of the State, a certain alleged riparian grant or quitclaim of marshlands are dis- covered to have been conveyed to a company for the sum of $16,000, recon- veyed by that same company on the exact same day for the sum of approximately $710,000.00. This typifies, to a great extent disjointed, uncoordinated, politically influenced state approach and is reflected in the other parts of the country also. Ineffectual piecemeal attempts, ignoring the continuous nature of the estuarine area, ignoring the interdependency of the same and the likeness of its various problems, such as pollution, balancing of planning, development and conservation. Also ignoring the pleas of illegality of such special and local legisla- tion and the violation of the concepts of equal protection of the laws and due process in the United States Constitution. On the other hand, the financial inability of the states to manage the needed statewide program is clear. Ironically, the outward justification which was used for public relations purposes in the New Jersey situation was that of a mysterious, presently unavailable, Federal grant. An illusory federal grant was put forth as the full and complete justification for the piecemeal special legisla- tion that attempted to carve out 18,000 acres of the New Jersey estuarine system—truly a sacrilege to the national interest approach. vV. A NEW JURISPRUDENCE A dissent is registered with regard to the Commission’s approach and the approach of the proposal before this subcommittee today which has as its basis the mistaken attitude that the federal government should not and cannot delve more strongly across the sacred state jurisdictional boundaries. The program insofar as the organizational aspect is much too strongly state oriented and noticeably lacks federal effectivenss. It is time to recognize that a new jurisprudence has been borne, quite un- intentionally to some extent, yet it is here. A new philosophy of law, a new philosophy of political structure, a new philosophy of organizational mechanism, and a new philosophy of coordinating the whole “system” has in fact emerged through court decisions and legislation. As pointed out by Dr. David Adams, the language to be utilized should be “a system of management” and it should be recognized that “the jurisdiction of the coastal zone does not coincide with boundaries.” The true evaluation of the system requires us to scrap to a great extent the old cliches that are now being abused and merely used to impair a truely progressive and effective program. The concept of “‘State’s Rights’ is a sacred one indeed, yet to allow it to be utilized to allow a more active federal role in an area that undisputably requires it, is disgraceful. The trap of being bounded by existing structures and existing concepts is dangerous when consid- ddl ering management of the estuarine area. The trap of locking federal control in an area where the need for the federal catalyst, coordination, leadership and capacity is obvious, must not be allowed to be successful in this instance. Our concept of government has changed greatly throughout the last few decades. It is no longer a series of self-contained cubicles bounded by local or state artificial boundaries. As stated by Commissioner Robert C. Yosi at the recent Williamsburg Conference, “Government should be where the action is.” Which government? The government which contains the best capability to meet the particular problem or problem area at hand; the government which is best equipped to handle the particular challenge presented. When dealing with a multi-nature problem area such as the coastal and estuarine zones, a multi-level governmental “system” is necessary. A network which effectively creates an inter-relationship and interface between ail levels of government which necessarily come in contact with the estuarine and coastal zone. Namely, an inter-relationship between the local, state and federal government which would effectively navigate to each level that particular function which it is best suited to handle and to conduct itself both individually and in an overall coordinated system. This cannot be accomplished by fearing to venture, to some extent, with new concepts and true innovations. Presently, whether it be recognized or not, the federal control, with regard to various aspects of the estuarine and coastal zone is deeply indebted. As previously stated, approximately five executive departments, twenty bureaus, and many federal councils and institutions concerning itself in these areas have already transgressed traditional boundaries. The underlying considerations and the underlying fear of potential legal dispute in the approach being set forth at this time, are to a great extent exaggerated and unjustified. The commission and the proposal before the sub- committee today sets forth major policy decision to vest the management of this zone primarily with voluntary illusory state authorities. This is a step backwards and a step which will render ineffectual the tremendous factual compilation and recommendations that has been accomplished by the commission. Yet, on the other hand, it is obvious that the commission recognizes the danger of such a proposal. For example, it reaffirms the power of individual states to regulate fisheries and on the other hand recommends a special power for the federal government to intervene and assume certain regulation of endangered “interstate” circumstances where the same is needed and the state has failed to take action. There are those that have and will challenge the constitutional authority of the federal government to take the role proposed by the undersigned. The constitutional division of powers between the federal and state must be viewed in the light of the new developing jurisprudence. The relevant portions of the Constitution must be interpreted in light of today’s needs, today’s develop- ments and the expansive nature of the commerce clause, the several provisions of the Constitution dealing with the national defense power, the federal property power and the Tenth Amendment. These provisions basically provide all of the necessary legal basis for the assertion of federal responsibility in the coastal zone. The commerce clause has in the last century taken on a new face. It has served as the vehicle of interjecting federal power and the exercise of federal manage- ment in areas requiring the same. The estuarine and coastal zone is no exception. It should be noted and made absolutely clear that by interjecting this federal interface it need not preclude state action, however, the federal role must be predominent in the event the delegated responsibilities of the state government fail. Obviously, the commerce and defense powers and other related federal powers provide the partial explanation of the federal involvement in navigational. ‘shoreline, and other marine works of improvement. Significantly federal property power has been exercised. Admittedly much control over the Coastal Zone is comfortably encompassed in the powers constitutionally reserved to the state by the Tenth Amendment, however, as previously stated, the new jurisprudence recognizes the necessity of inter-relationship of governments. In fact, very relevant examples can be pointed to. The field of pollution control is cited; the field of water resource program is cited; regulation of population in the areas of fisheries; regulation in the areas of wildlife; rgulation in the area of recrea- tion. Admittedly, most of the programs that are referred to aS examples are programs that vest primary control in state government, however, effectively provide the teeth to enforce federal standards and guidelines. This must be the aim and result of the proposed management system for the estuarine area. (P VI. A NEW CREATION A. A federal umbrella A new creation is proposed. This creation will be able to cope with the tremen- dous overlapping jurisdictional problems and will also be able to realistically materialize upon the State and Local experience and closeness to the various regions. The gravamen of the concept involves a Federal-State creation— “a duet”. A program utilizing a simultaneous Federal-State marriage—a Federal- State partnership. Representation, participation and support from all levels of Government. The concept is good and should be truly utilized; it must, on the other hand, not be weak, participation must be mandatory, guidelines clear and rigid—flexible and effective. The Federal umbrella must exist for effective coordination of the many Federal Agencies presently relating to the estuary, and the setting of national objectives and guidelines. Inter-State action and local participation, on the other hand, can not be usurped or diminished. B. Area The area in question shall constitute all of the estuarine and coastal zone of the country including the Great Lakes Areas. This mass will then be divided into regions or districts. For purposes of this presentation five regions are suggested: (1) Great Lakes Region; (2) North-Eastern Coastal Region; (3) South-Eastern Coastal Region; (4) Gulf Region and (5) Western Coastal Region. The Regions should be divided upon such factors as area, common problems and conditions and studies, reports and recommendations of the scientific and the technical world. Within each region shall be sub-regions, basins or local areas. These to be divided with the same thory, purpose and intent; with the same reflection of the scientific, social technological and conservation needs of a society. C. Administration and control The administration and control of this program is suggested to follow the same regional pyramid effect. Participation must be mandatory, obligations and responsibilities defined and enforcement provision forceful. A weak structure will give birth to a weak program and plan—a weak result. Hach Region will organize in accordance with basic guidelines providing for representation from each State within the Region. The method of selection, the internal administration of the regional authority, creation of sub-regions, form and functions shall be State and Local controlled. State Authorities within the Region varying from strong central State-controlled authorities to bi-county or inter-municipal groups should result. All Regions combined constitute the whole. The total program shall be directed and coordinated from the top. The new creation shall be a strong authority with representation for key factors. This Federal-State mechanism would not be a new branch of the existing Agencies, nor would it constitute a new agency. Its composition would consist of both major levels; i.e., State and Federal. The State interests would be represented by a representative selected by and from each of the five regional authorities, recognizing both economic and con- servation interests. The Federal interests to be represented by a member of the various agencies or bureaus presently dealing with various aspects of the problem, such as the Departments of Interior, Commerce, Defense, Transporta- tion and Health, Education and Welfare. Thus a strong factor of Federal Agency coordination will also arise. This authority shall, from within its membership, choose its own officers, consultants and employees. It would implement the express statutory purposes and mission of the body. It would set and define the National objectives and policy guidelines. In addition to coordinating the Federal activities, it would coordinate the various regional master plans, resolve conflicting plans and regulations, and provide a continuing inventory of research and studies! A federal Interface! All to result in a well balanced overall environmental system. Its planning and regulatory and acquisition function will stimulate the ultimate realization of a national master plan of the estuarine and coastal zone managed through an effective structure. In addition to the normal general powers of an authority, necessary to execute its mission, this body should have extensive redevelopment, renewal, condemnation and acquisition power. Obviously. the implementation of any national master plan would be questionable without this. 73 Hxtensive powers, respecting other areas, such as pollution, dredging, drain- age, water resources, solid waste disposal, engineering and related standards are essential. Where overlapping and duplication with existing activities occur, coordination will be easily obtained. Final and ultimate resolution of problem area and conflicts in policy, regional plans, activities and the like will be vested in this body. D. Financiat The financial structure, as the percussion of the orchestra, shall provide the tempo and beat of the program. Without strength and power a meek composition ean be anticipated. The proposed administrative structure lends itself to a com- bination and pooling of many powerful sources of funds. Federal funding, State and Local funding and Authority Bonding are available. Independent and combined financial structures will be necessary. The regional regime must of necessity be financially independent and dependent also—financial independence by State and Local funding and its own bonding power respecting localized and regional projects and missions; financially dependent upon federal funding regarding matters general to aid regional plans and to excuse the overall master plan. Further, Mederal funding, made available to the regional authori- ties will aid the cause of regional and public acceptance. Sturdy and time-tested financial concepts regarding capital improvements of the past can be utilized, such as special assessments, bonding and the like. New and progressive concepts such as an inter-municipal, inter-State and/or Federal- State tax sharing pool, self-liquidating public projects such as beaches, marinas and other waterfront developments, and leasing of sovereign owned land may be utilized. This federal umbrella can immediately and sensibly be interjected in and administered out of the Department of Interior and upon creation in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. EH. Federal review An essential aspect of the overall program will be that of necessary federal review. As recognized by the Commission, continuing overlapping federal review will be a constant need. ~ ‘x & 3 Tt is imperative that the national interest be protected. If for any reason a coastal zone authority cannot act in the public interest, the federal government should participate in the actions of the coastal zone authority. Regardless, the federal government should have power of review. The federal review role is critical. In our discussions with those in the area we found general agreement that the state should manage the coastal zone; they have the respon- sibility and have or at least should have the detail local knowledge necessary for sound management. However, there may be times when local pressures will tend to force the coastal zone authority to act in a manner not in the national interest. The mere threat of federal review will often suffice. If not, the federal government should be empowered to act in the public interest.” It is respectfully suggested that a program that is premised on voluntary participation of the states would not give the necessary degree of federal review or at least would not give the necessary degree of power to effectuate enforcement after federal review. Strong national objectives and standards must be set and a collateral power to enforce the same must exist with the strength to enable the interjection of the federal interface in the event the national objectives and standards are not complied with after a determination based upon federal review. F. Coastal zone laboratories Integrated and essential to the overall coastal zone and estuarine area pro- gram must be the Commission’s recommendation that coastal zone laboratories be established in association with appropriate academic institutions to engage in the scientific investigation required in the estuarine and coastal areas. The report extensively and overwhelmingly justifies the need for a continuance and increase in the separateness of scientific research from the formal governmental structure, yet receiiving full and complete federal financial support. The estuarine and coastal processes must be studied and continued in a scientific atmoshpere; the results are essential to the advice of both the federal government and state structures managing this zone. The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency, under the direction of the National Sea Grant Program, should have the prime responsibility to provide 74 institutional support for the coastal zone laboratories. The Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 must be amended to permit grants for the construction and maintenance of vessels and other facilities. To integrate the coastal zone laboratory proposal into a governmental depart- ment, such as Department of Interior, as has been recently suggested, would be a true injustice to the effectiveness of a necessary program. To attempt to ‘diminish the effectiveness of this independence of scientific research and to strip it from the academic atmosphere, is trully unjustified and would highly -detrement the effectiveness of the overall program. The governmental structure and the coastal zone laboratories recommended ‘by the Commission can be effectively coordinated. VII. CONCLUSION Thus, in conclusion, it is stressed that the type of progressive and essential program that is called for in order to obtain effective coastal zone management and balance planning of the estuarine system cannot be accomplished by volun- tary participation of the states. The tremendous work product of the Commis- sion and the years of studies and hearings relating to the estuarine demand a more effective administrative structure and more potent and powerful solution. The development of our jurisprudence and political concepts have truly laid the basis for an extremely progressive and pyramid type structure in which an overall federal umbrella would coordinate regional programs giving due regard and recognition to state and local functions and expertise. Mr. Crincan. Thank you very much. I would like to move now to the next panelist, a gentleman who was in Williamsburg, and who is most active in this area: Charles F. Schwan, Jr. Mr. Schwan. STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. SCHWAN, JR., WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Scuwan. Thank you very much. Even to list all the Federal and State agencies and programs relat- ing to the coastal zone would take 10 minutes—all the time I am per- mitted to speak. To discuss them in such a brief period is out of the question. To speculate about future Federal and State roles I should need 10 hours. Under the circumstances, I am going to assume that you—and I— are acquainted with the roles currently played, and devote most of my time to evaluating the coastal zone management proposals of the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering and Resources. Before I do so, however, let me state what I believe to be the current status of coastal zone management. In brief, there is little or no such management, nor does this stem from non-feasance of any agency or agencies. None is contemplated in Federal law except in bits and pieces as individual agencies may administer Federal lands in the coastal zone. No State has seen fit to designate an agency for overall coastal zone management. To the extent that management is practiced with respect to privately owned property, it is done locally. It is true that certain aspects of management are practiced more widely. A number of Federal and State laws authorize planning to be undertaken—for water and related land resources, for outdoor recrea- tion, for comprehensive State plans, to cite only a few examples. To my knowledge, the closest thing to coastal zone management, except what is done locally, is accomplished by the Delaware River Basin Commission and by the zoning laws of a few States—Alaska, Vo Hawaii, Oregon and Wisconsin. The proposed Susquehanna and Potomac River Basin compacts would come close, closer than Dela- ware, to authorizing management as we speak of it here. The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources on the other hand, proposed that the States establish coastal zone authorities “to coordinate plans and uses of coastal waters and adja- cent lands and to regulate and develop areas.” The Commission and Congressman Lennon’s draft bill would have coastal authorities exercise “necessary enforcement powers through zoning, permits, licenses, easements, acquisition or other means to assure compliance with plans and resolve conflicts in uses * * *.” The Commission proposes, and Mr. Lennon’s draft bills assume, cre- ation of a National Oceanic Atmospheric Agency. It would include the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Environmental Science Services Administration, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Lake Survey, certain programs now administered by other agencies and certain proposed new programs. Tt would function as a coordinating as well as an operating agency. Both the Commission and Mr. Lennon in his longer draft bill would authorize NOAA to: (1) make grants to coastal authorities to defray up to 50 percent of operating expenses for an initial 2-year period; (2) make grants to such authorities to cover up to 50 percent of their long-range planning costs and implementation of such plans; and (3) guarantee bonds issued or loans obtained by coastal States for land acquisition, water development or restoration projects to implement coastal or estuarine area management plans. Such bonds would be taxable obligations. Incidentally, interstate agencies could be designated as coastal au- thorities and Mr. Lenon’s bill adds river basin commissions, presum- ably those set up under title II of the Water Resources Planning Act. I believe it fair to examine these proposals to see if they are realistic, and, if found to be so, how desirable they may be. To take NOAA first, I suspect that strong, persuasive arguments can be made for and against it. The birth of a new agency that would entail removal of extant agencies from several Departments would not be uncomplicated. Departmental and Congressional Committee juris- diction is about as easy to forswear as alcohol or tobacco. Nevertheless, if the political judgment were made that NOAA be established, I see no reason why it could not function effectively gen- erally as envisaged. About coastal authorities, I am much more dubious. One could ex- pect opposition from State and interstate agencies whose operations would be “cut off at the pass,” as it were. One could expect opposition from local governments to which land use control, no matter how well or ill performed, is a vital power. Even assuming that such opposition could be overcome, and I don’t believe it could be, I doubt the desirability of creating coastal authorities. As I read the proposals, State conservation and recreation agencies, among others, and possibly State water pollution control agencies would be required to cede some or all of their powers to the coastal authorities within the geographic areas over which the latter would exercise jurisdiction. 76 In these, the most heavily populated areas of the country, the pro- posed coastal authorities would exercise a very strong influence on future economic development. Such exercise, I believe, would not be well received by local govern- ments. Should a coastal authority decree that a given area be reserved for a wildlife refuge, recreational area or whatever, but not utilized for industrial, port or residential development, no matter how logical in any broad scheme of things, who would compensate the leca! unit of government for the taxes forgone ? Ue Purchase of easements or fee simple title would assist in part, but would have to be supplemented by payments in leu of taxes to make the local units whole. If I were a city or county official, I should want to see the color of the Federal or State money before I acquiesced. Before I conclude, I want to add that I see no reason why there should be in section 304(b)(1) any reference to taxability of State bonds. To begin with, a Federal guarantee for State bonds is worth almost nothing in interest costs. Beyond that, State and lecal gov- ernments can do without the continual nibbling away at the tax exemption of their obligations. In conclusion, let me say I accept the diagnosis made by the Com- mission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources and implicit in Congressman Lennon’s bill concerning the ills of the coastal and estuarine zones. I accept, too, the need for strong medicine, and that there should be Federal and State interest in and administration of the medicine prescribed. I believe that the measure of discretion presently accorded local units of government each functioning independently is not con- ducive to the fulfillment of regional or national objectives. On the other hand, in its immediate area a great value should be placed on the views of a local government and its people. Somehow we must manage to devise an arrangement that will accord to local aspira- tions and decisions a considerable weight, but will give to States a power to oversee and, if need be, to revise. This might be accom- plished by a review procedure at the State level at which, among others, interested Federal agencies might be heard. Perhaps the way has already been pioneered by Wisconsin and, more recently, Oregon. These States reauire local zoning, but if there is a failure to perform or to perform adequately, the State may step in. The Wisconsin statute, for example, requires that local zoning ordi- nances meet minimum standards, including “land division regulations to control building sites, placement of structures and land uses as well as santitary regulations to prevent and control water pollution ... [and]... administrative provisions insuring enforcement of the controls and regulations.” A similar requirement was enacted with respect to flood plain zoning. In the alternative, control might be lodged directly in the State, as Massachusetts has done. Quite possibly, some States might wish to create coastal agencies to function in a coordinating capacity. Which of these or possibly other routes should be followed is a decision to be made at the State level, it would seem to me. To resolve this dilemma, if the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries contemplates legislation, I should favor the brief amend- 77 ment proposed by Congressman Lennon. Following a precedent estab- lished by the committee when the Federal Boating Act of 1958 was drafted, I should invite States, and in this case local governments, to name representatives to the study and drafting committee. An advisory group of persons representative of the private sector could be named. By drawing together all the interested parties, I be- lieve that a more satisfactory solution could be devised than would be possible otherwise, or to this point has been proposed. Thank you very much. Mr. Crinean. Thank you. This brings us te our next panelist, from Washington, D.C., Mr. Kdwin T. Haefele. STATEMENT OF EDWIN T. HAEFELE, RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Harrete. First, let me say [ had nothing to do with any input RFF made to this council’s deliberations or to the commission’s. The last speaker of the day has two obligations. The first is that he must have been here all day so that he is as tired of being talked to as you are. I have been and Iam. The second obligation is that he must be brief. I will be. I was disturbed a little bit by the report of the commission and by much of the conversation that has taken place here today. In dealing with this problem strictly as a “management” problem— recognizing that you are mostly management people—officials of State governments or of Federal executive agencies—I hope you realize that “management” tends to focus attention on the means rather than the goals. ithimk you all see that what we have here is primarily a choice prob- lem. Even though we may use, as was mentioned this morning, com- promise in reaching the choice, when we come down to it, we do make choices. Looked at as a public choice problem, there were some words and phrases and understandings today that I think need to be more clearly defined. I would like to give you some definitions. I apologize for my exaggerations, but the day has been long and time is short. Definition A, a public authority, particularly as in a coastal zone authority : “A device for keeping public choices out of the hands of the elec- torate and their elected officials of government, often with the active cooperation of the latter.” Definition B, a public hearing held by a public authority. “A process for allowing the electorate to let off steam after you have removed the control of public choice from their hands.” Definition C, balanced use of the coastal zone : “Tike a balanced transport system, this does not mean anything in particular, and a good deal less as a general proposition.” Synonym : See comprehensive planning. Definition D, grant-in-aid program: “An obsolete Federal device which effectively keeps choices at the Federal level without even trying.” '37487—_69——6 78 T do want to make one serious definition because it doesn’t appear in the commission’s report. That relates to the criterion of maximizing net social return. This is an aggregate measure of present value of benefits minus costs. Tt does not measure the incidence of the benefits or the incidence of the cost. Since the incidence rarely if ever falls on the same parties, then the different parties will choose different things. I think in light of the time, I would prefer to stop at that point. Thank you. Mr. Cuincan. Well, we seem to have a lot of meat out for discussion. I appreciate your comments Mr. Haefele, on the public hearing process. Mr. Rorrrt Kruzcer. I have a question for Mr. Porro. He stated — that when he began perhaps we would want to call him some other names when he finished. I think that perhaps a wouldn’t choose to eall his anything else, but I might choose to call his comments in part superficial. In California, I believe we have shown that the premise of a prospective grant-in-aid in favor of coastal development has been effective. We did create a new department to take advantage of a law that has not yet been enacted. Perhaps the other States might also show this same willingness once a law is enacted. Secondly, the interest of the State in the coastal zone cannot be ignored. Note in particular they own the coastal zone under the Submerged Lands Act. Their title was a very gravely considered point from a national policy standpoint, and to interject the complete political revision in the system would raise issues that would make this audience and most State audiences much less receptive to a program of the type that your committee is considering. Thank you. Mr. Porro. I would like to say that I am very glad that I idolized some of the States, because California, 1f you will recognize, was the first State I referred to. I would like to say publicly that I have read the California reports and I am well aware of what is happening in California. You are to be complimented. Unfortunately, that is not a complete pattern throughout the rest of the States. Let me take your word “superficial.” Yes; it was superficial in presentation here today. I have submitted a detailed statement which is not quite as superficial and does go into this in much more detail. With regard to ignoring the State, when you read the proposal you will see that the State participation is much stronger than it is right now. I would like to make it absolutely clear to anyone who is under any misconceptions, you are living with this same kind of concept right now with many acts that are in existence, such as the Clean Water Pollution Control Act and such as the Water Resources Act. This is all that is being proposed. But sometimes, to get across a 79 point, you have to go perhaps a little bit further to demonstrate your oint. i Mr. Robert Krurcer. With your explanation, if there is, in fact, strong State participation in this entity that you propose, about which we know nothing other than your general comments, if there is to be State participation, genuine State direction, a recognition of the State interests, isn’t this perhaps what was proposed by the Commission and on which a number of speakers have indicated their views about ? In short, to quote your own deathless prose, you suggested—I am being facetious—you suggested perhaps a mix of new cliches, urging that we forget the old ones, that we would set up an umbrella to correct the maze. Perhaps we have in NOAA the umbrella about which you are speaking. Mr. Porro. Let me make this clear. I did act as one of the consul- tants to the Commission and am overjoyed, absolutely overjoyed, with ‘their proposals. I am dissatisfied and dissent as to one particular point, and that is voluntary participation. As California may and has voluntarily taken -the steps, that is not the pattern throughout the United States. I readily admit to the use of words and terminology, perhaps, to -make a point that perhaps better words should be chosen for. I do not think, however, that you understand, or perhaps it is my fault for not getting an important point across. But I completely agree with the presentation. What I am calling for is a genuine participation, partnership and joint effort. Mr. Kruscer. I have just a brief reply. I think there is a basic point involved here. Yo do have a very difficult clinical situation with which -to deal ever within the States. You speak of a maze. You have a State maze. You have, in many cases, grants of tidal submerged lands being made by the States to local municipalities. New York, for example, has the authority in the _ Authority of the Port of New York a mass of submerged lands. In California, we have done this repeatedly up and down the coast. - So you have a very complex political set of problems within the States. If you interject the Federal element in dealing with these problems, which are going to be difficult in themselves in setting up a Coastal Zone Authority, then perhaps the whole thing becomes unrealistic. I would think that you would start with the grant-in-aid programs, and if there are States, such as California, that are willing to go for- ward with them, that you end it there. If there are other States that will not cooperate, that will not form -the interstate arrangements which are necessary to meet the purposes of the act, then perhaps go further. But you should first give the States a chance to succeed. Thank you. Mr. Crinean. If you gentlemen will take your gloves off for a ~minute, we will recognize another speaker from the floor. Mr. Kine. I am not going to let you off quite so easily, Mr. Porro, because you did not mention North Carolina. Mr. Porro. Missed again. 80 Mr. Kina. I do believe that you mentioned California, Massachu- setts, and Rhode Island. Mr. Porro. And even that backfired. Mr. Kine. I think Dr. Linton this morning laid out North Caro- lina’s policy and the processes by which they are endeavoring to pass legislation in the State legislature for the Coastal Zone Authority of the State of North Carolina. You say that voluntary grants or voluntary legislation by the Fed- eral Government is not good or would not work, I believe was your wording. You did pass hghtly over the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act which I am sure you are well aware of has grants to induce the States to act in water pollution matters. it also has enforcement procedures. I might go along with you this far, that if this legislation being proposed was to include some type of enforcement for those States that don’t want to act, that would be one thing. However, from the turnout here today, I think that the majority of States certainly, and more so with the national exposure of our water problems, are acting on their own. So I would not want to upstage this enforcement. I think we should minimize it. However, I would like to see it stated in there. Also, you mentioned that the Federal agencies could better control or better aid the local-State problems in the water area. I think if we just take problems like coastal zone land ownership of wet lands, marsh lands, submerged lands, and what not, zoning and all these other prob- lems, certainly the manpower of the Federal Establishment would have to be doubled to handle what the States are able to do on their own. Thank you. Mr. Porro. I would like to say, Tom, that that is exactly what the details of the proposal set forth. They are analogous to the type of structure that is set up in the Water Resources Act, analogous to the type of enforcement provisions in the Clean Water Act, which, basic- ally, give the State the option to go ahead, and if they do not follow certain guidelines gives the Federal Government or the Federal struc- ture the teeth. What I am saying is that there are no real teeth in a proposal that just says “Do you want to participate?” That would exclude States like California. That would exclude States like North Carolina. Without any question, that is the type of proposal that I was speaking to. Mr. Kine. I didn’t get a chance to read your full paper here. I just glanced over it. But I can say as someone introduced me in Miami as being in ocean law, the reason for that is that all my grades were below “C level.” Mr. Crinean. Very good. Mr. Panxowsxi. In going through the material that was prepared by the Commission, I have to admit that I was a bit confused when we talk about the coastal zones whether we mean the land, the water, or both all mixed up together. . I would like to know whether the zoning requirements which the States would have to set up would merely be extensions of the zoning which now takes place on land. 81 The reason I ask this question is I think the common man in the street recognizes that in most areas of this country we have brutalized the land something terrible. In going through this report, the distinct impression is given that what is left of a most precious resource is going to be brutalized in like manner. If this question could be answered, I think you could at least point the direction. Mr. Crinean. Mr. Schwan? Mr. Scuwan. I don’t know that I can answer a question as to what the Commission would propose. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the concept of zoning. Its application may be greatly desired. But what would you substitute as a concept? Mr. Panxowskxt. I believe you can start, Mr. Chairman, by recog- nizing the water resources for what they are, literally irreplaceable. When we talk about a report which seems to have accommodated the interests of developments such as housing which can be located elsewhere and for which alternatives are available, then I in particu- lar am not only disturbed but apprehensive about the system of man- agement that we are going to set up which treats all resources and all uses as 1f they were equally valid, regardless of their nature, regardless of their availability. Mr. Crinean. Mr. Porro? Mr. Porro. I think I have said enough. Mr. Scuwan. Let me add one more word. I don’t know that the Comiission has suggested that all uses were equal; on the other hand, there are uses—a gentleman a moment ago spoke for ports. Ports have to be located on bodies of water. There are water-related uses which have to be accommodated and which in the process may do some harm to the ecosystems about which words have been spoken. I think any good management system would locate to the extent pos- sible housing or other uses which can be accommodated elsewhere, would locate elsewhere, would do whatever possible to preserve the ecosystems, to enhance them. On the other hand, I think we have to recognize that there are certain uses which are so closely related to the water, so dependent in being on the water that we simply have to accommodate them also. I should guess that most people in attendance here are—to use an old cliche—conservation oriented. More power to them. We have raped the land, the water and the natural resources. There is not much question about it. But I don’t think we can accommodate the population explosion, the affluence to which all of us are accustomed, unless we recognize that some of these uses which may not be in accord with the ecosystems are going to be employed in the coastal zone. Mr. Crincan. We have time for one more question. Mr. Wu11am Srotz. I would like to address my words of wisdom to both Mr. Porro and Mr. Schwan. In Texas, the Governor has created an interagency national resources council. One of the first tasks of this council has been to initiate a coastal planning program for our States. One very important reason for this was that the State of Texas owns 41% million acres of submerged tidelands, beaches and islands. The Governor, prior to this action, would usually designate a par- 82 ticular State agency as State contact, for instance, for the estuarian activities of the Department of Interior. The Governor has since designated the council as the State contact for the estuarian programs of the Department of the Interior. We have requested that Secretary Hickel do likewise within his office so that the State of Texas can work with one body within the Department of the Interior. This is the approach that we are using in our State. Very importantly, the last session of the Texas Legislature passed five very significant coastal bills. The first one declared our own mora- torium on the sale or lease of the surfaces of our beaches, islands and submerged tidelands, a 4-year freeze on these three. The next piece of legislation set up a system of State bloc grants to coastal counties for the maintenance of public beaches. The next bill created legislation to permit the establishment of beach park boards by counties along our coast. The fourth bill stipulated criminal penalties for the denial of access to public beaches. Our fifth bill now requires State permits for all coastal mineral and earth excavations. The Texas Legislature appropriated to the Governor’s office money for the program coordination of our State coastal program. What we propose is to mesh together the estuarian activities of eight State agencies into one united approach. Frankly, gentlemen, we think we could have both economic develop- ment with conservation. Fortunately, in Texas, much of our coastline is still virgin. This is the direction we are heading into and this is why we are now coming to the Federal Government to say, “Look, this is what we are doing. How will you react to this?” The Governor has decided that our State should take a lead in this. We want to very much cooperate with our sister States and also cooper- ate in fostering a State-Federal partnership to utilize the resources of the oceans. Mr. Cruinean. Thank you very much. I thank you all. We remind you that there is a reception at 5 o’clock. If you haven’t picked up the invitations, you can do so at the desk. We will recess, to reconvene at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 1969.) COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1969 Houser oF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTED ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE ComMMITTEE ON MercHant MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in the caucus room, Cannon House Office Building, Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., counsel, presiding. Pane, 5—TuHe Frprrat Locus or Coastran ZoNE MANAGEMENT MODERATOR Dr. Lewis M. Alexander, executive director, Law of the Sea Insti- tute, University of Rhode Island. PANELISTS John H. Clotworthy, president, Oceans General, Inc., representing the National Oceanography Association; William J. Duddleson, direc- tor of policy studies, the conservation foundation; Col. Leonard J. Goodsell, executive director, Great Lakes Commission. Dr. Atrxanprer. Good morning, and welcome to the second day’s session of this conference. Yesterday afternoon we got talking about the need for some sort of Federal agency or organization with regard to the coastal zone. I think this was pointed up rather clearly by the exchange between Lawyer Krueger and Lawyer Porro. Weare going to, this morning, ask the question of where might this agency be located within the Federal Government. As you are aware, the Commission report really has two trusts to it. One has to do with the efforts the United States should establish for marine activities and the other is an organizational problem of where the marine agencies: themselves should be located. A part of this problem is what we will be addressing this morning. I have only one comment to make. If you do have a statement for the record which is more than a page or so in length, will you summarize it and the report itself may be given to the reporter. The statement will go into the record that way. Today we have three panelists. The first on my left who will lead off is John Clotworthy. Mr. Clotworthy has an electrical engineering degree from the University of Virginia and also an advanced degree from the Harvard Business School. He was with Westinghouse for 19 (83) 84 years, spent a year and a half as chairman of the Division of Ocean Engineering at the University of Miami and is now the president of the Oceans General, Inc. He is also the past president of the National Oceanographic ‘Association and what he will be saying today repre- sents, as I understand, the general poyicy of NOA. STATEMENT OF JOHN H. CLOTWORTHY, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION COMMITTEE, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY ASSOCIATION r. CrorwortHy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question before ie panels is an interesting one, a complicated one, a contentious one. I want to purposely ove ersimplify i in this introductory statement. In approaching the question of where in the Federal Government apparatus to locate responsibility for a new approach of coastal man- agement, I have applied one basic yardstick. What will work best, in the overall national interest ? By overall national interest, I mean to deliberately introduce ele- ments beyond those directly bearing on coastal zone management prob- lems, vital as they are. Let’s think a moment about what the national interest is in the ‘coastal zones—because when we do, we will see how no one existing Federal agency or department fills the need. - Among the uses which the Nation has of coastal areas are: Housing, heavy industry, ports, power gener ation, recreation, fishing, aquacul- ture, petroleum and mineral extraction and, of course, defense. The Stratton Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources stated the national need well : The coast of the United States is, in many respects, the Nation’s most valuable geographic feature * * *, The uses of valuable coastal areas generate issues of intense State and local interest, but the effectiveness with which the resources of the coastal zone are used and protected often is a matter of national impor- tance * * *. The key to more effective use of our coastiand is the introduction of a management system, permitting conscious and informed choices among development alternatives, providing for proper planning, encouraging recogni- tion of the long-term importance of maintaining the quality of this productive region in order to ensure both its enjoyment and the sound utilization of its resources. This is from page 49 of the report. We must consider how the national interest will be affected by our decision on the question discussed here. In applying this simple yardstick of what will work best, im the national interest, I have relegated to secondary consideration suah matters as historical agency or ‘department jurisdictions. The fact tha many Federal agencies have a present role in coastal matters is a sufficient: to justify their assumption of an innovative coastal manage- ment program. One of the jobs, in fact, will be to straighten out the existing tangle of sometimes competing Federal activities. The clash between 1 naviga- tional needs and estuarine preservation is a classic example of com- peting interests. The type of program I refer to is the one set forth by the Stratton Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources recom- mending Federal grants to the States to encourage establishment of 89 coastal zone authorities to plan the orderly development of coastal resources. On the question of what will work best—from, principally, the standpoint of the States which will have the primary responsibility in managing the multiple uses of their coasts, clearly a central location is essential. Otherwise, a State will be faced with the bewildering array of 24 departments and agencies with specific activities that affect coastal development, and from the report of panel III, chapter 7, table 1, we have a list of Federal agencies with activities relating to the coastal zone attached. It will be essential for one office to handle Federal grants-in-aid to State coastal authorities, other assistance and review plans and actions. For the States to have to coordinate proposals and programs through the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare, Corps of Engineers, National Science Founda- tion and ESSA—to mention just a few—is just downright unthinkable. If central location for the Federal role in coastal zone management is conceded, and I frankly cannot think of any objection, then the harder question is, where? In what department or agency ? Here, I think it is worth pointing out what is unique about coastal zones. Simply put, it is that they adjoin large bodies of water, either the oceans or the Great Lakes. Coastal zones, the oceans, and the Great Lakes are closely interrelated. What we are talking about is some- thing more than just another landuse plan. We necessarily are talking about the impact of various land uses on another environment—the water—and how to favorably balance all of the pressures en this rich coastal zone made attractive by the proximity to water. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a rightful claim with navi- gation, beach, and hurricane programs affecting coastal development. The Water Resources Council, an interdepartmental agency, can— and I am sure will—argue that its river basin commissions can form the basis for coastal studies and management decisions. The Department of the Interior can—and will, I am sure—areue it is the logical place for coastal zone management since many of its components—Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Water Pollution Control Administration, Office of Saline Water, and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, to mention some—have coastal activities. However, from the standpoint of the total national interest, I believe coastal zone management ought to be housed in the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. For a variety of reasons, well stated by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, the Nation needs a stronger effort to understand and beneficially use ocean resources, especially its coasts. NOAA is recommended as the catalyst for an expanded effort by industry, Government and science and, in my opinion, is absolutely essential to increased understanding and support for ocean programs of all kinds. I not only strongly support NOAA’s establishment, I think it will 86 take place. The reason, I think, it will take place is that Congress wants it—and the Nation needs it. Housing coastal zone management in NOAA will clearly satisfy the need to have this function in one place. The national interest will be best served by a strong, viable inde- pendent agency with a focus entirely on the oceans and coastal zones. It is the lack of a single focus on the oceans and coasts by an agency of the Government such as the Interior Department that 1s most com- pelling to me. The Department of the Interior is basically land oriented. It has statutory responsibility for such functions as: (1) custody of 750 mil- lion acres of land, (2) development of mineral resources, (3) mine satety, (4) recreation, (5) Job Corps Conservation Centers, (6) irri- gation, (7) the Nation’s Indian reservations, and (8) the U.S. trust territories. The Department also has clear responsibility for certain major water matters—pollution, fisheries, hydroelectric power sys- tems—but by no stretch of the imagination, or departmental public relations, is the Interior Department now an _ oceanography department. tt is not accidental that the Department of the Interior’s symbol has been a buffalo. The Bureau of Indian Affairs commands an appro- priation this budget year of $261.7 million, up $31 million from last year, while the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is given $42.5 million, up $1 million, for its operations this year, this in a time when U.S. fisheries are going downhill at a very rapid rate. Coastal zone management housed in the Departmen of the Interior would, in my opinion, suffer from the same relative lack of focus, budget and priority as has the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Just as the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries will prosper by trans- fer to an agency with a clear focus and responsibility for ocean waters, so will coastal zone management profit from inclusion in an agency where it does not have to compete with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Job Corps Conservation Centers, interior parks and all sorts of non- ocean-related matters. Furthermore, the program envisioned calls for the States to set up independent authorities to bring together the various State activities bearing on the coasts. We should do no less for the Federal structure. Dr. ALExanper. Thank you, John. Our next speaker is Mr. William J. Duddleson. He is Director of Policy Studies for the Conservation Foundation. He is a graduate of the University of California, who first became involved in coastal zone conflicts from the viewpoint of as- sistant to a Congressman representing the north coast of California. As the first Chief of State Planning for the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, he helped develop the State planning and grant-in-aid aspects of the land and water conservation fund program, on out- door recreation program. In the Federal Government he has also served as Chief of Studies for the President’s Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty, a Cabi- net level group which President Nixon renamed this year the Environ- mental Quality Council. 87 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. DUDDLESON, DIRECTOR OF POLICY STUDIES, THE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION Mr. Duppirson. Thank you, Mr, Chairman, Ladies and gentle- man, I might just tell you something about the Conservation Founda- tion very briefly, although my remarks today are not formal expres- sions of foundation policy. We could, I suppose, be called the Conser- vation and Development Foundation. Of the organizations I know of who have the word “conservation” in their names or foremost in their programs, I expect we are the most involved in the development ‘process. We are now, for example, running a series of demonstration projects along ocean coastlines by which we are attempting to demonstrate the usefulness, or lack of usefulness, of integrating the ecological approach, ecological knowledge into the urban development process. For ex- ample, the first project in the series is at a place called Rookery Bay on the gulf coast of Florida. There we put together a team that has come up with criteria and an overall development plan for develop- ing the shortline of this bay for residential and associated commercial use. The plan is designed to permit the bay itself, which has some rather high natural values, to continue performing its natural functions. In- stead of the venetian type development of the bay, which is common in Florida, requiring dredge and fill, for example, the plan calls for canaling into the mainland, creating additional waterfront that way, and at the same time enlarging the water surface of the bay. The plan also calls for control of fresh water runoff associated with urbanization, so that the salinity level remains within the limits that will support the fish and shellfish nurtured in the bay. Turning now to our panel’s assignment, it is, “for the sake of argu- ment,” to “assume that there will be some sort of strong Federal role” in coastal zone management, and to “inquire where the authority ought to reside in the Federal structure for most effective management.” To get directly to the point, I am skeptical that NOAA 1s an appro- priate residence in the Federal structure, or the most appropriate resi- dence in the Federal structure, for a coastal zone plan and manage- ment program. My skepticism 1s based upon at least two questions. First, I question whether an oceanographic agency, an agency whose main thrust is deep-water ocean technology development, is the most appropriate base for coping with the most critica] and most urgent coastal zone problems. I see most of these as essentially conservation problems. We have already heard a number of descriptions here of the most critical problems. They include pollution, shoreline alteration, especially dredging and filling; the conflicting pressures for land use, for residential use, for parks, ports, and powerplants. Are not these kinds of problems, and their solutions, tied more directly to the land than to the sea? When one looks at the Great Lakes shoreline, the thread between deep water oceanographic research and development and the solu- tion of shoreline problems becomes even thinner. In testimony before this committee, the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, earlier this year, John Calhoun of Texas A. & M., chairman of the ‘Oceanography Subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences and 88 a participant in this conference, speaking from a scientist’s point of view, expressed this question better than I can. Dr. Calhoun said— On the coastal zone question (as distinguished from the oceanography ques- tion), it is necessary to ask whether the coastal zone problems are really oceano- graphic in nature. Some of the important agencies that deal with coastal zone problems do not appear to have been considered in the Commission’s recom- mendations, for example, the Corps of Hngineers of the Department of Defense which plays a very large role in coastal zone activities. The specific mission for a new organization as seen by the Commission there- fore appears to have a dichotomy—to be oriented on the one hand toward a Single geophysical system representing the ocean and the atmospheres together, but on the other hand to be oriented also to the problems of people living along the coast. A new Federal organization might be focused on one or the other of these. Can it be focused on toth? I might simply emphasize that from my point of view most of the conflicts in the coastal zone do appear to be essentially people-pressure problems. People don’t live in the water. Rather, they live on the land and relate to the coastal zone from the land. Most of the pollution of the coastal zone comes by land, through the rivers, and not by sea. Most of the pressures for outdoor recreation use of the coast, the pressures for residential use, and the pressures for more highways and airports along the coastal corridors—all these appear to have less to do with oceanic systems than they do with ter- restrial systems, including man’s patterns of urban concentration on the land. In fact, land use conflict and our presently wasteful and inefficient ways of resolving it, and shoreline alterations, particularly dredging and the consequent destruction of estuaries and other valuable natural resources, probably are the most critical coastal zone problems. These come by land and not by sea. Asa second general question, I can’t help but be skeptical, generally, of proposals to add yet another limited purpose Federal grant pro- gram to the rather marvelous and wonderful and awesome prolifera- tion that we already have. I ask first whether already existing Federal agencies administering already-operating programs, or alterations in these existing agencies or combinations of existing agencies, can do the job that needs to be done. Only after the answer is “no” to existing agencies, “no” to modifica- tion of existing agencies, and “no” to combinations, should we turn to establishment of the new agency for the coastal zone as our best an- swer. [am not yet propared to do this. In any event, regardless of the domicile that is decided upon, in view of the proliferation of Federal grant programs and the resultant fragmentation, inefficiencies and confusion, I suggest that an approach similar to the model cities approach be considered. The idea, of course, of the model cities approach is to encourage coordination of existing Federal programs at the receiving end, in the field. This is done by providing additional carrots to the recipients of the grants, in the form of a higher Federal cost share, to those who combine the existing Federal programs in focused, coordinated ways. The idea is to make existing programs work, rather than to place another layer on top. The successes and the failures of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to date, with the model cities 89 delivery system may be useful to those who are developing a coastal zone grant program. It might also be useful to throw out some thoughts on what a Federal coastal zone agency should be, what its characteristics should be, re- gardless of where it is located. In breadth of interest, it should not be just, or primarily, a natural resource preservation agency, or just or primarily a resource develop- ment or exploitation agency, but rather it should combine develop- ment and preservation responsibilities. Second, while it should have research and planning functions, prob- ably it should be a line or operating agency rather than primarily a research or planning agency. And third, it should have, or have the capability of developing, working relationships with the States, preferably with the Governors and the key State agencies which many of you gentlemen represent. These first two criteria may suggest to some the Interior Depart- ment. In addition, I expect it would be very useful for the Federal resi- dence for this program to have some sort of an interagency mechan- ism, a meeting place for all the Federal agencies already involved and probably will continue to be involved in the coastal zone. This last point suggests that there are at least two interdepartmental units in the Federal Government that should be looked at. One is the Marine Resources Council itself. And the other, of course, is the Water Resources Council, which we heard about yesterday and which prob- ably more than any other Federal unit or agency already has, through its title [II grant program, the basic authorities that the coastal zone raanagement act envisages. The Water Resources Council does not have the authority to make grants to the States for implementing plans. But it does have author- ity and indeed is making grants to the States for planning for water and related land resources including the coastal zone. And then, of course, although I am reluctant ot use the term “com- prehensive planning” after our last speaker for R.F.F. yesterday with his definitions, there is already a Federal program of assistance to the States for comprehensive planning. HUD’s “section 701” planning grants provide two-thirds Federal money which the bulk of the States are using, virtually all, as a matter of fact including California for its marine and coastal zone plan as we heard yesterdy. I will stop here, Mr. Chairman, to leave time for discussion. There hasn’t been nearly enough yet on this question. Thank you. Dr. Auexanprer. Thank you. You may have unwittingly started a new cliche. When you say, “No” to these departments often enough, it becomes NOAA. Our third speaker is Col. Leonard Goodsell, who spent 30 years in the Army Corps of Engineers and since 1965 has been executive direc- tor of the Great Lakes Commission. He has a B.S. in engineering from West Virginia University and a M.S. from the University of fowa and represents the Great Lakes compact of eight States with their commission offices on the campus of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Mich. 90 STATEMENT OF LEONARD J. GOODSELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES COMMISSION Colonel Goopserz. Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentieman, the Great Lakes Commission is pleased to have the opportunity to present views on matters under consideration by the Congressional Conference on Coastal Zone “ianagement. The Great Lakes Commission has served for 14 years as the advisory and recommendatory agency for the Great Lakes States on regional water resources matters. Our interests encompass all water uses and manipulations, fisheries and wildlife, navigation, and commerce, hydo and thermal power generation and utilization, domestic and industrial water uses, shoreline use and recreational facilities, water quality, water quantities including this parameter measured in water levels of the Great Lakes, economic development, and, I suppose, one broad interest could be described as regional ecology. In the Great Lakes we have 20 to 25 percent of the world’s reservoir of fresh water on the surface, and the U.S. Geological Survey informs there’s much more than that underground. It must be protected, it must be wisely developed and it must be conserved. Our broad objectives, no matter from what region we come, are: (1) to have a place to live, (2) to have a place to work, and (3) to havea place to play. Going back to yesterday’s discussion as the man from Louisiana said, these are our objectives in the Great Lakes and the Nation. The technology leading to objectives for meeting the requirements in the Great Lakes varies somewhat because of the huge water impound- ments and the resultant inertia of the system, which was another word used yesterday. We certainly do have a good system in the Great Lakes as compared to, say, the interactions within a swiftly flowing stream or the vagaries of the world’s oceans. REPORT “OUR NATION AND THE SEA—A PLAN FOR NATIONAL ACTION” The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, no doubt, already has been complimented on its report. To approach a subject of this scope and magnitude, and to report in a single volume in about 300 pages requires the greatest zeal and temerity, and I must add my praise for an monumental effort. The report lumps together millions of square miles of sovereign marine environment areas, the contiguous zone, the high seas, “internal waters,” rivers, lakes and canals, and the Great Lakes. My remarks are based generally on the conditions we see in the Great Lakes and we also have international considerations in the Great Lakes that some of the States don’t enjoy. The Great Lakes: To put the Great Lakes in perspective— The Great Lakes basin has a total area of almost 300,000 square miles of land and water area, with approximately 100,000 square miles of water surface area and 200,000 square miles of land surface area. Lake Erie has a maximum depth of 210 feet, an average depth of 58 feet. Lake Superior has a maximum depth of 1,833 feet, average depth of 487 feet. Within the context of Marine Technology one of the subjects treated in the report, our operations on the Great Lakes would fall under the first goal, “The development of the necessary ol technology to make possible productive work for sustained periods at depths to 2,000 feet.” The bottom of Lake Superior, offshore, has been described as a pretty barren piece of real estate. You can study it and look at it and that is Lake Superior offshore. Lake Erie’s bottom conditions have been described by so many, in so many ways that one cannot readily provide a succinct description. From a national point of view, however, midcontinent North America readily recognizes the possibilities contained within the sec- ond goal of marine technology, which takes us down to 20,000 feet. Our boundaries in the Great Lakes between States and those that we commonly share with Canada are precisely defined, described, and marked, except in two instances in southern Lake Michigan. The States constitutionally retain all powers in water resources manage- ment (except those in the commerce clause of the Constitution dealing with navigation). The States also own the submerged lands under the Great Lakes as well as the surface waters within their State boundaries. The States are presently exercising their jurisdiction over these lands and waters and I imagine one of our speakers yesterday, Mr. Porro, really didn’t have the Great Lakes in mind when he spoke of the coastal zones, or else he would have included some of the Great Lakes States in water management. I think too, a lot of people are not familiar with the jurisdictional requirements and the application within the Great Lakes jurisdiction. Many of the Commission’s recommendations, or reasonable fac- similes thereof, have been implemented and are in effect in the Great Lakes areas, such as: (a) Wisconsin’s Shorelands Protection Ordinance. I think Charlie Swann mentioned Wisconsin’s Shoreline Protection Law which is possibly one of the best pieces of legislation as to zoning and sanitary requirements and so forth. I hope that thing is implemented and kept on the books. : (6) Water Quality Standards, all States, under provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965. (¢) Michigan’s Submerged Lands Act, some of which is one of the best we have been able to find in the United States. We like to look at Michigan too, as being one of the best, even though other States may have good ones too. ad) Statutes and regulations, all States, pertaining to protection of submerged lands. (e) The International Joint Commission, established under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. (f) The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, established by the United States and Canada. This is an international treaty between the United States and Canada and looks after the Great Lakes fishery. (g) The Great Lakes Commission, established by the eight Great Lakes States. (h) The Great Lakes Basin Commission, established under Public Law 89-90. (2) New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan’s oil and gas drilling statutes and regulations. (7) Illinois’ comprehensive water plan. (4) And so forth. 92 These are just a few of the things which have been developed there and they all apply to the Great Lakes, as you might call it, coastal zone. For the purpose of collecting taxes the Internal Revenue Service fully recognizes the Great Lakes region, as do many of the Federal departments and agencies within their spheres of interest. The Interstate Commerce Commission does not recognize the Great Lakes as a port range, because the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does not specifically mention the Great Lakes. This needs correction. It leads to discriminating practices contrary to Great Lakes interests in our commerce. The Government of the United States recognizes the Great Lakes area by imposing tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway, our vital shipping lifeline, the only waterway on the North American Continent on which tolls are exacted. More is to come here. In essence I should like to point out that the Great Lakes region is rather precisely delineated three dimensionally; the States and the two provinces of Canada are discharging their water resources man- agement responsibilities, and they are ably assisted by the Interna- tional Joint Commission, the (international) Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and by the several Federal departments and agencies with water resources functional responsibilities within the region. There are a multitude of studies on the Great Lakes, some com- pleted, some underway, and many, many more contemplated. Recently a “final draft” of a report prepared by a consulting organization for, as I understand it, the Great Lakes Panel of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development entitled “The Role of Marine Science in the Multiple Uses of the Coastal Zone of Lake Erie and Lake Superior,” dated June 1969, was received for review. Just how it fits in with the overall Commission’s report “Our Nation and the Sea,” I don’t know, but we commented on it and they gave us 3 days to read it. We pointed out that there is a strong State position in the Great Lakes and the need for this panel to understand the Fed- eral legislation, to consult with State personnel, and to become famil- iar with State efforts, statutes, regulations, and operating procedures; the futility of further layering of departments, agencies, and councils in an attempt to solve our problems with the resulting further frag- mentation of the U.S. water management effort; the desirability of fresh or innovative thinking on water management and planning, and more mundanely, the opportunities for water management progress with reasonable Federal funding support and a stabilized program or plan. Recommendations included: (1) that the Council earnestly consider the feasibility and desirability of a Federal-interstate water manage- ment compact, similar to the draft compact furnished the Great Lakes Panel by the Great Lakes Commission in October 1968, and (2) that the Council circulate this (the Panel’s) report for comments to the eight Great Lakes States and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, preliminary to further processing. Yesterday’s discussions brought out several things here that I would just like to enumerate very briefly. One was that there needs to be a strenothening or bringing together of State agencies. I think this was brought out very clearly by Dr. Linton, let’s get something done. This was brought out by the gentleman from Illinois. 93 We had one that said a total need now for a new superagency. This was brought out by the gentleman from Louisiana. One said you can’t maintain the State boundaries as cubicles, brought out by the gentle- man from New Jersey. You can’t depend on voluntary participation, also by the gentleman from New Jersey. Outstanding State legislation was brought out by Charlie Swann who also cited the Wisconsin law. Need for interstate compacts with authority to act, also Charlie Swann. THE FEDERAL LOCUS OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT—BASIC PREMISES AND CONSIDERATIONS Basic premises (1) The primary responsibility for management of the coastal zone must continue to be vested in the States (p. 8, report). (2) The Federal Government can help the States, but the primary responsibility lies with the States; they are the key to a concerted effort (p. 9, report). (3) In the Great Lakes region we must include the joint manage- ment asepcts for the United States and Canada, which is a little dif- ferent from what are the problems in some of the States. (4) Laboratory, research, university participation in research and development for regional and local problems, as well as industry participation, must be conducted under State and regional (basin) suspices, if you aer going to have a manageable organization. (5) Acknowledging the presently existing organizations, economic, scientific, social, and political structures and developments; realizing that many of these have a raison d’etre resulting from several centuries of man’s cultural development and for the near future are “here to stay,” it 1s prudent to examine and use our presently existing organi- zations and capabilities, and to proceed slowly in organizing large new organizations each time a new problem or new concept rears its bureaucratically beautiful head. (6) State water management efforts must not be dsicounted but rather encouraged and augmented, and I cite a couple of examples: (a) The Anadromous Fish Act has provided Federal assistance to the Great Lakes States and coming from this effort we have a booming salmon fishery in the Great Lakes. It suffers a bit from growing pains and a problem or two, but the fish are there in thousands. The alewife pests are being reduced somewhat in numbers, and the program shows signs of health survival and growth. (6) The sea lamprey practically eradicated the Great Lakes fishery for the lake trout and large game fish. Through the efforts of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the regional and State provincial agencies, the lamprey are being con- trolled in Lakes Superior and Michigan; and, hopefully, we can continue that program of treatment and retreatment to enhance the fishery throughout the lakes. (ce) There are coperative Federal-State-local programs for flood and erosion control throughout the lakes for the protection of publicly owned lands. Because of the side effects, the multiple effects, ef erosion and need for local assistance, private ownerships, too, must be included in mutual beach and shoreline protection programs. Now let’s look at some of the considerations. 37—-487—69—7 04 Multiplicity of agencies and departments Within the States’ governmental framework in the Great Lakes region, there have been many organizational changes and realinements to streamline responsibilities and authorities for managing the States’ water resources. This is contrary to the thoughts expressed in the Com- mission’s report. Within the Federal Government framework the trend appears to be in the opposite direction. As a new water resource problem or item appears, the tendency is to create a new bureau or agency to study the problem. Paper piles up, but implementing or remedial measures are few and far between. To quote a State administrator— The (State) legislature designated the Department of Natural Resources to start a unified attack on water, air and solid waste pollution, using both Federal and State funds. But, as (State) marshaled its administrative, technical and financial resources in a coordinated attack on pollution, the Federal Government spread its anti-pollution assistance programs into a multiple maze of agencies and agency programs. Thus anti-pollution programs, with basically the same objectives, are now administered by the Federal departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Hducation and Welfare. Similar problems crop up in the tiniest of programs such as the Anadromous Fish Act, referred to earlier, administered by the Department of the Interior. Because the Department separates sports fishing and commercial fishing, the State must make two applications for funds totaling less than $90,000 a year, When the State Department of Health and Social Services wanted to conduct a program to train staff members, it had to deal with at least five different Federal programs. One section of the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 would allow joint funding when a State and local government unit participates in a Fed- eral program. This clearly is another attempt to make Federal money more productive in reaching the goals and objectives of Federal assistance programs. End of quote. Overlapping authorities and interests On October 1, 1969, the Governor of Pennsylvania described the Federal coordination and assistance effort in the water pollution con- trol program as “Washington’s ham-handed way of dealing through an archaic bureaucracy.” Departments and agencies have had and maintain overlapping authorities and responsibilities in water re- sources management. As pointed out by our quoted State administrator, it is difficult to determine to whom or what agency one should go to cause something to happen. Not only does this situation cause confusion, but there is the inevitable competition for the dollar and the inefficiencies which result from divided responsibilities, overhead expenses, and costs for maintaining so many governmental units. Plans and studies, another consideration Within the Great Lakes we have millions of dollars worth of studies and plans on the shelves. One Great Lakes State Governor recently remarked : We've got so much paper stacked in (State) in the State Capital that we’ve got to move out, ’m a little apprehensive about the tendency toward piling up more and more paper. Another Governor remarked: We've got so “cottonpicking” many studies—let’s get some action. 95 This was voiced by the gentleman from Illinois yesterday. These remarks of the Governors are well-taken, because our study and plan- ning programs are overwhelmed by specific interests and minutia. There is a tendency to dodge or delay implementing as to what may be accomplished through studies. For example: pyr (1) There are about 32 million people in the Great Lakes basin, and they are going to be there for some time to come. Their presence must be recognized and provided for. These people attect water quality and have a demand for adequate water supply. (2) Physical and commercial geography aspects, in being and to be developed, must be recognized—steel plants, ight and heavy manufacturing, good fishing and recreation—and fostered ; (3) There must be a balanced use of the local, State and Fed- eral dollars that are available; and (4) And so forth. Our planning and studies must concurrently look at the small details, and also explore and recognize the broad possibilities and limitations, including feasibility of plans. CONCLUSIONS Fundamentally, the Federal locus must be one that provides: (a) Less fragmented or more positively an integrated Federal or- ganization—puil the parts together—one that can provide goals and objectives to States which in turn will provide goals and objectives to localities and industry. (0) Regional organizations—one or more States—to manage water resources matters which must be approached as multi-State matters— composed of the building block operating States and the participat- ing Federal Government in an organization that will have the autnor- ity to act as needed. (c) Federal funding assistance. Let’s look at block grants rather than the grant-in-aid program, and let the State people at least try to manage some of their business there which the States can undertake as they have in establishing water quality standards. (d) An international organization to manage or effect. coordination of water resources matters with Federal and Provincial entities in Canada. | : Ideally, the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency may have possibilities as the central Federal agency if it supplants existing agencies, rather than becomes just another organizational layer. Ne matter how hard we plan and how much money we spend to plan, Chicago and Detroit exist; we need them; and it will be quite a long time before we can conceivably make national lakeshores out of their present locations—real estate. So is it now with the existing system— the entities are there and will remain so presumably for some time. Perhaps the Hoover report approach is what we need now, rather than one that may have been ideal for the United States in 1776 A.D. or as someone suggested, 1492 or earlier. Since 1957 we have been sub- ject and have overreacted to the sputnik syndrome, the scientific and education gap, and cries for expanded research efforts. Characteristi- cally, however, to meet. the immediate sputnik challange in 1957 we, 96 in the United States, trotted out a Redstone missile and put our “thing” in space. Later developments speak for themselves. Creation of new agencies or just dollar expenditures will not neces- sarily contribute to solution of our problem. Now appears to be time when we should trot out our hardware and “get some action” as our quoted Governor indicates. RECOMMENDATIONS (a) That State-Federal partnership role be strengthened and broadened to include water resources management authorities for the U.S. basin areas. A Federal-interstate compact similar to the Delaware River compact could serve to effect such organization. (b) That the Federal representative(s) on Federal-interstate com- pact agencies have full access to and be assisted by the various Federal departments and agencies. (c) For the Great Lakes region, that an international partnership role be developed with Canada through an agency constituted similarly to the International Joint Commission, with authority to manage water. (d) That fragmented water resources management authorities and capabilities be brought together, consolidated and integrated to reduce multiplicity of agencies and overlapping authorities and interests. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Atexanper. Thank you, Colonel. We now open the meeting for discussion. Yes? Dr. Herpert Fornanper. Herbert Forlander, Oregon State. I would like to address my remarks particularly to Mr. Duddleson’s comments and then some that came later, relating to the type of work that should be done to help solve some of our problems. i would first of all mention that people are at the edge of the sea for very good reason. You have heard a lot of us say that yesterday, and a lot today, and I submit that it is not just another land problem, but they are at the edge of the sea because of the sea’s presence and the utilization there. It was pointed out a few years ago by a former lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, Matthew Maury, and in books written about it since then, that we have a continuum whether we like it or not and what we do at the edge of the sea has a reason far beyond the continental edge. What we do at the edge has implications far beyond any coastal region. We have a group such as the Department of the Interior which is responsible for the land, as has been well said. They have many responsibilities and jobs and are quite busy taking care of these par- ticular jobs. The question was raised yesterday by the gentleman from Louisiana. He was asked what do I do with a million pounds of oxygen trioxide which somebody wants to dump? He challenged this audience as to what to do if this were dumped and nobody answered the challenge. T submit that rather than just being regulatory, we need research to answer such questions with which we are stuck, whether we like it or not. We had similar questions when I was in the Puget Sound area from people wanting to dump. Where do we put it? We have examples of pesticides showing up probably thousands of miles from the place 97 ney were introduced. They were introduced locally but didn’t stay there. Some of these are of long duration and we don’t know how to solve those problems. We have examples of seashore animals, birds, dying by the thousands along the Oregon coast. This is happening right now. We don’t know exactly why. We will find DDT in the brain. The supposition is perhaps that this affected their equilibrium balance and they died because they couldn’t keep up their heads. I am not abusing one agency or another, but we need a group with the time to sit back and look at not the 29 percent, but the 71 percent of the earth because it is a continuum. If we add to this the atmosphere, then we multiply the problems. What I am saying is that we need a group with the time to sit back in a long-range way and see what the implementations are that will work in a coordinated w ay with local groups, but they need to have a range and sight far beyond the local coastal areas, even though they cooperated extensively with them. Dr. Arexanper. Do you wish to talk about that? Mr. Duppzixson. I really don’t disagree with anything you say. Please understand that I am not suggesting that I know the answer to this question of placement. I hope I didn’t give that impression. I am skeptical, though, that most of the answers to the most urgent, most Camaging and most irreversible coastal zone problems are to be found best in a group whose expertise and interest and main trust is deep-water ocean research and technology development. My skepticism is that just as most critical problems of the coastal zone come by land, it may be that our solutions are to be found by looking essentially ‘to the land, such as for the problem of the accu- mulation of pesticides which you mentioned. If I could say one other thing. We are all in debt to Dr. Alexander and to Dr. Knauss and the other men associated with the Commission for placing the coastal zone on the public agenda as the Stratton Commission report has. I think that as we w restle in the next 6 months or perhaps longer about these questions, including the question of placement in the Federal Government, all of us would be well served if the administration would release a "report that. the administration is now suppressing, sitting on. You will recall that, for several years at least, the executive branch of the Federal Government had a committee on multiple use of coastal zone, chaired by Assistant Secretary of the Interior Stanley Cain. I expect that this report, which is published, has a great deal of informa- tion in it that would help all of us. I suggest that public discussion of these problems over the next few months would be improved if we had the information in that report. The Budget Bureau reportedly is sitting on it because it has some funding implications i in it. The Federal Government could, however, release this report for public discussion with an appropriation dis- claimer on it that it doesn’t represent administration policy. Captain Supprru. My name is Captain Suddeth from Georgia. This question I guess is addressed to Colonel Goodsell. Were you suggesting that NASA might have some resources to contribute to NOAA ? Colonel Goonsetn. I would say not directly, no; but maybe as a side effect. 98 Mr. Witiram H. Lewis. I am William H. Lewis of the port of New Orleans. I am pleased to learn that there are other representatives of port agencies present at this meeting. I was apprehensive when I first signed in for this meeting that I would be alone in speaking for the port interests. T would like to say that we in the port of New Orleans subscribe heartily to the statement that has been submitted to you by the Port of New Orleans Authority. I would however like to extend my remarks not necessarily in the context of this particular panel discussion, although some of my remarks are stimulated by remarks presented by Colonel Goodsell. Certainly representing our port I must reach a point of considerable apprehension for the port industry in the general appreach that is being made in this discussion and possibly that approach made in the committee report. We detect a lack of representation and consideration of the port industry both in the committee findings and in the conference discus- sion. We are concerned with the apparent overriding consideration of the pure scientific, the purely theoretical, the conservationist en viron- mental and esthetic aspects and the absence of the commercial and industrial and port considerations. Obviously we are in many areas at a swing of the pendulum which must give more consideration to these conservation, environmental and esthetic aspects and to the recreational aspects of our economy and our society. However, we detect that this may be done at the expense and the burden of cur beneficial activities that are producing our economy, our wealth, our income, that permit us to indulge in these other activities. For a long time the waterway projects of our Nation have stood by themselves in the measure of benefited coast. We find now, however, that these projects are being burdened by the side effects without a measure of the economic benefits that may carry those side effects. I would submit that in our State of Louisiana, as Dr. St. Amant has mentioned, we do not have a lack of planning. We do not have a lack of organization. What Dr. St. Amant lacks are the funds to carry the activities of his department, the activities that he is attempting to perform within his own limitations. Rather than having grants-in-aid for studies of which we have too many, I submit that the means for him to perform his duties would accomplish his purpose and would avoid the burdens that are placed upon the other waterways aspects, the other waterway management activities. We also detect in this trend a layering of agencies as Colonel Good- sell has mentioned to merely pyramid one agency upon the other, thereby lengthening the chain of study, of review and approval for those meritorious projects which we are seeking and need within our port industry for the improvement of other waterway activities. We also detect here a trend to change the responsibility from well proven existing agencies such as the Corps of Engineers to others that are unproven in the field and certainly will require a period of adjustment, of education, both of those agencies and of the public 99 they serve, before they can be as effective as are those existing agencies today. We also detect the possibility of the intrusion of the Federal Gov- ernment into the independent port industry to which reference was made by the Port of New York Authority. This system of independent port activities has proven its worth to our Nation. We havea highly competitive actively, one which is faced today with challenges due to revolution in the shipping industry. We do lack at the Federal level the complete coordination of our harbor and channel improvements, with those of our ship development. We would welcome an improvement in this particular activity. However, with the pro- gram of grants-in-aid to State agencies or other regional agencies, we would anticipate Federal control through the control of the dollar. This would, of itself, reflect upon our port activities by determining in fact that one port deserved a channel improvement at the expense of another. We believe this is basically wrong. Thank you, gentlemen for the opportunity of making this statement. Dr. Atexanper. Thank you. We have time, I think, for one more question. Mr. Aurrep A. Porro. I would like to address a question or rather an Inquiry as to some remarks of Mr. Clotworthy, with regard to the proposed role of NOAA with regard to enforcement of provisions. Yesterday one of the speakers spoke in terms of enforcement and teeth in the law with regard to a Federal-State relationship, saying that voluntary participation would be bad. Today we are talking about the Federal role and I would just like to inquire as to the projection or the thinking as to what the enforcement provision should be in NOAA, not with regard to the States, but with regard to the various Federal agencies. For example, should the Crops of Engineers have to have ultimate approval of NOAA before issuing any given permit, or is it visualized as merely being a coordinating agency ? Mr. Crotwortuy. I was very mindful of the points made by the speaker yesterday in pointing out that in at least the draft bill there was a conspicious absence of teeth. Perhaps this is a failure, although J think that, talking to that point, first, you can read into the language the ability to do a little tail twisting if nothing else. Now, coming to the question of NOAA and its authority and how it would interface with the corps, we have in existence today a volun- tary mechanism between the corps and the Department of the Interior in which the effects on conservation are weighed before permits are granted. I see no reason why this sort of thing can’t continue programs formalized to some degree. It is quite apparent that both needs must be served. The sticky part of the question that undergirds all of this discussion of the coastal zone is what is your No. 1 priority in making the final decision? Is it the preservation of the status quo from an ecological point of view, from an economic point of view, or from a social point of view, or is it more positively the enhancement of any one of these criteria? I submit that, since we inhabit this planet and just about every- thing that you can imagine is man centered, we have to think about the coastal zone from a man-centered point of view and hence the 100 improvement of man’s life should be the principal criterion for making judgments. Hence when we get to the question of shall we dredge a channel or not dredge a channel, some of these qualitative judgment factors have to enter into the decision. Hence, while we have a reason to consider conservation because that affects the social value of the coastal zone, we also have to consider whether a channel is needed or is not needed. I guess this is the long way around, to saying that all of these factors must be weighed and it is Implicit then in the organization structure that finally evolves that the mechanism for weighing them in the broader balance must be present. Mr. Porro. I think the problem would be who will have the ultimate say. I agree that there is going to be a lot of balancing of various factors. I don’t submit it for some answers today, but submit it as a very serious problem area. I sincerely feel that the enforcement provisions within the law make it very important. I think that is an area that should be given an aw- ful lot of consideration. Mr. Cirorworriy. I certainly agree. Dr. Atexanper. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Crinean. We will take a 5-minute break before the next panel. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) Mr. Curnean. Our next panel, panel 6, deals with research require- ments for coastal zone management. It gives me pleasure to introduce the moderator, Dr. Paul Fye, president of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Panet 6—ResearcH REQUIREMENTS FOR Coastan ZONE MANAGEMENT MODERATOR Dr. Paul M. Fye, president, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. PANELISTS Robert Abel, Head, national sea grant program, National Science Foundation; Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Director, Virginia Institute of Marine Science; Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Director, Atlantic Oceanographic Laboratories, ESSA. Dr. Fyn. Congressman Lennon, Mr. Clingan, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to be here with you this morning and to chair this panel on the research requirements of the coastal zone management. Perhaps this panel should be one of the least controversial of the panel subjects, and perhaps it might have something most specific to say. The task before us in his brief time is to explore the research require- ments in the coastal] zone and the coastal zone laboratories. _As the moderator, I do not wish to take time away from my dis- tinguished colleagues, but I would like to make a few brief introduc- tory remarks. First, what are the research requirements for coastal zone labora- tories? As a general concept, I think they should be looked upon as 101 centers designed to meet the critical needs of a unique area of our human habitat. They should provide at least in part the means for assaulting some very critical practical problems, and here perhaps we could see the first requirement of the research program of the coastal zone laboratory. It should be, I think, primarily a research center with a mission and a purpose. The researches in these centers must help us to accom- plish certain objectives in the coastal zone, must help us correct certain situations that we have created unwisely, then provide us, most importantly, with a reasonably sound basis for deciding whether to do or not to do certain things in this area. In short, the majority of the researches of these centers should be directed toward solutions of special problems. I would prefer to characterize this, if we need to characterize it at all, as mission- oriented research rather than applied or basic, but the tag or title is not important. It is getting on with the job. Tt think in the main these research centers should be university related, because of the nature of the research program, vut the key ingredients of success in this activity will in this activity, as in most others, come down to the problem of getting the right people in the right places with the right facilities and money to accomplish their purpose. Tt has been made abundantly clear that the larger part of the specific subject we are talking about is far more important than we realized, say, 5 years ago or 10 years ago, and probably more important than we are capable of realizing even now. Tt is far more important than any single discipline on which the work will be based. What we are planning for is the environment of the future, and the future of the environment. We must begin to plan what we will do on the good earth, which is still the most important planet in the universe, at least to the human race. This is the point where the land meets the sea, where both the land and the sea meet the air, and where we must live with all three phases, solid, liquid, and gaseous. Our hosts in these panel sessions are our Congressmen, who must bear the difficult burden of pleasing most of the people nearly all the time. I am sure you will agree that this is a very difficult job. We have been invited here to shed some light on the kinds of re- search work required if we are to use and preserve our coastal environ- ment, and this might be of some assistance to our Congressmen, who must adjust these concepts and construct them into language which will eventually become law. In this context, then, I would like to ask each of the panelists and each of the discussion members and questioners to follow, to comment briefly on what I expect to be a difficult concept to reduce eventually into concise language and law; namely, the criteria that should be considered when establishing coastal zone laboratories and their re- search programs. T think this concept is very important, especially in the planning stages, and I think we should keep in mind the eventual purpose of these discussions. ; Our panelists on this panel are well known to most of you, but let me introduce them and their topics to you. 102 First, Dr. William J. Hargis, the director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at Gloucester Point, Va. He will share with us some of his views concerning the nature of scientific information that coastal zone researchers must provide local management agencies before they are able to make the kind of decisions required of them in the frame- work of the democratic process. _ Dr. Hargis is a fortunate selection for this subject, because the experience he brings to bear on it is drawn from three different per- spectives, research, education, and adviser to the resource agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia. : Next, it seems logical to call on Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Director of the Atlantic Oceanographic Laboratories of the Environmental Science Services Administration. Dr. Stewart will address himself to the role of the Federal laboratory in the total scheme of coastal zone management and development. Dr. Stewart can speak of these things not only as an onsite director of the new research laboratory, but also as a man of substantial experi- ence in questions of government policy on the Washington scene. Finally, our third panelist, Dr. Robert Abel, Director of the Office of Sea-Grant Programs in the National Science Foundation, is a logical concluding speaker, for he will tell us where the money is coming from, perhaps, or perhaps where it is not. For all his youth, Mr. Abel has had a long career in oceanography. I am pleased to note in passing that he is an alumnus of Woods Hole, and as Director of the Office of Sea-Grant Programs has taken an innovative idea and made it into one of the brightest examples of progress in ocean development and ocean management. It is no wonder that the Stratton Commission envisioned such a leading role for the sea-grant program in the work to be done in the coastal zone. First, then, we will begin with Dr. Hargis. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. HARGIS, JR. PH. D., VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, GLOUCESTER, POINT, VA. As a background it might be worth noting that most of my last 15 years of professional experience has been as scientist and scientific adviser in and to local, State, and interstate coastal zone management agencies. The last 10 have been spent as official marine affairs adviser to the General Assembly and various State and interstate manage- ment and planning agencies concerned with Virginia’s marine environ- ment and its resources, and director of the State oceanographic agency of the Commonwealth. During this time, I have designed and built what might be called “coastal zone laboratories.” Therefore, I have some familiarity with the matter under consideration. Our assignment today is to treat the research requirements for coastal zone management units. Without entering into the interminable argument over the various “species” of research possible—basic versus applied, mission versus nonmission or the clearer, yet still overlapping, boundaries of science versus engineering, research versus development, and science versus technology—I would like license to broaden the scope of discussion to consider the possible roles of science and tech- nology in coastal zone management and planning systems. From this, one can treat the research or technical services and capabilities neces- sary to such operations. 103 To determine what the scientific and technological requirements are, one should begin with the question: What scientific and technological services are necessary in order to do an effective job (after having carefully defined the essential features of that job) of planning and managing the resources of the coastal zone? Researchers, scientists, and engineers can help frame and define the question, but if the object is to plan and manage more or most effectively, then it is the planners and managers, whose needs must be met, who must initiate definition of the job. They must, of course, be competent to the ask. The milieu in which the coastal zone management unit must operate in order to establish the administrative apparatus of its scientific agency is also highly relevant. After laying these foundations, we can consider the nature of the scientific and technological establishments to be employed, used, or made available. Then, considering the nature and requirements of an effective, productive, responsive, and good quality scientific and tech- nical establishment, it 1s possible to suggest the “anatomy” of an effective “lower or intermediate level coastal zone laboratory’—one which actually and regularly works with the in situ planning and management units. Most of the study groups that have considered seriously the problems of coastal zone management conclude that the basic management units must be at least at the State or interstate level for various excellent reasons. Aside from the historical, constitutional, political, and other considerations, among the most potent reasons for this conclusion is a natural one—management of the level and type needed requires local knowledge and attention in detail. Experience indicates that such activities cannot be handled from remote central authorities. To cen- tralize all coastal zone planning and management would be folly. Economically, it would be foolish, too. There is always a strong urge to simplify by centralizing. With natural resource management prob- lems, this is often impossible. With coastal zone management. units, it is impossible. Since some division at lesser political and geographical levels must be suffered, the problem is to make the coastal zone management units local but not too local, to make them responsive to local needs but not witness, powerless, or otherwise ineffective. This is a political engineer- ing problem. The principal point to be made is: To be effective, the national coastal zone management scheme must operate through lesser units. The research or scientific service complement(s) must also be organized along these same lines. As others in this conference have indicated repeatedly, the complex nature of the environments and resources of the coastal zone is equaled or exceeded only by the complexity of user demands and needs, the numbers of users and the complexities of the institutions society has devised for dealing with them. Thus, an effective coastal zone manage- ment “system” (the term “system” is used advisedly since it is question- able whether in most, or many, cases any single agency will be used by a local, State, or regional subdivision in this capacity) has to be organized to handle such complex problems. Its scientific and tech- nological advisory group, the “coastal zone laboratory,” must be also. The personnel would be drawn from the scientific and engineering and other professional areas which are required to conduct balanced studies and give meaningful balanced and well-documented opinions. 104 It must be responsive to the short- and long-term needs of the man- agers and planners; hence, it must be coupled closely enough to serve, but not so much so that its research results and advice cannot be objec- tively obtained and given without fear of censorship or reprisal. Since many of the questions or problems which arise can only be answered by a coordinated, mutidisciplinary, broad scale, concentrated approach within a specific time frame, there must be scientists, engi- neers, and other technical assistants of a number, and variety, suffi- cient to the task. Because the problems are difficult, these persons must be professionally capable and they must, as a unit, be as concerned, or more so, with contributing to the management system as they are to making their marks with the scientific community. The skills and in- terests of the entire personnel must be capable of being focused on the problem at hand. Though much of the research of this “coastal zone laboratory” would be of the “mission oriented” variety, it can and, for cogent and potent organizational and technical reasons, should support a reasonable amount of research of a more fundamental type. Besides the applied and basic research functions, there must be a “firefighting” or emergency or contingency response apparatus and, if the technical activities are really going to be consolidated and coordi- nated within cur “coastal zone labroatory,” monitoring and survey capabilities must be present. Of course, not all have to be consolidated in the “coastal zone laboratory.” Some of these functions might be accomplished within the organizational structure of the management segment of the system. Experience teaches, however, that they are essential features of an effective coastal management system. Tf the technical agency is also going to be asked for economic evalu- ations on its solutions and advisories, some professional capability in economics should also be included in our “coastal zone laboratory” or, better still, “coastal zone institute” since the institute format is most suitable. Important legal and sociological activities also may be involved within our institute but they could work as well or better within the management agency, itself. Aside from the scientific and technical capabilities, characteristics and activities mentioned immediately above and equally (or more) important, there must be regular mechanisms for conveying informa- tion and advice to our managers and planners. These data and ad- visories must be as unambiguous as possible, with suggested actions and priorities where options are necessary or available, and offered to the decisionmakers in form that is useful to them—and in time. This is an essential quality and one which cannot be met easily, given the nature of the problems and of scientists and academicians and their institutions. Decisionmaking is accomplished at several levels—private as well as public, individual as well as corporate—and an important goal is to effect planning and management as harmoniously as possible. Thus, communications should be with user groups as well as with the public management units. Advisory services must be available to all impor- tant users and managers as they are needed. Further, advice rendered has to be objective, yet realistically useful. (And the technical adviser has to be prepared to accept his role as an adviser with all of its limita- tions. He must have, of course, the necessary determination and 105 initiative to attempt to persuade when evidence indicates that a management decision or planning action is unwise or not feasible.) There must be rapport, interaction, responsibility, respectability, capability, reason and practicality in the “coastal zone laboratory or institute” unit. The scientific and technical advisers must, in the last analysis, be allies of the public planning and management agencies they serve—with certain obligations and loyalties, objective yet parti- sanly so in the public’s behalf. Other interests will be represented in the give-and-take of hearings, some of which can be of the full public type and some of the antagonistic-protagonistic quasi-judicial sort. Aside from the necessary scientific and technical personnel, with the necessary supporting personnel, it 1s clear that adequate scientific and engineering facilities are needed by our institute. Among them are the latest in land and ocean vehicles and platforms, laboratory equipment, computers, and simulation devices. Despite opinions held in some quarters, coastal zone research 1s not necessarily less expensive than oceanic research. In place of costly vessels and deep submergence vehicles, one has need for complex arrays of instrumentation for coastal research, monitoring and control-feed- back operations. Hydraulic scale models of the estuaries and coastal areas In question, as well as mathematical simulation capability, are vital to effective coastal zone planning management and research. These are costly items—but necessary. For example, it cost about $600,000 to answer the question, “Will deepening the James River Navigation Channel to 35 feet damage the seed oyster beds of the James Estuary?” The greatest cost was a $300,000 plus hydraulic scale model of the Tidal James. This was expensive; yet the stakes, a $45— $50 million channel and $10-$15 million shellfishery, were at question. With the cestly personnel and facilities described above, it 1s possi- ble for our “coastal zone laboratory” to perform yet a third important function—that of training future coastal zone scientists, engineers, planners, and managers. Mffective coastal zone management will be a problem as long as man and society exist and replacements will. be needed. To enhance its program and broaden its capabilities, the é zone institute,” of which I have been speaking, should have access to the capabilities, talents, and services within the faculties of the private and public institutions of higher learning within its sphere by formal and informal affiliations, service arrangements, and through the medium of grants to those institutions. Access to capabilities of indus- try 1s also essential. The laboratory must be well and permanently supported by the State management and planning agency(ies) it serves (preferably directly by the General Assembly) and it must be protected and given longevity and continuity. It should have access to all possible sources of funding. Tt can either be affiliated with, even part of, (a) the management agency, (b) an independent research and service agency of the political subdivision, serving all management and planning agencies in that subdivision, if separate, or (¢) a part of.a public institution of higher education. If the first, it must be buffered from destructive pressures ; if the last, it must be separate, viable and responsive and independently financed institute or similar identifiable scientific unit capable of (7 106 operating in the field, laboartory, and hearing room as a coordinated, coherent, and cogent unit. The traditional academic, departmental organization will not provide what is needed by the coastal zone man- agement agency. However, as indicated elsewhere, academic scientists and engineers can and should provide valuable assistance through the various arrangements available and new mechanisms can be developed. I must hasten to add that I do not necessarily advocate 33 or more complete, full-scale, coastal zone laboratories or institutes with all the capabilities indicated. Some coastal zone management organizations could use scientific research and service units with lesser capabilities, rely on hired consultants, or even band with their neighbors to support and use a joint coastal zone institute. But ready scientific and technical services are absolutely necessary to the effective functioning of any coastal zone management unit. (On the contrary side, lest we conclude that small research units will be all that are needed, it should be noted that there are a large number of scientists within the three member agencies of the Chesapeake Research Council and many of the manage- ment units have some technical capability of their own; they are still not sufficient to meet Maryland’s and Virginia’s separate or even joint needs. ) Any Federal laboratory complex (and many arrangements are pos- sible within the existing facilities and framework) or other regional coastal zone laboratories or institutes that exist or are developed should and can be “wafiled into the system” but the bulk of the manage- ment support work will have to be done at the level of the individual coastal zone management unit. Financial support for the local coastal zone institute or laboratory should be supplied from several sources. The States, themselves, must make a firm and continuing financial commitment(s) to their local, State or interstate coastal zone management unit(s) and the attendant “coastal zone institute(s).” Other support on matching and nonmatch- ing basis can be supplied from traditional and even new Federal sources. Private foundation support can also be utilized. Among the Federal financing possibilities are: 1. The lead agency for the national coastal zone management system (whichever it may be, existing or new) must be able to support both the management units and the “institutes or laboratories.” 2. The various granting and contracting agencies within the Department of the Interior, which already have strong legal interest and commitments in the coastal zone, 1.e., Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Federal Water Pollution Control Admin- istration, Office of Water Resources Research, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and others, should be included. The new Office of Marine Resources might also be utilized since the entire array of resources and resource problems would be involved. 3. The Office of Sea Grant Programs, which has a strong “applied” bent and considerable interest in coastal zone problems, 1s another important funding source to be fostered and used. 4, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its associated prob- lem-oriented units must be utilized. 5. Department of Commerce units, namely ESSA, also must be involved. 107 6. Department of Agriculture, i.e., its Soil Conservation Serv- ices and other units, can help. 7. Department of the Navy, where legally interested, will be able to assist. 8. Other offices of National Science Foundation have given support to this field in the past and should still be able to do so. 9. Department of Transportation can be legitimately involved. 10. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also has a role in coastal zone problems. 11. Various other Federal departments and agencies will be able to assist as applicable. Due to the complexities of the problems facing our “coastal zone institutes” or laboratories and to their legitimate impingement on the responsibilities of different Federal agencies, no Federal sources of support should be closed. Since additional money is necessary to speed settlement of the important and complex difficulties of the coastal zone, it 1s especially important that the Congress and the State legislative bodies lend strong monetary support to all the agencies mentioned above. Additional moneys are needed. in summary, each coastal zone management and planning unit (and there must be many) will require close support from an adequately staffed, involved, and dedicated scientific and technical unit (“a coastal zone institute”). These “institutes” will have to be of size suitable to the services required by the “coastal zone” management and planning units they must work with. They also must be of suitable technical breadth. “Coastal zone institutes” should be used in education and fundamental research and they should have the ability to draw upon the capabilities inherent in nearby institutions of higher learning. To provide such “institutes” or “laboratories” with adequate organiza- tion, personnel, and facilities will require long-term and strong sup- port from State and Federal legislative bodies. The resources of all Federal agencies should be available for financial and other support of the “coastal zone laboratory or institute” system when it.is needed. Thank you. Dr. Fyr. Thank you, Dr. Hargis. Next, Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Director of the Atlantic Oceano- graphic Laboratory, in ESSA. STATEMENT OF DR. HARRIS B. STEWART, JR., DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORIES, ESSA _ Dr. Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Fye. The immediate ocean shoreline, the Continental Shelf, our estuaries and harbors, and the Great Lakes constitute what 1s now called the __ coastal zone. ~ But the term today connotes much more than a mere geographic area. This is the area where some 75 percent of our population is con- centrated, so it is also the area where not only the sea and the land meet, but—more importantly—where the sea and man meet. Thus the coastal zone is where the demand for recreational facilities is greatest, where the major water transportation routes terminate in our great port cities, where our greatest concentrations of municipal 108 and industrial wastes accumulate, and where the specter of pollution looms the largest. The coastal zone is where many of our commercial and sport fish spend at least a part of their life cycles, and where our first. halting steps toward mariculture are taking place. It is where our major marine petroleum resources are found. It is the locus of our coastal shipping and the terminus of our transoceanic shipping. It is where many of us want to live, or at least go for vacation. It is where we can get cheap coolant water for our powerplants, and where we can bulkhead and fill to make expensive real estate that can be seld at a profit. It is also the location where many of our wetlands, marshes, man- grove swamps, and coastal ecological niches are being singled out for the establishment of conservation areas. Our coastal zone is all of these things, and that is where the problem lies. Each of these is a legitimate use of our coastal zone, but as the activity in each of these use areas increases, it eventually reaches a point where it is out and out in conflict with another use. We have already reached this point in most of the populated portions of our coastal zone. I might add parenthetically that again it is a problem of the inter- relationship between man and the sea. It is a people problem. Garrett Hardin in his article on “The Tragedy of the Commons” that appeared in Science last December—volume 162, pages 1243-1248, December 13, 1968—provided the sociological framework for this: problem. if I may be allowed to put his discussion in my own words, it runs something like this: If a common pasture will support 100 head of cattle, and each of 10. herdsmen has one cow each pastured there, there is no problem. If each herdsman increases his own herd to 10 cows, the commons is then supporting its 100 head, or all it can without degrading the total resource. Then one of the herdsmen stops and thinks and decides that if he adds one cow to his own herd of 10, the worth of his own holdings will be increased by 10 percent, but his share of the costs resulting from the degradation, of the commons by adding only one cow oyer the 100 the commons can support is only 1 percent, so 1t is some 9 percent to his advantage to add that one cow. Other herdsmen get the same idea, and cow aiter cow.is added until the commons is totally destroyed. The same situation holds for our coastal zone. Take, for example, the use of our coastal zone for the disposal of industrial and municipal wastes. So long as there are few people and few industries using the coastal zone asa self-flushing disposal system, there is no real problem. Then the number increases. The cost for the individual plant to process its waste before disposing of it harmlessly into the coastal zone 1s many times more than that plant’s share of the overall social costs of the ensuing degradation of the receiving waters, which, of course, is shared equally by all coastal zone users. hus, our coastal zone, like Hardin’s commons, 1s doomed, unless some means is found to halt this relentless march toward destruction. The coastal zone authority concept proposed by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources is one method of con- trolling this otherwise destructive process. 109 I believe that the establishment of such coastal zone authorities should be primarily a State or regional responsibility, and that the role of the Federal Government is mainly one of providing support to the State—both financial support and support. in the acquisition of the basic understanding of the coastal zone environment on which valid judgments on coastal zone uses must ultimately be based. I reiterate, the really essential part, and one of the major roles of the Federal Government, is to provide the basic understanding of the coastal zone requirements, Before getting into the research requirements, there is one other point that I would like to make. There are two alternative costs related to the coastal zone: The cost of doing something, and the cost of doing nothing. It is my contention that the cost of doing something, although an immediate cost, is considerably less than the eventual costs to society of doing nothing—it is the “Tragedy of the Commons” exemplified. The real problem, it seems to me, is that we as a people are prone to defer the immediate costs because they are immediate. The unavoid- able result is that we eventually are forced to pay the much greater costs of cleaning up the mess that we were unwilling to pay the rela- tively small costs to avoid in the first place. The requirements for coastal zone research, therefore, are related first to the need for the environmental understanding on which sound decision on coastal zone use can be made, and secondly to the need to provide this understanding now at considerably less cost than the costs related to some future attempts to make up for our shorisighted- ness in not doing it now. When it comes to the requirements for research in the coastal zone, the differences between the traditionally basic research activities of the universities and private institutions and the more mission-relevant, mission-oriented, or applied research missions of the Federal labora- tories become less distinct. I have always objected to the artificial distinction between “basic” and “applied” research, for one man’s basic is another man’s applied. In the coastal zone, the problems are so numerous and diverse that almost any research leading to a better understanding of the compiex processes operating there is by definition relevant to the equally com- plex problem oz coastal zone management. So I would find it difficult, really, to separate out discrete and unique research roles for the universities and for the Federal laboratories. This is one of the many areas where the universities and the Federal laboratories must work together for their mutual benefit. The problems of the coastal zone and the research needs were described by the Commission’s Panel on Management and Develop- ment of the Coastal Zone, and are published as part ILI of volume I of the Commission’s panel reports. This document contains important information for anyone concerned in any way with the coastal zone. Although we have learned a great deal about the coastal zone, much additional information is needed. The research effort should be aimed at “understanding” this Nation’s coastal zone. This means an adequate understanding of the dynamics of estuarine circulation, the advection and the diffusion, the water budget, the movement of sediment as it relates to channel filling and 37—487— 69 8 110 deepening and to coastal erosion and deposition, the life histories of the organisms that populate our coastal zone, and their very complex interrelationships with the highly variable coastal zone environment, the basic physics of shoaling and breaking waves and of longshore and rip currents, the development of inundating storm surges related to intense coastal storms, the coastal runup of tsunamis, the movement of hurricanes, the capability of coastal zone waters to receive wastes without undesirable side effects (it is really how much of what can be introduced where for how long a time without creating more problems than it solves), the ocean-atmosphere interactions, and the land-sea interactions. It is only with an understanding of the coastal zone as a highly complex and highly variable ecosystem that we can predict what the overall effect will be of man’s proposed changes to that system. tt does not matter if we contemplate a channel deepening for deeper draft ships, bulkheading and filling for a new shipping terminal or real estate development, a new causeway to an offshore island, a new marina, a new powerplant to use coastal waters for cooling, a new park, a wildlife refuge established, a mariculture area set aside, an additional sewer outfall constructed, or any of a number of other uses to which we put our coastal zone. It really does not matter what we contemplate. The sine qua non for sensible value judgments for the use of the coastal zone is a basic understanding of the zone itself. For it is only with this understanding that we can predict the effects of the changes we contemplate. I might add parenthetically here the need for what I would like to call legal research and development, legal R. & D. In effect, this is preventive maintenance. This is doing the legal research work in the coastal zone now to avoid the lawsuits that could come up later on. IT also might add that we should look at the coastal zone as a total man environment system, and we must do the research work relating to the interaction of man and his activities with this coastal environment. It is to the Federal laboratories that we must look for that part of this fundamental understanding that relates to the mission of the agencies for which they carry out research. Twenty-four Federal departments, administrations, agencies, bureaus, commissions, councils, and offices have, as a part of their missions, responsibilities related to the coastal zone. The agencies are listed by the Panel on Management and Development of the Coastal Zone, in their report (“Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine TL 108) Engineering, and Resources,” vol. 1, pt. III, pp. III-81 to —105). I believe these groups should be encouraged to carry out mission- relevant coastal zone research. Coordination will, of course, be neces- sary to assure that research results are shared with other researchers, that major problem areas do not go unstudied, and that the concentra- tion of several research activities in the geographically restricted coastal zone does not result in an undesirable duplication of effort. In summary: 1. Any research in the coastal zone can be considered as applicable to the basic requirement of understanding the coastal zone as a complex ecosystem. 111 2. The universities and the Federal laboratories do not have unique roles, but must work together to further this understanding. 3. The cost of doing something now is much less than the ultimate cost of doing nothing. 4. Future value judgments on the uses of our coastal zone must depend for their validity on a basic understanding of the area as a total system. 5. The coastal zone research work of the various Federal laboratories must be adequately supported and adequately coordinated to insure that the several efforts are all working cooperatively toward the same goal of coastal zone understanding, an absolute essential for coastal zone management. The problems related to the coastal zone constitute what is probably the major marine science problem facing the United States today. In an era when the socially relevant problems are the ones that get the attention and support, it behooves the Nation’s oceanographers to direct at least a portion of their attention to problems in this category. For the Federal laboratories, it is essential that their research relate to the missions of their parent agency. For many of the Federal agen- cies this means research in the coastal zone, and a vigorous program of coordinated coastal zone research is absolutely essential if our estuaries, harbors, and near-shore areas are not to become part of “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Thank you. Dr. Fyr. Thank you, Dr. Stewart. Next we will hear from Dr. Robert Abel, of the sea-grant program. STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT ABEL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SEA- GRANT PROGRAM, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Dr. Avex. Thank you, Paul. Good afternoon, diehards. You know, the last man always has the option of simply saying, “I agree with everybody else,” and closing the book. However, I don’t choose to pick up this option, and in fact would like to speak not only from my position in the national sea-grant program, but also based upon my former experience with the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, which, as you know, was itself concerned with coastal zone problems. It sometimes seems that the greatest difference between the situation in oceanography today and the situation a decade ago has to do with several exhaustive reviews, examinations, and analyses which have now been made of all aspects of marine science and technology in the United States. In this specific instance I refer to the outstanding report, “Our Na- tion and the Sea,” of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, and particularly its supporting document, volume I, “Science and the Environment.” In addition, in developing my thesis, I have relied on more recent re- ports prepared under the aegis of the National Council on Marine Re- sources and Engineering Development. 112 The coastal zone problems which they describe have been defined, explored, and discussed in terms of solutions by several consultant panels convened by the Federal Council on Science and Technology, by the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanog- raphy, by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanog- raphy, by the National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Ccean Engineering, by the National Security Industrial Asseciation, by the Committee on Resources of the National Chamber of Com- merce, and by several scientific and professional societies. Considering the diversity of backgrounds of these organizations, there is surprising conformity in the manner in which they have ap- proached the problems and similarity among their recommendations for solutions thereto. ‘The Commission emphasized the need for broad surveys to establish basic national inventory information, followed by contimuous and detailed studies of specific local conditions. These recommendations were made in light of the extremely com- pleated and difficult balance which must be the keyword in any treat- ment of coastal zone problems, and which has been alluded to by almost all of the previous speakers. This need for balance is evident in considering the mission of a coastal zone laboratory, which is to provide practical and applicable scientific engineering knowledge on which the management and utiliza- tion of the coastal zone may be developed rationally. Tt specifically involves resolution of multiple-use problems, or, when complete and satisfactory resolution is not possible, information on which judgment may be exercised regarding the best. public interest. Accordingly, research requirements would encompass information and data respecting pollution and waste disposal, environmental main- tenance and mprovement, conservation, efficient harvest of natural re- sources, and, of course, recreation. These laboratories, and for this particular purpose I will lump together and not distinguish between the Federal and the university laboratories, should be able to develop models from which the conse- quences of human actions can be predicted. Further, coastal zone laboratories research should involve the social sciences, including law, economics, sociology, and administration of marine science programs. Information and extension services should be developed and provided, as well. To describe specific kinds of research requirements, it is in order te quote from the report of the Panel on Management and Development of the Coastal Zone of the Commission, and I should like to read into the record their statement that: Much more needs to be known about the physical processes that shape our coastlines and estuaries: How, for instance, combinations of waves, tides, and currents affect deposition and erosion; the sources of beach sands, and when and ‘how it is naturally removed from beaches; and the effect of storm surges. - Simulation of observed conditions through the construction of hydraulic scale ae and mathematical models will improve predictions of the effects of change. More needs to: be known of the marine organisms and biological processes of the coastal zone. Detailed information on the food web, tolerances of each species to environmental change, and the distribution and abundance of organisms must be obtained to make the effective use of this rich region. Lack of basic understanding prevents the effective use of nearshore waters. 113 On the one hand, the ill effects of our actions cannot be foreseen in time to cor- rect them. On the other, when irreversible events might occur, we do not know how to prescribe the right amount of corrective action and are forced to base re- gulations on the most conservative estimates of probabilities. The solution of engineering problems suffers from the lack of knowledge of the dynamics of in- shore water movements. There is no theory suitable to describe the turbulent motions of water particles in the surf zone, nor can our instruments accurately measure currents in this area. In the process of altering our land ‘and water for beneficial purposes, man frequently produces catastrophic side effects. For in- stance, dredging is carried on for a variety of reasons, such as Creation of useful property, marinas, recreational areas; improved flushing action in bays, and estuarine creeks; commercial mining of sand and gravel. It is not only what is done along the shores that affect coast and beaches. Ac- tion far upstream may have drastic consequences. The flushing of minor embay- ments within estuaries in heavily influenced by seasonal fluctuations in salinity, largely through natural changes in river flow. Regulations and evening-off of river flow may prevent flushing actions and allow buildup of predators which rob shelifish beds of much of their richness. Basic research in microscale estuarine circulation must continue if predictions of the effects of our actions in regulating the flow of rivers are to be made. With apologies to Taylor Pryor and any other Commission members who are here for the blatant plagiarism, I did think it was that im- portant that that part of the Commission report be read into the record as illustrating the kinds of research information the coastal labora- tories ought to be responsible for. The committee goes on to state the needs for increased research on the dynamics of estuarine waters, on the identification of specific pol- lutants, and the tracing of their effects, and on the mechanisms whereby organisms take up and accumulate various kinds of pollutants—or in connection with coastal zone pollution problems. Increased knowledge of the coastal zone region and its habitats is necessary to conservation and management of fisheries resources. Sur- vival requirements of young fish are insufficiently understood. More in- formation is needed respecting rhythms in the relationships governing physical and biological environments over long periods of time. The question, of course, is how to establish a system of laboratories which can most competently carry out the research needed for solu- tion of these problems and for all aspects of coastal zone manage- ment. Both the Commission and subsequently convened advisory groups agreed that such research must be carried out by university laboratories within the rubric of coastal zone laboratories, and they recommended creation or continuation of several such laboratories, and that they must be multidisciplinary in scope. The advisory groups, starting with the Commission report, devel- oped in most cogent terms a rationale for a U.S. Government position respecting the coastal zone laboratories, and guided by the need and objectives of the Nation in the maintenance, restoration, and proper use of the coastal zone. For instance, one of their most important contributions, not only to the question of laboratories per se, but to the national program at large, was a suggested designation of coastal zone regions, based on consid- eration of ecological regions, commonality of problems, and geo- graphical factors. They suggested that the coast of the United States be considered in terms of 10 major areas: Northwest Atlantic, Middle Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic, Gulf Coast, Pacific Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Hawaii, Great Lakes, and Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands areas. 114 Within each major zone, subordinate regions were identified, accord- ing to differences in ecology. ‘ A final consideration in identifying research requirements for coastal zone management must concern the necessity for extremely close working relationships with the Federal laboratories and coastal zone authorities, and this, too, has been brought out by most of the previous speakers. Bee Also recommended by the Commission, and they are being con- sidered for implementation by the administration, are these same types of laboratories. Most of the great universities now involved in marine science and technology have long and well-established histories of working closely with State governments and Federal agency laboratories, as exempli- fied, for instance, at Woods Hole, at La Jolla, at Seattle, Honolulu, Miami, and Galveston, for instance. Accordingly, no problems are foreseen in this direction. In fact, an important thrust of the national sea-grant program has been to encour- age even closer collaboration in this regard, and strengthening of the ties among these several groups, and we believe this to be the way in which our host, Chairman Lennon, and his colleagues designed the sea-grant program in the first place. Thus far, the program has sponsored coherent area and institutional grants to several universities, which might be closely if not identically described as coastal zone laboratories, including such as the Univer- sity of Washington, the University of Hawai, Oregon State Uni- versity, Humboldt State College, Texas A. & M. University, Louisi- ana State University, the University of Delaware, the University of Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Michigan, Miami, and of course the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. There are two ways of interpreting the topic to which we have all addressed ourselves; that is, research requirements for coastal zone management, first, in terms of environmental questions to be answered, to which I have already addressed myself, and secondly, in terms of how one gears to answer these questions. Programs in the institutions that the sea-grant program sponsors thus far, in answer to both of these, are multidisciplinary. They are applied rather than basic, although not shutting out basic research. They are clearly oriented to the coastal zone, and they clearly reflect cooperation with State and local governments. Asa for instance, and I would have hoped for somewhat less modesty on the part of Dean Knauss in the first panel, whose sea-grant program at the University of Rhode Island exemplifies much of what the sea- grant program aims to do, the research training and the extension services under his direction center mostly in Narragansett Bay, and, if you are looking for coastal zone problems, you sure don’t have to go much farther than Narragansett Bay, but they also apply to most of the New England area. They include work in national fisheries, and in aquaculture, in-depth studies of the economics of various uses of Narragansett Bay, includ- ing, I might add, the very difficult problem of assigning value to such things as salt marshes. They include also a large extension program, including the New England marine resources information program, pollution studies of 115 Narragansett Bay, training of commercial fishermen, marine researcl economists, ocean engineers, and a new post-graduate degree in marine affairs, as well as sponsoring the Law of the Sea Institute. On the gulf coast, a typical coastal zone effort is carried out by John Calhoun’s groups at Texas A. & M. This is of somewhat similar nature, but addressed largely to the gulf coast environment. As an example of close interrelationship with Federal, State, and local governments, and with industry, Dr. Calhoun is currently carry- ing out a series of six conferences dealing with various aspects of the coastal zone protection and enhancement. On the west coast, the University of Washington and Oregon State University have complementary programs wherein in each a dozen departments are collaborating on research and development themes aimed at their regional coastal zone environments. For instance, Oregon State University has developed a superb extension service affecting critically occupations in their near and relatively distant area, all up and down their coast. The University of Washington has not only mobilized one of the strongest academic powerhouses in this country in participation in the sea-grant program, but they have brought along a system of five satellite community colleges to assist in the training program. The reasons leading to sea-grant focus on the coastal zone stem mostly from the deliberations of the Sea-Grant Advisory Committee. When they first sat down with the National Science Foundation, the idea was to determine the specificity of the sea-grant program; that is, what could this program do that ali of the other agencies described by previous speakers either cannot or would not necessarily want te be accomplishing in either the public or private domain. Their recommendations were that this program ought to strive to bring many departments in universities together under common coastal zone themes, that it ought to stimulate industry into partnership with these laboratories, and, you know, normally industry becomes identi- fied as a monster in this context, dumping filth into our waterways, but in all fairness, industry must also be considered to be a big con- sumer of the coastal zone products and services, and it is also, needless to say, a major employer of the persons who work near these areas. We were also recommended to train the engineers, technicians, law- yers, economists, and the sophisticated ecologists who are to do the things that the other panelists have been calling for. Weare to perform complicated systems studies of the land-sea inter- face, such as one that we are participating in at Long Island in collab- oration with some county governments and private research institutes, to sponsor coastal zone resources studies, and most importantly of all, to stimulate local initiative. In short, the sea-grant program already has developed the team of eight senior and five junior sea-grant colleges, so to speak, all except one of which emphasizes work in the coastal zone. This is not a pro- gram which is ready to roll. It has been at cruising speed for over a year already. What I am saying is that there is a crucially important role for the university laboratories to play in the coastal zone campaign. Our pro- gram is proving that they play it exceedingly well. Dr. Fre. Thank you, Dr. Abel. 116 Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. As you can see, we have not designed a research program for a typi- cal coastal zone laboratory, but then I don’t think that was our assign- ment, or at least, as directors of laboratories and programs, we realize how futile and unwise that might have been. T think, rather, there has been presented a considerable body of guidelines and philosophy which will be useful in the development of such specific research programs. I don’t know how many are anxious to participate in discussion or raise questions. Apparently we have about run out of time. One as- sumption I can make is that each and every one of you has something you wanted to say, or else you would not have stayed until the end, or f could assume that you were here solely because you wanted to hear what Bob Abel had to say about money. J wonder, Mr. Clingan, if it would be in order to ask for a showing of hands of how many people would like to participate in the discus- sion or raise questions and suggest that any long statements might be submitted for the record. Isthat all right, Tom, and hear at least brief statements or questions? How many are anxious to ask questions ? Tsee only four hands. We ought to be able to take care of all of them. Would you identify yourself ? Please go to the microphone. Dr. Netson Marsuatu. I am Nelson Marshall, from the University of Rhode Island. I feel as though Bob Abel was outvoted by the first two speakers in terms of a certain neglect, because they talked so much about the science and technical, and I recall one or two statements which are essentially that maybe we should have a little nontechnical work along with it. T think it has to be a lot more than “maybe.” I think we all should look, in order to appreciate this point, at some of the studies that have come out in the past years, like the hurricane barrier studies of Nar- ragansett Bay, in which the economic dimensions of the study were very superficial, and very unsophisticated, and would not stand up at all today in terms of the kind of scrutiny given by resource econo- mists. I think you can cite many other subjects like that. We have a Steering Committee on Aquaculture in the New England Regional Commission. This committee, on which I serve has essentially refused to proceed with technological studies of aquaculture unless they are strongly concurrently blended with the social, economic, legal, and political aspects of the problem. This is not because I sit up and holler about it. This is a view that has been evolving within this group. Now, there has been a lot said in the last 2 days about university- oriented work. The breadth that we are talking about here, and that Bob Abel talked about, is possible in a university system, or in a strong affiliation with a university system. I think this is one of the main reasons we have talked about university-oriented work, university- oriented laboratories. There is another problem. One of the reasons universities are strong—I hope that they are considered strong—in that there is an independence of research spirit in a university, and yet we are talking 117 about jobs to be done. Thus there is a difficulty in sustaining the inde- pendence and still getting at the job. I think in considering coastal research laboratories we should ad- dress ourselves to this question. I think one of the ways of accomplish- ing this, in my own personal opinion, but I guess widely shared, is to be sure that the universities make a strong commitment to these pro- grams, so that the workers there feel that they are not obligated to follow set, directed patterns. This requires a certain limited mass of workers in order to be able to allow for this independence, and still by some guidance get on with the desired programs. Dr. Fyn. Thank you, Dr. Marshall. Dr. Breslov. Mr. Lioyp Brestoy. Iam Lloyd Breslov of the Coast Guard. I would like to ask Dr. Hargis what he meant when he said develop- ment of firefighting capability. Dr. Fyr. Dr. Hargis. Dr. Harats. F irefighting capability in this instance is in quotes, and it refers to this type of semiscientific or quasi-scientifie activity that comes up 1f somebody called and sald, “T have a bed of oysters dying. Come up and tell me what is wrong.” It did not refer to putting out fires as fires, but only economic and political and sociological and semiscientific fires. Mr. Brestov. I was wondering. I think of things in terms of short- term and long-term things, again search and rescue type of firefighting tasks, and disaster control such as oil spills. You did not have that in mind. Dr. Harets. That is correct. If I might, Mr. Chairman, comment briefly, Dr. Marshall and some of the other speakers have ‘stressed university arrangements, and I think this is of course worthwhile, because a great deal, perhaps most cutside of the Federal laboratories, is being done within this context. I would say, however, that for the first level coastal zone scientific advisory system, it is essential that it be identified, that it be viable, that it not be up to the whims of some administrator as to whether or not it is going to survive. Therefore, it would seem to me that it would be likely an institute type of arrangement, either outside of and affiliated with or inside of the university. teams, but identified, viable, and permanently funded, and available to the management people. Mr. Brestoy. Thank you. Dr. Fyn. I saw four more hands. IT would like to ask you to be concise and brief in your remarks, and submit longer ones for the record, if you would like. Mr. Sreprun Keuiry. Steve Kelley , from the city of New York. J would like to ask Dr. Fye to continue with his opening remarks and amplify his thinking on the criteria for the establishment of the coastal zone laboratery. Dr. Fyre. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I wish that we had time to do it. I would enjoy doing it. I don’t, think I should take the time from the people on the floor who would like to participate. I think the ideas are developing very well. If J may, I will talk 118 to you about it in private, and not take the time right at this moment. Dr. Chapman. Dr. W. M. Cuarman. At the risk of boring you, Tam going to talk about coastal zone laboratories anywa I have been sitting, having a little difficulty thinking about coastal zone laboratories and coastal zone management authorities in the light of our experience in California, and these thoughts maybe have no value to the rest of you, but they have been turning over in my mind this morning. It seems to me like we have got an adequate number of laboratories in California, and really along the west coast, that our problem is not number or dive rsity of labor atori les, Or activities, but in almost every instance I can think of, a deficiency of funds for those PORES to adequately carry out their research programs. The coastal zone laboratory term does not very well fit our situation, because we have such institutions as Hopkins. Marine Station, for instance, and the USC laboratories, and the Scripps laboratories ‘that are coastal zone laboratories already, but also work in other parts of the world ocean. In fact, a new designation just does not seem to me to be terribly uti ilitarian, or attractive. What we really need is new money. Tf you call these this as a name in order to con the Bureau of the Budget out of some more money, and it works, fine. My experience is that it will not work. I think that there is a difference in our thinking on the west coast from that on the east coast and gulf, because of our situation on the western side of the country, and having both our ocean and atmos- pheric weather come at us from far over “the horizon, and affect mate- rially the natural processes in our immediate coastal zone pe Meo our being able to evaluate or study or predict those effects unless we look far over the sea. That puts us perhaps a little more, when we are talking about coastal processes, in a process of quite large dimension, and in some instances of global dimension. I think that is a difference in thinking that will always plague us in talking with our colleagues in the gulf and the Atlantic coast. I don’t think the differences should be a controversial one at all. It is due to natural circumstances. We are more broadly interested in something from the coastal zone standpoint. Comment came up this morning with respect to the dichotomy of either doing more research or getting things done, which is, I think, an extremely false one, and should not enter into our discussion at all, I speak ordinarily as an industry representative who wants the bene- ficial output in research. I want to get things done, but as you know, Mr. Chairman, I spend almost all my time fomenting additional— what Stu does not like to call, or I don’t like to call—basic research, because we are so enormously eager about the ocean and atmosphere that we are unable to make value judgments in many important instances. You have to have a proper balance between implementation and the conduct or the research and processes. IT want to go on with one little comment that arose this morning, about how the relationship works between the Corps of Engineers and 119 NOAA. That is very simple. Put the Corps of Engineers in NOAA, as Senator Muskie did in his bill. This whole concept of coastal zone management authority I think is different from these other things we have been talking about, because here we have the necessity to arrange the political machinery for eval- uation as between multiple uses, and you cannot do this on the Federal level. You cannot do it on the State level. You cannot do it on a local level. You have to get a mix, so that the political influence of all three of those levels is entered in fully, and this is not easy, because all of these units are made up of people, and people are just impossible to get along with. One of the things we have quite successfully experimented with in California is this Bay Conservation Development Council. I think if you people will look into that, you will see that there has been a very good pragmatic working operation for the San Francisco Bay area. There has been an incredible political problem that has been handled quite well, and, in looking over that from our own standpoint in Cali- fornia, while thinking very highly of that, even BCDC agrees that their form of organization is not probably the one for other areas of California, much less other areas of the country. These have to be tailored for both circumstances and all of the local political influences mitigated, moderated, and integrated into the system, and I think that the idea of a coastal management authority of a single nature with respect to any particular State is not a very good one. In some places it 1s required that several States be involved. In California, | am certain we will have to have three or four of these things. Dr. Fyr. Thank you, Dr. Chapman. Sir, will you give your name? Thai ‘Mr. Rosert S. Krurcer. Robert Krueger. I am from California. I am also a member of the commission of which Mr. Chapman is the chairman. ; I just wanted to make one comment regarding a point brought up by Harris Stewart. He said, and I believe rightly so, that the coastal zone includes the Continental Shelf. This is functionally the definition. The proposed bill, however, would limit the coastal zone to the territorial sea, or the preperty within the State boundaries, so this would exclude por- tions of the Continental Shelf. This is also true of Senator Magnuson’s bill. Jt may be that you would wish to give consideration to an amend- ment to include certain areas of the Continental Shelf in the coastal zone in some areas, such as California. Thank you. Dr. Fyz. Thank you, Bud. I think perhaps we have exhausted our time, Mr. Clingan, and I will turn the session back to you. Mr. Cuinean. Thank you, Dr. Fye. 1am very grateful to you and to your panel for your comments. The meeting will now adjourn, and we will reconvene here at 2 p.m. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the conference adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) 120 AFTERNOON SESSION PaneL 7—FEpERAL ACTION IN THE CoastTAL ZONE MODERATOR Dr. W. M. Chapman, California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources. PANELISTS Hon. Russell E. Train, Under Secretary, Department of the In- terior; Hon. James M. Beggs, Under Secretary, Department of Trans- portation; Hon. Myron Tribus, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Commerce; Col. William V. McGuinness, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dr. Cuapman. Ladies and gentlemen, as soon as everybody settles down, we will begin. What we have this afternoon is a lecture by four of the principal people in the principal departments involved with the issues we have been talking about under the title “Hederal Action in the Coastal Zone.” We have with us this afternoon Under Secretary Train, of the De- partment of the Interior; Under Secretary Beggs, of the Department of Transportation; Assistant Secretary Tribus, of the Department of Commerce; and Colonel McGuinness, of the Corps of Engineers. The way we will run the thing is to go in reverse order with the ae first, Mr. Tribus second, Mr. Beggs third, and Mr. Train ourth. We intend to allow ample time for discussion when the four speakers have completed their presentations. If you will make notes as we go along, I think we will have adequate time to get in all the comments and questions that you desire. Therefore, Colonel McGuinness, if you will be so kind as to lead off, we will start. STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM V. McGUINNESS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Colonel McGuinnzss. I see our chairman is following a good time- tested Army system, let the junior officer speak first and reveal his ignorance and let the others follow. I will try to do my part. General Koisch was on your schedule but he couldn’t be here today. He is attending a quarterly meeting in Galveston, Tex. at the Coastal Engineering Research Center where we try to bring together our people from different parts of the Nation. Since he is chairing the meeting, he was unable to make adjustments. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers appreciates this opportunity to appear before such a representative and important group. We thank Congressman Lennon and the subcommittee he represents for their initiative, and follow-through in arranging this assembly and for their courtesy in inviting us to it. 121 In my remarks this afternoon I will concentrate on the coastal zone and the Great Lakes, because that is where our marine missions are. These are also the marine areas which most concern you in the States. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COASTAL ZONE Our oceanic and Great Lakes coastal areas are uniquely important for a number of reasons which most of you have heard many times, but the most important reason relates to people. People have chosen to live there in great numbers. The counties of the conterminous United States which touch the oceans or the Great Lakes currently contain only 9 percent of our land, but 41 percent of our people. Looking toward the future, projec- tions indicate that the population and productivity of this peripheral band are growing at a rate faster than the Nation as a whole. Why is this so? Some say ports. Others say fishing or industry or esthetics or recrea- tion. Still others lay it to historical inertia and say that tne “coastal- ness” of this band 1s of little significance to its growth. Several years ago the Department of Commerce conducted a study of the type and magnitudes of oceanic values implicit in the “coastal- ness” of this region. Since analyses of this type are certainly a little like adding oranges and grapefruit, most people will not want to take these figures as absolute. But they can serve as indicators of order of magnitude economic values actually accruing to our Nation in the mid-1960’s. There are, of course, many other nonmarket coastal values which cannot be de- picted in such a chart. The corps activities relate most prominently to those sectors labeled transportation and recreation; however, to some extent we are active in al] these sectors, as are many other Federal agencies. Whatever the reasons, the logic, the rhetoric, the emotion or the euphemisms—the important thing is that the people have and are voting for the coastal zone by going there and staying there—and that. is a type of evidence that really counts. Our Nation must develop, use and preserve this highly valued strip in a comprehensive, wise manner. THE ENGINEER—PLANNER The corps role in the coastal zone is primarily that of the engineer, in its broadest sense. Engineers take the discoveries of man and use them to satisfy the wants of man. They are in the middle. Looking one way, the engineer is a customer of science and makes his demands known by focusing priority on the knowledge gaps which need to be filled. Looking the other way, the people are his customers. His product has significance only to the extent that it corresponds with their wants. Because of lead times, the general interrelationship of things done now to things done later and many other considerations, the engineer needs to know the people’s wants as far in advance as possible. Thus the alert engineer, the one who really injects his expertise into the social fabric of his time and his Nation, will always be deeply 122 involved in the future. He projects trends, population, wealth, atti- tudes and other factors and tries to see the future through them. He forces himself to respond to the question—what should we be doing now out of consideration for that future? He works with many other disciplines on these problems and when he thinks he has some of the systems worked out, he goes to his customers, the people, and says: Here’s where we think you are going. Here’s what we think you want. Here’s what we think you are disposed to pay for it in income expended—or in benefits foregone. Now tell us what you think. : And they do, but often with not enough concern. Many do not like this projected future. They sometimes irrationally attack the predictor as the causer. They sometimes loudly clamor for a type of future which they quitely refuse to underwrite at the voting booth, in tax assess- ments or in their individual and collective expenditure patterns. And so it is back to the drawing beard for the engineer. For his new synthesis, he sometimes gets a clear public feedback. More often his approaches, conclusions, and plans evolve as people’s awareness of themselves evolves. CORPS COASTAL RESPONSIBILITIES Corps activities in the coastal zone, following this pattern have evolved as the Nation has grown. In the beginning our national survi- val was so clearly dependent on the security of the Atlantic and Great Lakes coastlines that the Army Engineers centered on coastal fortifica- tions and problems besetting construction at the land-sea interface. The dominance of this early coastal engineering theme is reflected in the coastal fortification depicted on the buttons all Engineer officers wear to this day. This mission soon broadened because some of the earliest acts of Con- gress involved navigation improvements. Over the years, the corps interest im protecting and improving the use of the coastal zone has expanded as the Congress has added responsibilities. Today the corps is engaged in a $200 million annual program of re- searching, planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining coastal harbors, intracoastal’ waterways, interoceanic canals, hurricane bar- riers, and shore and beach stabilization programs. The corps also issues permits for all construction in navigable coastal waters, and we have developed quite a capability to get into the Nation’s presence in carry- ing out this particular function. Other corps programs, physically located inland, have an important influence on the coastal zone. Inland harbors and waterways feed the coastal ports and form part of the complex waterborne transportation system which moves a substantial part of our interstate and inter- national commerce. Flood control programs on rivers that discharge into the oceans involve the coastal zone because of the riverine interaction with shore, littoral and tidal processes. Over the years, the coastal zone missions of the corps have grown ever more sophisticated. Some of the current assignments that par- ticularly illustrate this sophistication are the Atlantic-Pacific Inter- oceanic Canal Studies, the comprehensive Chesapeake Bay investiga- tion and model study, and the indepth study of San Francisco Bay. 123 These studies and investigations. are Federal-State, multiagency and multidisciplinary. The involved fields include topography, geology, hydrology, meteorology, oceanology, ecology, biology, hydraulics, and economics. The planning of public works in the coastal zone today is not simple, if indeed it ever was. Increasing sophistication demands increasing research effort and the knowledge gained from research further increases sophistication. The pattern is circular and endless. . The corps is heavily committed in the research area. The Coastal Engineering Research Center and the Waterways Experiment Station are respected worldwide for their contributions to knowledge of the coastal zone. For example, the corps’ technical report, “Shore Protec- tion, Planning and Design,” is the definitive text on this subject internationally. Our Great Lakes Research Center is well known and respected by users of the Great Lakes for its continuing research into the problems unique to those great inland waters. Current research is looking into such diverse matters as saline intrusion, energy transfer at the air- water interface, spoil disposal effects, effects of construction activities on the ecology of the coastal zone, ice cover distribution, littoral pro- cesses, computer simulation of estuary behavior, wave generation, propagation, and attenuation, dune stabilization, and many others. Corps navigation activities include the design, construction, opera- tion, and maintenance of deep-draft commercial and fishing harbors, with their appurtenant channels to the sea, shallow-draft recreational harbors of refuge, and intracoastal shallow-draft channels for com- mercial and recreational craft. In the interest of navigation, fish and wildlife, natural resources, water quality, recreation, esthetics and the environment, the corps issues permits for structures and for the performance of any construc- tion work in the navigable waters of the United States. ) The corps is concerned with aquatic plant control, salinity intrusion control, and major drainage of coastal marshes and swamps. It also removes wrecks which interfere with general navigation and compiles and disseminates information on waterborne commerce and ports. This is a slide of the corps’ hopper dredge, the Harding. (Slide shown.) It is one of the larger of 51 corps-owned dredges. Dredging ean affect the marine biota, both in the areas where dredging takes place and in the areas where the spoil is deposited. But the intensity duration and areal extent of the effect require continued study. Two major studies are in progress. One involves determination of the biological effects of the deposi- tion of dredgings, sewer sludge and acid waste in New York Bight. The corps, under its congressional authorization to regulate certain activities in navigable waters, is responsible for issuing dumping permits. In a second study the corps with the valuable participation of FWPCA and other agencies inside and outside of Interior, has nearly concluded an $8 millicn, 2-year pilot study of dredging operations in the Great Lakes. This study, of course, is but one aspect of the overall requirement to leok at the Great Lakes region in a truly comprehen- sive way. For example, the problem of eutrophication in Lake Erie cannot be 124 looked at solely from the point of view of pollution treatment, or lake currents, or levels, or agricultural production in the basin, or shoreline erosion, or any one of many other important interrelated factors. Any overall] solution to the problems of Lake Erie must be set in the context of the total environment aspirations of the people of this region tempered by a reliable understanding of alternative choice patterns. By “total environment” I mean placing man in the center and includ- ing preservation and enhancement of all of those market and non- market values which man needs to grow in both body and in spirit. The corps has an interest in offshore construction because some of this construction is accomplished by the corps, because offshore con- struction by others is subject to the corps permit authority, and finally because offshore construction may affect bottom and shore conditions. The Waterways Experiment Station is currently making an inten- sive state-of-the-art survey of submarine soil mechanics so as to remain abreast in this growing field. The Coastal Engineering Research Center is studying a program to define engineering problems involved in offshore construction. The next two slides show Seaside Park, Conn., before and after a beach restoration project. (Slides shown.) Shore protection lessons learned in 40 years of construction experi- ence and research are incorporated in numerous technical publications by the Coastal Engineering Research Center. These publications enjoy national and international acceptance. Some general conclusions are that such traditional solutions as seawalls may protect shorefront structures, but they result in accelerated erosion of the beaches; that groins may protect a short stretch of beach at the cost of accelerated erosion of a downdrift beach; and that probably the best solution for protecting eroding beaches is to nourish them artificially with sand while at the same time using vegetation and snow-fences to trap wind- borne sand, thereby creating protective dunes. This slide shows such a dune at Wrightsville Beach, N.C. (Shde shown.) This slide shows a fixed dredge bypassing sand across Lake Worth Inlet, Fla. (Slide shown.) This process prevents loss of sand out into deep water and shoaling in the inlet and it insures nourishment of the downdrift beach. The corps is now conducting an inventory of offshore sand deposits with the idea that this sand 1 may be used for beach nourishment. The corps is now determining the methodology to be used for a national inventory of our shorelines. The National Shoreline Study, directed by Congress, wiil be the first comprehensive examination of the condition of our 90 000 mile shortline. It will be the basis for pro- grams to protect those portions that are in the most urgent need of such pr otection. The corps’ efforts in hurricane flood protection are hindered by the massive costs associated with flood protection structures. Storm surges that may range up to 20 feet above normal high water, as in Camille, require high dikes along the coasts and on the banks of tidal water- ways. In some cases, as in Providence, R.I., and New Bedford, Mass., it has been feasible to build coastal structures across the tidal waterways. This is Providence, during the 1938 hurricane which killed 250 peo- 125 ple. (Slide shown.) This is the hurricane control structure across Providence River at Fox Point. I have touched on several major corps coastal activities. In the in- terest of time, I will not discuss other corps coastal responsibilities such as mapping and charting on the Great Lakes, ecological activi- ties, regional planning, and recreation. RELATIONS WITH THE STATES But in the remaining time, I would like to make two broad comments concernig our relations with the States: First, we feel that the problems of the coastal zone of the United States involves a multipheity and diversity of significant resource, urban, economic, environmental and other people- oriented considera- tions. We do not foresee the possibility that any one agency or any single level of government could have the breadth and depth of know]- edge or be given the authority necessary to take satisfactorily into account the many factors that need to be considered. We are strong advocates of the team approach. In such an approach, the expertise of a number of Federal agencies and the affected States is brought together regionally to project future multipurpose needs. This is done in a way which recognizes that any full consideration of the coast is of questionable adequacy if it does not simultaneously consider the rivers and other inland areas to which the coast is so inseparably interrelated. This is why we are strong advocates of comprehensive, regional, Federal-State, water and related land resources planning whether it be through the Water Resources Council or through separate studies such as those on Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay. Secondly, we hope for a greatiy increased State role in coastal zone matters. To participate in coastal zone decisions to the extent that their responsibilities and interests and authorities require, the States need Federal support. Through the planning grants of the Water Resources Council and through strong support of additional grant funds pro- posed by the admi nistration, we ‘hope that State capabilities will grow. It is most important to us that this happen. We do not relish being always in between the preserv ationist and the developer on coastal permits. We also want a strong, balanced and constructive review by the States of corps projects being considered within their Barden We want the States to exercise an ever-increasing knowledge and judgment over their coastal zones. In summary, I have given you some of our views on the importance of the coastal zone, the role of the engineer-planner as we see it, the historical evolution of the corps’ current role, the scope and variety of some of our major coastal missions and some of our thoughts on the importance of achieving increased State capabilities in coa vstal zone affairs. Dr. Cuapman. For those whe are interested, there are some copies of this presentation available on the table, as you go out or aiter the presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Colonel. We appreciate very much your full presentation of the corps activities and this aspect of your work. We will now hear from the Honorable Myron Tribus, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Commerce. 3¢—487—69— 126 STATEMENT OF HON. MYRON TRIBUS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mr. Trisus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to present the Department of Commerce views on coastal zone management. Throughout this conference it has been emphasized time and time again that in order to avoid mutually destructive com- peting uses of the coastal zone there is a need for a national legisla- tive policy. For example, two of our Nation’s most important goals in this area are (1) the maximum economic utilization of the coastal zone, and (2) the preservation of the natural environment of the coastal zone. Obviously these are competing and contradictory goals. The attain- ment of either of these goals to the serious detriment of the other would be unacceptable to the public interest. We, therefore, must strive to achieve a meaningful optimization of the coastal zone to meet these goals. In order for decisionmakers to achieve this balance they must first have available adequate comprehensive physical and socioeconomic data. Once these the data have been provided, they must devise a plan for the management of the coastal zone that will give appropriate recognition to competing uses, such uses as industrial development, rec- reation, conservation, transportation requirements, labor utilization, and housing, and their effect on the quality of the environment and the ecology. Any plan for the development and management of the coastal zone will require the simultaneous consideration of economic, politi- cal, social, technical and scientific factors. I visualize that for every natural system there could be need for a laboratory, a staff of in- vestigators and a dynamic computer model of the zone. With support from a data base such as this, and a computer model, it should be possible to forecast the effects of different management policies and provide a better basis for decisionmaking. I will now discuss briefly what the Department of Commerce has been doing that relates directly to coastal zone management. The Department’s Environmental Science Service Administration (ESSA) is active in the coastal zone, gathering, processing, analyz- ing, and disseminating environmental data. These data include in- formation on coastal tides, movement of ocean currents, structure and shape of bordering ocean basins, seismic activity and climatic study of the area. Further, ESSA’s Coast and Geodetic Survey provides the charts necessary for navigation of this area and the determination of marine boundaries. It also conducts the surveys, investigations, analyses and research in hydrography, oceanography, cartography, geodesy, and seismology which are necessary in any planning efforts involving the area. ESSA’s Weather Bureau plays a vital role in the preservation of life and property in the coastal zone by providing the river and flood forecasting and warning systems. As the events of the past 2 months have demonstrated, ESSA’s hurricane warning system is useful to the coastal zone. In connection with this role, research and analysis of hydrometeorological data is performed for application to the zone. 127 The capabilities of the National Bureau of Standards in developing and calibrating instruments for scientific and engineering needs could be especially useful for development of marine instruments needed in the coastal zone. The Bureau also has a strong competence in sys- tems analysis through its technical analysis group which would be vital in planning and carrying through a national coastal zone program. The Office of Business Economics (OBE) has developed a progr: um of measurement, analysis and projection of reg ial economic activity covering the entire United States. The analyses and data sao by this program are available to both Federal and State agencies involved in planning for the development and use of the coastal zone, OBE can serve also as a basis for estime ting future nedtere ments in various economic sectors; for calculating benefits and costs to deter- mine the economic value of a given ae eae and by providing an economic framework in which the advant ages of altern ative economic programs can be evaluated and the economic utilization of the coastal zone optimized. This activity provides a comprehensive, uniform economic base for use In regional economic planning. It is used in water resource devel- ment, regional commission planning and other economic develop- mental efforts. As an example, the Office of Business Economics’ regional economic program is being used extensively in the Estuarine Study under way in the Federal Water Pollution Control Agi iniistretien. The Department’s Economic Development Administration (EHDA) has been active in many parts of the Coastal Zone through planning and use of its grants and loans. This assistance is made ava'lable thro ough four main programs: Public Works Grants and Loans, Bus- iness “Loans, Technical Assistance and Job Retraining. EDA has approved coastal zone projects from St. Mary’s in Alaska around the coasts to Maine ane along the shores of the Great Lakes from Minnesota to New York. About 340 projects have been approved in areas bordering our shorelines. These projects include primarily port improvements, industrial parks, utilities, roads, and recreation facilities, Since 1965 EDA has financed more than $113 millen im grants and $53 million in loans for these activities. Economic Development Districts formed around eligible countries are used to further the aims of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. At present there are 121 of these districts; 21 of which are located in and operate the Coast Plan Zone. The EDA has also given assistance in the formation of six economic development regions, “three of which are directly related to coastal zone development. The three are the Upper Great Lakes, New Eng- land, and Coastal Plains Regions. The Business and Defense Services Administration ( (BDSA), turn- ing to one more of our bureaus, 1s working closely with other F eder al and State agencies having coastal zone Tres} sonsibilities to provide assessments of usage and long- term requirements of industrial wate BDSA will be providing national and reg! ional studies to ae national growth, regional development, and environmental quality objectives. These evaluations and forecasts are used by the river basin commissions and committees, the Water Resources Council, and cthers 128 to plan national, regional, and local water resources development projects. Of course, the Department’s Maritime Administration (MarAd) has promoted the development of our ports and related transportation facilities to include investigating the coastal zone tributary to ports, advising and assisting communities in port improvement and location and studying congestion of commerce at ports where land and water modes of transportation interface. MarAd cooperates with all other Federal agencies in all coastal zone management questions, supplying its expertise where needed. All of these agencies have participated extensively in the Estuarine Studies that are ‘being undertaken in accordance with the Water ae tion Control Act. There is a separate Hstuarine Study on the Chess peake Bay, ond there are other major studies concerning this Nation’s estuaries. "These are separate and significant parts of the coastal zone that have unique complex problems. In most cases, the agencies have not only supplied basic informa- tion, analyses and for ecasts, but they have also met with the working groups to discuss the problems and to help seek solutions. Since the Federal Interagency River Basin Committee was estab- lished in the early 1940's, the Department of Commerce and its con- stituent agencies have participated in the planning of water resources dev elopment that has been taking place throughout the country. The water resources planning in the field has been on a river basis vith field personnel organized into work groups and study groups to develop plans and programs to meet estimated water requirements, The personnel has included employees from Federal agencies and State governments with coordination under a joint coordinating com- mittee of Governors and regional heads of Federal departmen ts. The River Basin Studies and reviews have covered areas from headwaters to the sea and, accordingly, coastal areas have always been part of the consideration and study. With the establishment of the Water Resources Council under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, the Department of Commerce has been an associate member and provided considerable participation at the meetings at all levels, from the Council itself, which is made up of Secretaries of Departments, through the Council of Representatives and the many committees that operate in Washington. The Department of Commerce also participates with full mem- bership on the River Basin Commissions that have been estabJished under the Water Resources Planning Act with a Secretarial designa- tion for Commerce member. Commerce also has membership on the long-established river basin committees which also include the Governors. With this recitation of the Department of Commerce participation in these problems which relate to coastal zone management as a background, I would like now to comment on the Federal Govern- ment’s role in future national directions in the coastal! zones. One of the salient facts about our developing society 1s that fewer and fewer of us live in a natural environment, and more and more of us live in an environment which is largely man-made. Probably $0 out of every 100 people in this country are dependent on systems which 129 are man-planned, man-designed, man-made and dependent on men for operation, maintenance and improvement. Furthermore, this percentage is increasing and the degree of our dependence on technology is increasing as the complexity of products and systems necessary to life removes us farther from nature. Man’s relatively new found ability to control his environment has not always been used to his best advantage. For example, our solution to the design transportation problem created a transportation system which kills 50,000 people per year and contributes in making the air of our cities unfit to breathe. Further, our design solution to mass production was a factory system which adds to air pollution, dumps millions of tons of noxious by-products into our lakes and streams and makes no satisfactory pro- visions for handling scrap and wornout products. The utilization of the coastal zone presents man with yet another opportunity to design a solution to a pressing problem. I hope that we will be able to create a design that this time will stand the test of time. The goal in coastal zone, as it is everywhere, is to achieve a solution which will satisfy the socio-economic needs of this zone while protecting the ecology of the area from permanent damage. This re- quires that all planning for development and management of areas within or containing segments of the coastal zone must be compre- hensive if they are to assure optimum use of resources for all purposes. Goals, priorities, and guidelines must be established. Problems in each region must be identified and a framework constructed within which a solution can be developed. The State and local authorities are most familiar with their problems and form the logical planning points. There must, however, be coordination with the Federal Gevern- ment as various Federal agencies have programs and activities involv- ing the coastal zone. 1 envision the role of science and technology as assembling the basic data which now exists and analyzing these data so that the decision- makers may create an approprriate design for any coastal zone management. For example, in formulating a plan ESSA might be called upon to assist a national effort to chart the lateral seaward boundaries be- tween the States. Further, data on water budget, estuarine circulation, ecosystems, coastal currents and other pertinent parameters of the coastal zone will certainly be needed. As announced by the Vice President on October 19, the adminis- tration plans to submit a legislative proposal to the Congress to estab- lish policy objectives for the coastal areas and to authorize Federal grants, with matching State contributions, that will encourage and facilitate the establishment of management authorities. Such legislation should assist in insuring that rapid coastal develop- ment does not destroy limited coastal land and water resources and that all interests in the coastal regions would be assured considera- tion—for port development, navigation, commercial fishing, mineral exploitation, recreation, conservation, industria! development, hous- ing, power generation, and waste disposal. In conclusion, I would like to reemphasize my belief that man now stands on the threshold of designing a comprehensive, long-range solu- 130 tion to meet the socioeconomic needs of the coastal zone while preserv- ing its ecology and the quality of the environment. Our actions in this area today will undoubtedly be difficuit to reverse and will have a long-term future impact. Thank you. Dr. Cuapman. Thank you, Mr. Tribus, for a very interesting statement. On the matter about transportation, perhaps we will have some comment from our next speaker later, but at this halfway point in our afternoon program, I would like to pay a tribute to our two speakers so far. When [ come to Washington, D.C. as I frequently do, to serve on committees and stay up half the night, I like to have a little nap in the afternoon. I have been appreciative of the fact that I have seen only two or three nodding heads. Mr. Beggs, will you be so kind as to go ahead. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. BEGGS, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. Brees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, the Department of Transportation appreciates the opportunity to join this Conference today and|to discuss some of the problems that relate to transportation and ccastal zone management. I will try today to cover briefly the various ways in which the De- partment of Transportation 1s concerned about the uses of the Nation’s coastal zone. These concerns stem not simply from the many programs administered by the Secretary of Transportation but, to a significant degree, from the Secretary’s role as the President’s principal adviser cn the whole spectrum of national transportation policies. Transportation, of course, is one of the major users of the Nation’s coastal zone. Whether it be ports and harbor facilities—or highways, railroads, airports, or pipelines—transportation is a competing claim- ant on the zone. There are no exact figures available, but it is well known that high- ways, with their associated bridges and other appurtenances, require thousands of acres of land that les within the coastal zone. So, too, do railroads and airports. Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports in New York, Logan Airport in Boston, the San Francisco International Airport, and Washington National Airport are actually built on lands partly reclaimed from the water. These are but a few examples, but they help document my belief that, in thinking about the relationship between transportation and the coastal zone, too often we think of it in terms only of ports, harbor facilities, and seagoing vessels. We must be equally concerned with the other aspects of transporta- tion, for they also represent large claimants on the physical space lying within the zone—space that can be used for myriad other purposes, ranging from wildlife preserves, to recreation, to housing, or to general industrial development. ; In looking to the future and assessing transportation trends, it 1s clear that the transportation demands on the coastal zone are certain to become greater. International cargo movement alone, by sea and by air, 131 is projected to increase even more in the next decade than domestic goods movement. This will require not just new or improved port facilities designed to handle container traffic, but it will also necessitate more airport air eargo facilities, new or expanded railroad freight handling investment, and additional airways. All of this means that transportation, just as with virtually every other segment of our economic and social life, will be imposing new demands on the scarce space that lies within the coastal zone. Although I have stressed the breadth of transportation’s involve- ment in the zone, let me now give closer attention to several of the Department’s programs that bear directly, in an operational sense, on the uses of the Nation’s coastal areas. The Coast Guard has been engaged in the detecting and reporting of violations of the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 since its enactment, and has worked cooperatively with the Corps of Engineers in the enforcement of the other applicable pollution statutes. Under the provisions of the national multiagency oil and hazardous materials pollution contingency plan of September 1968, Coast Guard forces are involved in surveillance activities and in most areas provide on-scene commanders to carry out pollution control measures in the case of spills of oil or other material. This activity is, of course, nationwide. he availability of our communications network and rescue coordi- nation centers on a 24-hour-a-day basis is a most important part of our contribution. As you know, the House has passed H.R. 4148, which would repeal the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 and substitute therefor a much more comprehensive antipollution program. The Senate has also passed H.R. 4148 in an amended form. It appears likely, therefore, that we may have by the end of this session of Congress a more effective law on the books. The Coast Guard would play a very substantial role under that law in regulating and enforcing control of sewage from vessels, policing violations of oi] discharge regulations, and directing cleanups of oil spills or spills of other hazardous materials. Through the Coast Guard, the Department is also directly concerned with the transportation of hazardous materials. These represent a po- tential, not only for ecological injury, but for serious, even cataclysmic damage to our ports and waterways. New commodities, the properties of which are not fully understood, are being manufactured and shipped in increasing quantities. Bulk carriage of these materials by water, particularly on the river systems and the intracoastal waterways, is Increasing. These hazardous materials in very large containers pass through many of our highly populated communities with little or no awareness cn the part of the authorities of the potential risks involved. The Coast Guard has undertaken to assure the containment of the cargo in the vessel or barge and the container, even under adverse conditions, by reculation, inspection, and enforcement of standards. The Coast Guard has also established a pilot hazardous materials advisory center in Houston whose functions include collecting informa- tion concerning the known physical characteristics of these materials, 132 appropriate handling practices, and pertinent casualty control measures. This data is disseminated to the watermen and others involved in transporting the materials. The center is telephonically available on a 24-hour-a-day basis for additional information. In the coastal zone, the increasing concentration of marine traffic has heightened the collision risks, which could in some cases involve sub- stantial spillage of oil or other deleterious material. Accordingly, the Coast Guard has developed and placed into effect a number of traffic separation schemes off major ports wherein separate one-way lanes are provided. These schemes have been established through the joint efforts of the private sector, port authorities, and interested Government agencies. These are not mandatory, but are in the nature of recommendations. We hope that this method will prove satisfactory. Attempts to impose mandatory control measures on vessels would not only entail a major change in our domestic legislation but would require international agreement as well. We intend to monitor the efficacy of these schemes very closely. At the same time, of course, we are actively pursuing new and better methods of aiding navigation, with particular attention upon the coastal zone. The Coast Guard has also been active in antipollution activities on the Great Lakes. Every major cutter and nearly all of the shore sta- tions have been involved at one time or another in activities related to limnological and pollution abatement research. Our contribution has been in the form of providing the necessary facilities for scientific and technical personnel from Federal agen- cles, State agencies, and university laboratories to obtain data and monitor natural processes. Turning to the other side of the coin, how do transportation ac- tivities affect the coastal zone and what is the role of the Department in attempting to minimize those effects? Perhaps the best example is the recently well-published problem of the Everglades and the proposed new jetport. Without going into all of the details as to how that problem arose and how it is being solved, the Everglades situation demonstrates why the Federal, State, and local governments must work closely to- gether in developing public facilities in recognition of their potential environmental impact. It is also a good case in point as te how we within the Federal Government have to work together to assure that all aspects of major public works projects are fully evaluated. Another example of transportation impact is the Federal highway program. Highways can have a significant effect on the coastal zone in two ways: (1) By opening up new coastal areas and encouraging their development, and (2) by the construction itself, which, through silting or changes in drainage, can change the ecology of a particular area. The coastal zone, of course, also includes the ports where the typical waterfront industrial complex occupies some of the most valuable land in the city. Changes in shipping and port operations have led to mak- ing these areas the most unattractive and rundown sections of the city. Abandoned piers, warehouses, and hulks cluttering the waterfront con- tribute to the general impression of decay and untidiness. Urban renewal and the recognition of potential benefits in planned use of waterfront property is necessary for corrective action and re- quires interagency action. The Department of Transportation through the Coast Guard, Railroad Administration, Urban Mass Transporta- tion Administration, and the Highway Administration 1s directly concerned with this area of major interface between transportation modes. The Arctic is a developing area of major concern to the Department of Transportation as well as to other Federal agencies. The petroleum discoveries in the Prudhoe Bay and the achievement of the “Man- hattan” in transiting the Northwest Passage have focused attention on the resource potential of the Arctic and sub-Arctic portion of the United States. The State of Alaska has a very large proportion of our coastal zone, most of which is as yet untarnished by the hand of man. Here we have an excellent opportunity to take advantage of the many errors that we have made in the “Lower Forty-Eight.” It is clear that Alaska has a tremendous potential which will be exploited. What we must do is assure that the exploitation is wisely planned and carried out. In the Department of Transportation we have made a number of studies concerning various aspects of the matter because transportation 1s the key to Alaskan development. We have worked closely with other agencies on these studies and will continue to do so in the future. We are exploring the concept of trans- portation corridors in order to minimize adverse impacts on the ecol- ogy. We are exploring alternative transportation modes seeking a balanced and effective mix. We are examining the problems involved in the establishment of ports where none have existed before. It 1s obvious that the other uses of the coastal zone must be taken into account in the development of Ajaska, and having a clean slate to work on, the opportunity is present now to do a good job of it. tn directing the Department to coordinate and promote transporta- tion development in the United States, the Congress was not unmind- ful of the need to develop transportation in a manner consistent with environmental! considerations. For example, section 4(f) of the Depart- ment of Transportation Act declares it to be the national policy that “special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and water- fowl refuges, and historic sites.” In line with this responsibility, Secretary Volpe has established within the Department the Office of the Assistant Secretary for En- vironment and Urban Systems. It is the responsibility of that office, among other things, to assure that procedures are established for the systematic consideration of the environmental aspects of all trans- portation activities carried out within the Department. While the Department can influence the direction of transportation development to take account of environmental considerations, its in- fluence is definitely limited. Much transportation development is either undertaken privately or at the initiative of State or local Govern- mental agencies, in some cases with a relatively small amount of Fed- eral assistance. While all of the Federal aid programs administered by the Depart- 134 ment require that transportation projects be consistent with local plan- ning, it is up to the local planning bodies to assure that the transporta- tion development included in their plans is consistent with broader environmental considerations. Needless to say, we have a long way to go in State and local planning in this regard. In our view, there is certainly a need for a national policy on the coastal zone. We need to develop national goals and policies for the multiple use, development, and conservation of the coastal zone, which is a valuable but threatened and diminishing national resource. Such national guidance is essential to effective planning by State and local agencies. The program recently announced by the Vice President is intended to meet this need. Under that proposal, grants would be made for the initial development by the States of planning and regulatory mechanisms and for the operation of the State management systems that are developed. The Department has had some experience in this type of joint Federal/State activity. While I am convinced that it can work, we should be under no illusions. It will take hard work on the part of all concerned to make it work well. In summary, I think the answer to the problem of coastal zone management lies in a clear understanding on the part of the public that mankind can no longer afford to be profligate in its expenditure of natural resources. We have done an incredible amount of damage to our environment and, in some cases, it is questionable whether we can reverse the process of decay even if we try. In most cases, however, it is not too late to reverse the trend. I think the interest and activity as demonstrated by today’s con- ference, and the actions of the administration to develop a long-term program as announced 10 days ago, are the best evidence that the public has become aware of the problem. The need now is to follow through in an effective way. Thank you very much. Dr. Coapman. Thank you very much. The next speaker will be the Honorable Russell Train, Under Secre- tary of the Department of the Interior. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Tratn. I am delighted to be present at this gathering this afternoon of State and local representatives from all over our country concerned with improving management of our estuarine and coastal areas. I cannot help but comment that all four of our departments, as you can gather, are very much involved, at times at least, with the same problems. We overlap; we interact. I know our own Department is very much involved with the Everglades Jet Port, with the Alaskan pipeline, dredge and fill permits, and so forth. The only point I am trying to make here is that I think that this fact of interrelationship points up one of the really very significant challenges that we all have today in the Federal Government, State, 135 and local governments—to design institutional mechanisms that make these separate agencies work together i in some effective way to carry out public policy| that we all want. T am sure that all of you are just as well aware as I am that our estuarine and coastal zones are a vital natural resource, and that as rich as they are in resources for man and nature, they. are equally sensitive and vulnerable to the damaging side effects of man’s and nature’s activities. Our coastal zone will have tremendous importance to the future of this country. The coastal environment is a breeding or nursery ground for most of our marine commercial and sport fisheries. It is the location of most of our marine oil and gas and other mining activities. Except for our Jakes and inland waters, it is the place where the aquatic environment is most threatened by man’s activities. It is a recreational area of rapidly growing importance. It is the place from which most of our growing “needs for water must be met. It is the arena in which our ability to cope with conflicting interests and uses of the environment will receive a major test. The future welfare of our Nation makes it imperative that we resolve the complex problems of the coastal zone. As the economic value of the estuarine zone rises, and population pressures increase, the conflicting and competing uses of these areas cannot help but increase in terms of continuously greater pressur housing and comme reial s ites, for marinas and harbors, for more aa larger power plants, and for deeper channels. The need for recreation itself in the estuarine and coastal zone grows by ee an a bounds, but the open space for it does not. My associate from the Department of Commerce mentioned that oe development and the protection of natural values of the coastal zone are or tend to be inconsistent with one another. T would like to comment, and not necessarily to take exception with that re- mark, but to pomt 2B I think, a very real aspect of the matter. That is to suggest that the supposed economic benefits are often, in fact, illusory or short term, and that the loss of natural areas or the disturbance of natural functionin g often has very real economic costs, although sometimes they are not readily apparent, and sometimes rather | long range, but nonetheless they are very real. I think all T want to suggest here is that in measuring economic benefits or weighing economic benefits in development programs we should be careful to utilize an economic measurement that more truly accounts for the kind of long-range course of benefits than are usually found in a typical GNP measurement. The fact is that present planning and development now proceeds on a piecemeal basis, with unplanned and unregulated modification of the estuarine and coastal zone. As a result, incompatible uses of the coastal areas often are developing adjacent to each other. We are in danger of allowing unfortunate destruction of fish and wildlife resources and the habitat on which they depend. We are losing forever the opportunity to set aside areas for recreational use, and we are permitting unnecessary damage to scenic areas and aesthetic qualities generally. There is obviously need for action. What is needed to combat the above situation, I feel, is to put into 136 effect a comprehensive national program for wise management of the coastal zone of the Nation, involving Federal, State, and local gov- ernments, and public and private interests in an appropriate manner. lts aim should be to permit the optimum use of this vital resource by recognizing the existence of competing uses and accommodating them through appropriate management, and further, to conserve these resources in such a manner as to keep open the options for various uses in the future and not foreclose them. This management system should recognize the primary role of the States in managing their resources, as well as the role of the Federal Government in protecting the wider national interest. I cannot in such a brief period develop the overall implementation of such a program. It should contain at least the following elements: A national policy. Legislative authorization te carry out the program’s functions. Development of the basic knowledge necessary for effective management. Provisions for comprehensive planning and implementation. Active administration in terms of regulation, control, and co- ordination. Financial and manpower resources. Public awareness and acceptance. The States have primary authority in the control and use of their coastal resources. Therefore, there is little doubt that they must play the key roles in any management program. The proper role for the Federal Government is, in my judgment, primarily to provide initia- tive, guidance, and support to the States in managing these resources. By virtue of the numerous activities of the bureaus and offices in the Department of the Interior, the Department already has a deep involvement in efforts to achieve wise management of the estuarine and coastal zone. Interior’s programs are planned and managed to meet expanding national needs for material, esthetic, and environ- mental resources and qualities afforded by the estuarine and coastal areas. The Department of the Interior is the major civilian agency in oceanic affairs. A conservative estimate of our budget for marine pro- grams is about $80 to $100 million, which is 35 to 40 percent of the total civilian budget for oceanography. If seashore land acquisition for public recreation is included, and we add also all activities of the Water Pollution Control Administra- tion that relate in any way to the marine environment, the Depart- ment’s total marine resources budget is at least twice the amount quoted, More than a dozen bureaus and offices in the Department have marine resource responsibilities. t These very broad and diverse responsibilities require close coordi- nation. Differences can arise between commercial and sport fisheries. Development of marine oil and gas resources, if not carefully planned and managed, can create conflicts with fisheries and recreation, and, I might add, even sometimes when carefully planned and managed. Water pollution threatens other uses of the marine environment. Tnterior’s experience in resolving such conflicts, and in coordinating its diverse interests in the environment, has made this Department especially qualified to resolve resource-use conflicts. We are learning to anticipate the problems so that measuzes can be taken in advance to alleviate them. We have had a long and successful record of cooperation with other Federal agencies, the States, universities, industry, and public groups. Our relationships with the Navy and the State Department have been especially close. The Department of Transportation, throu ch the Coast Guard, has been extremely helpful in monitoring fishing oper- ations off our coast and in enforcing fishery regulations. The Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior have many joint marine programs which reinforce the capabilities of both agencies. We cooperate with NASA, AEC, NSF, Smithsonian Institution, and other specialized Federal agencies and maintain close working relations with the States as well. Altogether, Interior has been a leader in marine affairs and interagency cooperation for many years. Turning to the specifics of the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, the organizational recommenda- tions in chapter 7 have attracted widespread attention. The Commis- sion report abounds with references to the National Oceancgraphic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), as if the Commission had, in fact, decided that creation of a new agency was imperative. Actually, Dr. Stratton has said several times that the Commission recognized that the responsibility for civilian ocean affairs micht be delegated to an existing agency, but thst this solution would require major reorganization. and that reorganization of any existing agency which had statutory responsibility for nonmarine matters was beyond the terms of reference of the commission. I think it will be wise to consider whether a new agency is really necessary. To us it appears to separate resource programs which had better be grouped together. If this Nation is te be successful in solv- ing the complex problems of the environment, it should take the total environmental approach in its programs and in its organization, and not separate the ocean and the atmosphere from the land and fresh waters. in summary, I know I do not need to repeat my own concern for management of our coastal areas. I am equally sure that all of you fully share that concern. Development and implementation of sound programs for management of these pressure resources will require a long period of devoted work. I hope that this program in Washington will spur vou on in undertaking that work and in achieving successful results which are so important to the future of this country. Thank you very much. Dr. Cuarpman. Thank you very much, Mr. Train, for a very inter- esting presentation. What we are now going to do is open the floor to questions and com- ments, hoping to have enough time to handle everybody. There is a picture that will be shown when we complete our session this afternoon for those hardy souls who still wish to participate, but I would much rather have an active and lively discussion this afternoon than see moving pictures myself. : We will now entertain any comments or questions from the ficor, but before doing so, I have a comment or twotomake myself. As a good many of you know, I spend about a third of my time on 138 the State level in California, and about a third on the national level in various advisory capacities around town, and about a third of the time working with international agencies on ocean research. As a consequence, I see a rather board cut of what goes on. I am not very pleased about the effect of the U.S. activities in respect of the ocean and its use. Our commercial fisheries have stayed approxi- mately static for a little over 30 years. Our merchant marine has deteri- orated sharply. It can’t be kept alive without heavy subsidies. Our environment, as Mr. Train said, and which I can vouch for, is going to pot rapidly, more rapidly than we are learning how to take care of it. Our fisheries have decreased not only from bad economic treatment, but also from overfishing, bad management practices, or lack thereof. T particularly do a good deal of work with Russian colleagues in ocean research and fishery development fields. It is somewhat irritating to me to see the Russians moving ahead so vigorously in all aspects of the use of the sea. They passed us a long time ago in fisheries. They are passing us presently in merchant marine. While we are laying up our new research vessels, they are launching new ones, better than the ones we are laying up. Their environmental sciences are going ahead more rapidly than ours, in my opinion. The Russian Navy seems to be moving ahead fairly accurately. T just don’t like the posture of the United States in respect to the ocean. I think we are doing poorly at home and poorly abroad. I think one of the reasons for this is that we depend upon the executive branch of the U.S. Government for a great deal of our stimulation, guidance, and so forth, and we get very little in the ocean field. First off, we don’t get any money. The taxes go to the Federal Gov- ernment, but we don’t get very much back in handling our ocean responsibilities. The Bureau of the Budget bas been notably reluctant to Iet any money out in this field. There has been a flat level for 4 years, no matter what the propaganda says, In ocean research, and we are not setting any better. The token statement the other day cf the Vice President didn’t make me happy at all. Included in this for the funding for the Inter- national Decade of Ocean Exploration was the U.S. funding, and it is being funded at a much lower level than the scientists who were asied to direct the program said was possible. There is no program or laboratory in the United States that is not starved for money. As I say, we are laying up research vessels. Our programs are floundering. The young people we have educated are looking for other employment opportunities after we have trained them. So T am not happy with all this business. I would like to entertain some comments from the audience. Dr. Knauss ? Dr. Kavauss. You have indicated that the President and Vice Presi- dent accepted one part of the Stratton Commission report with respect to encouraging the States to establish coastal programs. There was another part of that recommendation which indicated there should be 2 single Federal agency that should be the interface for these coastal management authorities. It was indicated there were something like 24 Federal committees 139 and agencies that are involved in the coastal zone. It was indicated that this single Federal agency should have responsibility for review by giving the grants or withholding the grants and, therefore, try to exercise some aspects of the national interest; that this agency “should assist the coastal zone authority in resolving problems resulting from divergent objectives of other Federal agencies, and that this single agency should be responsible for the planning and coordination of Federal activity in the coastal zone outside the State jurisdiction.” I am wondering if any of you would be willing to discuss the other aspects of this, whether or not there is a need or necessity of having a single agency in Washington that would interact and to do the other things that were recommended by the Commission. I address that question to ali four of you. Mr. Tratn. I am sure everybody is going to want to say something. Tt seems to me that we definitely need one single lead agency, but just offhand it would strike me as being impractical to think in terms of one Federai coastal zone authority that would comprise within its organization and functions ail coastal zone activities ot the Federal Government. I just den’t think it is feasible. I would say there should be a lead agency located somewhere in the Federal Government that would have the responsibility for administer- ing this program, and with a responsibility for bringing some kind of coordination to the activities of the agencies which le outside of its actual organization. Does that address itself to the question, Dr. Knauss ? Dr. Kyauss. We didn’t assume that there would be one agency that would exercise all the activity. What we suggested was that there should be one agency which acted as interface in resolving problems. 1 think, for example, we heard today that Texas has, in fact, begun to get its house together by actually putting together something like a coastal zone authority. In that connection, I believe the Governor has written to Secretary Hickel asking him if he can delegate one person in Interior with whom he can deal on these problems, because there are so many agencies within Interior. The question 1s whether or not there should be a single agency that would: have the responsibility; and also a single agency that would be responsible for the problems of development, planning, and coordi- nation of other Federal activities. No one has suggested that there should be one agency that does all the work. Mr. Tratn. Let me hasten to say I know of the letter from the Governor, and the Secretary has answered the letter. He has designated the Office of Marine Resources as the contact point within the Depart- ment, at least for the present. I will give somebody else a chance to take a stab at this. Dr. Cuarman. Colonel McGuinness? Colonel McGuinness. The question, I think, addresses itself to the very much repeated statement that Federal and non-Federal people, upon looking at what is happening in the coastal zone, have identified 22 or more Federal agencies working in there, and it has become very to find all Federal agencies exercising their functional roles in this area. The coastal zone is a geographic concept. I would submit to you that if you would want to draw a circle around the desert zone, the moun- 140 tain zone, the Southeastern States, or what have you, you should expect to find all Federal agencies exercising their functional roles in this area. The identification of interfaces and the need for coordination dees not necessarily carry with it the conviction that these problems should be resolved by changing basic functions. It may carry with it the con- viction that these interfaces are important enough and you need a basis of CoO udane One You have to then ask, are there coordinating devices around? Are they adequate for the job 4 If we are going to make them more adequate, give them more author- ity. At the State level, { think most people ‘would say that the Delaware- type commission certainly | has more authority to get things done than the River Basin Plannning Commission, but it also requires a certain amount of sovereignty and tying of many, many pieces together in a different, unesnventional way. it Pernice rece ne ons pr blems in orga- nization, or it could create them. So the question is not an easy one to answer. i would answer it this way: If, indeed, the interrelationships in any geographical part of the country are important enough to put im geogra rphic schemes super- imposed upon a functional organization, then the answer is yes. But you have to consider the implications of that question. Thank you. Dr. Carman. I would like to comment on this before asking for another volunteer. One of the more vigorous aspects of U.S. industry is that if a division or activity is not making a profit, not werking very well, it gets reorga- nized, just on the general principle of “Shake the boys up, change them around, something better might happen.” This goes on time and again. If the apparatus still does not work, it gets changed again. My point is that the executive branch of the U.S. Government is not working and has not worked effectively in respect to the use of the ee TL think it ought to be shaken up very thoroughly. Tripus. This question of how to be organized to relate to the Re ae of our society puts me in mind of a new toy they have for children to prepare them for adult life. No matter how you assemble it, it is wrong. ‘No matter how we visualize to organize this Government to respond to the problems that are posed by the coastal zone or any other zone, we run into the fact that from one point of view it is going to look right and from another point of view it is going to look wrong, So ho matter how we organize, we also have to develop some coordinating mechanism, There isn’t any way out of that. Then that leads you to the question: Why would anybody want to organize around the coastal zone, the coastal zone management area of some sort? I think there are some good reasons to sug’ orest. As you can see from my remarks, I am talking about starting from what the problem is and building up an organization and a response to it that reflects the needs, and seeing where we get. Form follows function philosophy. First of all, when I think of a coastal zone, I think of some adjacent land area and I think of going out to sea a distance. I don’t want to talk about managing the interface only. There is nothing to that inter- face. It is a little bit behind the land and somewhat out to sea. We 14] nave to decide how far to go. We have to decide, fer example, why, if we extend too far, we lose the ori ginal problem. Take the San Francisco o Bay area, for example, where I have some familiarity. If you staré talking in the management of that area all the problems of the community and developments and get clear back to the Walnut Hills behind the mountains, in such a large area you lose the original problem that motivated y ou. On the other hand, if you don’t take in enough area, then you ob- viously are not taking into account all the fact ors that affect the zone. So any division we make is going to be artificial and unsatisfactory from one point of view or another, and yet there is a logic to organiz- ing first the lower level on what I would call the natural unit. I know that the plan is for the State of California to be i: ae as the Vice President announced, that initially they wall make grants to the State of California, that if ,100 miles of oceanfront is go ae He have some activity So will the State of New Hampshir G5 with 11 miles of oceanfront. T suspect within the State of California we would find it reasonable and proper to develop subunits which focus on a particular ecological, natural system, and I suspect that in the New Hanmshire area they will find it extremely useful to get together with a neighboring State and focus on the natural system that they deal with which obvious! sly is very much related with what goes on in Maine. In any event, that forms a focus for several kinds of activity: it forms a focus for what seems to be emereing, a new political con- stituency, and ecological constituency that Sweeps across po: iitical and economic boundaries, and has no concern for it. For the people who care, who came together and say, “We care about this particular territory,” jt forms a natural basis for the devo! pment of laboratories and for the development of data gathering systems, for data banks, for simulations, for economic and ecological studies, and the interactions of them. When I spoke earlier of the conflict between these uses 1 meant the conflict in the sense that the private users and private economies see it and they see the ecological questions as being analogous. I am also taking into account that when you try to take a global view of it, you discover 3 you have grand phrases but you have no basis for real decision- making. We haven’t learned how to do it on a local basis. This is what I meant by the conflict. But this becomes a place in which we can get all the facts and } beein to ask what is the impact of our decisionmaking. That has to be funded by someone and this initial start, which calls for a joint funding by the States and the Federal Government, is probably as good a way to start as any. Now the activities of all of these coastal zone management works clearly have to be contrasted and have to be studied, have to be cam- pared, what is done in one region has to be transferred to another region; if it doesn’t occur naturally there should be someone to en- courage it. Some regions will be more diligent than others. There will be need to take action more swiftly in some areas than perhaps the States want to go. As a result of ail that, there is going to have to be some place in Washington that is concerned with that question. That organization 37—487—69——10 Tipe ae oh irst, 142 will have to have some money to do it with. So we come very quickly to the notion that we do need some centralization of that function here in Washington to deal with these regions. As soon as we start to design this division in Washington, we run into some very difficult problems which are not all called by the fact that the various people in the bureaucracies want to keep what they have. Some of these problems arise in the following way: If we want to develop, say, in the San Francisco region, and it is a coastal zone problem in the San Francisco Bay area, but it is a region for shipping, a region for shipping of various kinds of transportation, so the Departmen t of Trans portation has to be involved. It is a region for commercial development. It is a region in which somebody is meas- uring the flow of ne water and so on. The Department of Commerce has to be involved. Various departments will have to be involved. If you take all the Wine away from these departments and make a super- department, you discover that it now doesn’t make good sense. So there has to be a coordination mechanism. At this point T want to stop for a very simple reason. The question of precisely what response we made to the Stratton Commission report is now in the hands of the committee, the committee to which I proba- bly would report. It doesn’t report to me so Lam in no position to an- ticipate its findings. But one thing i am quite sure of; no matter how you slice it up, the problems of society do not and can not square di- rectly with the divisions we make in ‘the government. Therefore, we are going to have to be content with something that looks somewhat different, I imagine, than the Stratton Report’s recommendations. Fhe main reason that I think we are going to find a difference— and how big it is I don’t know—is this: the thrust of the Stratton report is essentially to do something about our relationship to the oceans, because we must. But it is not really couched in terms whici say, for example, how do we best deploy our efforts to develop our commercial activities, or how do we best deploy our efforts to get a multiplying effect for evel ry dollar the Federal Government spends, that there will 2 more dollars spent by the private sector. It is not necessary that it should have had that thrust. But, clearly, some people have to take that view. Therefore, as we go forw -ard into finding the right organization with which to grapple with this problem, I think there will be some compromises from the Stratton view. But I think the principle enunciated there, namely, to find a central foeus for these problems, is a valid one, and I support it as I have in previous testimony. Is that responsive ? Dr. Cuapman. Thank you. Myr. Breas. It seems te me that the problem we are addressing our- selves to today in coastal zone management involves the basic problem of how you form an effective theme between the Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. Most of our major cities are located within the; ZONe, and, indeed, their areas are causing perhaps greatest damage to the coastal zones. This problem of attacking the environmental problems in the coastal zone is much the same as many of the other urban problems with which we are trying to grapple. I fail to see how the creation of still another executive agency is going to solve that problem. It is a prob- 143 jem that we have not yet solved effectively in working on all of our urban problems, in working on all the problems that we have in the partnership that should and does exist between the Federal, State, and local levels. I think we have to do a great deal more in exploring ways and means of setting up an effective management system that will enable us to work together on the many, many problems that we have in this urban society which we have and are still in the process of creating. We have created a number of executive departments over the past decade. The department with which I am associated is only two and a half years old. Now we are talking about restructuring this one a little bit or reshaping that one. I am not saying that this might not be a good idea. I realize many possibilities for restructuring the Federal Gov- ernment that conceivably would werk better. But 1 submit to you that the structure we have has not yet had sufficient time, nor have we run out of the experiments that we are trying to conduct. There has been an enormous amount of legislation in the environ- mental bilis put on the statute books in the last 2 or 3 years. We have not had sufficient time to work out an effective relationship yet with these laws. | would submit to you that perhaps we ought to try to grapple with this problem within the structure we have while trying to progress on this basic problem of how do we manage this system on a team basis, bringing all of the governments at varying levels together. Dr. CHapman. I want to make one more comment that just ran through my mind. I have in my pocket a little key ring that was given to me a week ago in Rome. It is to commemorate the seagoing study tour on board an academic ship. This was a trip made for the purpose of training oceanographers and biological oceanographers in the developing countries. There were students on board from 12 devel- oping countries. The voyage was made down through the central Atlantic, and the coastal work was done off the coast of Brazil. Té was one of the nicest programs of coastal oceanography that I have seen. hen 1t came up through the Caribbean, offloaded every- body on the east coast of Mexico. As the students went off, they had a report about 2 inches thick. It is not padded. It is a good, solid report of the results from that trip that the students had participated in, with charts, graphs, and data all worked up in Spanish. The reason for bringing this up is because this is one field that we don’t work well in. In the first place, we are laying up our research vessels the same size as that vessel, whereas that one is one of a dozen new ones being put to sea by the Russians. We couldn’t manage a trip of that nature to get that international public relations effect. JT am quite sure that there are so many problems involved in the organization of Government we cannot do anything about it, but that is one of the things that bothers me a little bit. Mr. pr Sparn. In listening to the presentation today, I am reminded of some things that Dr. Wenk said in his introductory remarks to this series of meetings. When you enter a wilderness, as our ancestors did, you are faced with very few basic things you need. You really only need three or four things to survive. You need air that will sustain you, the kind you can breath and survive on. That is very quick. Water 144 is something that is kind of next in line, and without that you are in trouble very quickly. You can get along for about a month in the wilderness, if you keep your wits ‘about you, without food. You can survive for te a while. And you need some kind of protection against the elements or against the adversaries. We have Representa- tives in the House to take care of us on a national scale. Then Dr. Wenl: referred to, one, the things that we have to worry about, and he naz.ed ess sentially four things I have to take note of. One was neglect, \,hich Dr. Chapma 1M was talking about, 1gnorance— the educa tional needs we have, rivalry, and human greed. I think in our efforts to achieve the first four we are in that kind of wilderness where we don’t recognize the dangers, because they are insidious, we don’t know about them for perhaps 30, years after being subjec ted to them. So we have a new set of standards to be aware of in our modern society. But f think im solving this kind of problem we are talking about today, for a long way in the future, we should look to those four basic needs and at the same time look to see that we don’t need these four items: Neglect, ignorance, greed, or rivalry. Mr. Porro. I think it 1s very unfair to answer the question that Dr. Knaues set forth with regard to the recommendation for a new agency. Tt was, namely, by limiting the answer to the coastal zone. I think that the volumes that back up the report demonstrate that we are not just talking about the coastal zone when the recommendation of NOAA . was put forth, but, a subject matter that was much more iia of the oceanogr raphic and atmospheric problems, and so forth. ¥ think perhaps if we were just to look at the coastal zone alone and say that was the only problem, maybe we could fit 1t in somewhere ina notch, in a proposed lead agency. I think as to many areas of progress that we have witnessed in this country, we find that a probler nm area grows to the degree that all of © sudden everyone starts truthfully waking up to the fact that it needs some particular and special treatment. T think that that is re ally what is behind the whole report. Therefore, I would like to rephrase . Knauss’ question as a result of the answers, and say: Do any of aie departments that are represented here today feel that the problems, the subject matter that was discussed in the report, that their par- ticular department is prepared to take on that task, the overall task of the ocean, the atmosphere problems, and the coastal zone ? Dr. Crapman. That isa good question. Colonel McGutnness. The answer is no. Mr. Tratn. Or it may be yes. Colonel McGuinness. We have a clear division of opinion. Mr. Trisus. I think the question you are asking puts several of us in a difficult position, because the question will be “answered at a level higher than we are. I think speaking for the Department of Commerce, we would be quite pleased if we were asked to do this. You know, there are about 3 million Federal employees. Those of us who come in to serve as part of the administration attempt to serve as a team, attempt to find the things we should do for the good of the country, and try to persuade all the people who were here before us, and who will be here after many of us are gone, as to what direction we ought to go in. In that context, I would say that the people in the Department of 145 Commerce want to help with this issue. Tf the President and his ad- visors decide they would like us in the Department of Commerce to do it, we would be delighted to do it. If it turns out that some other course 1s required, we will support that. However, I think within the Department there are a lot of people who have had a long concern with the ocean, a long history of involve- ment with it, and would be delighted to have it in the Department of Commerce, just as the Department of the Interior. That is about as good an answer as you can get today, given the decision situation. Mr. Porro. How about the Department of Transportation 4 Mr. Brees. We would be delighted. | Mr. Porro. No one disputes that each one of the departments here today has effectively made a role as part of an overall time, the point being that if we break it up into seements I think those segments have been well represented in the individual departments. But what we are saying is that now the problem of the oceans, the problem of the coastal zones as a whole system has, at least on the factual matter that has been presented in the report, gained the status of being a whole subject matter. I don’t think there is a soul that is saying that as a result of achieving this status, all other departments should be stripped as to the particular segments, and that they particularly should perhaps retain this. But T think it is a very weak subiect to say that what is needed is some further coordination. My view of it is that just strictly a coordinating type of group is a very weak group. Dr. CHapman. Thank you very much. Mr. Epwarps. I might say T am secretary of the Oregon Senate and have a committee on submerged and submersible lands planning and coastal zoning. We share many of our problems with an area to the north which seceded and became a State in 1889—-Washington. We have the same estuarine and also share the same boundaries. I think Oregon is unique, and maybe singularly, in that we are a State where the public owns the beaches. Oregon also is undertaking a kind of do-it-yourself program. In 1969 it set up this study committee. They also enacted a law for coastal and State zoning. They gave the committee responsibilities that were plain but money that was little. We have heard very learned expert identification of all of the prob- lems of the coastal zone. We have heard enlightened practitioners, lead- ers and scientists in Government discuss solutions. Many of them have been on the same track, some almost repetitive. We haven’t heard any- one talk about any avenues to get funds to commence now to finish the job. We do hear about NOAA, maybe like the ark that is going to float 2 long time before it comes to land. The question I have, which I pose to everyone up there, is this: Do you have any department or division that a State like Oregon, which is undertaking this kind of a program, or any other State, could submit a proposal fer funding and aid? In view of the fact that the Federal Government is interested I want to know if they are interested financially and what can be done at this time. Mr. Trrsus. I don’t know the particulars in Oregon, as to whether \ 146 you qualify for assistance, assistance from the economic development authority. I know it is a beautiful State, but not too prosperous. Perhaps you can get help from EDA. I am not saying that they have money specifically for this purpose. It turns out, though, that funds have been made available for them for economic developments. Some of those funds, as I pointed out, have been for the develop- ment of various things along the seacoast. Dr. Cuarman. I think really the answer to his question is there are a number of programs from which States can and do get assistance in this respect. It really just happens presently that there isn’t very much money in any of them. EDA, I think, is a little bit better off. Presently, we can’t get money into these ocean-oriented and coasta!- oriented projects. That is the big problem. Mr. Epwarps. I am sure we all want to express appreciation for all the high echelon department people and scientists who helped make this such a great success. It has been a great educational thing for me. Dr. Coarpman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Wittiam Hares. [ am representing the State of Virginia and IT am also chairman of the Council of Maritime States, Common- weaiths and Territories. I am sure that many of us are aware that the States have similar problems as the Federal Government is facing right now when they consider the question of will there or will there not be a single agency within the State that has responsibility over marine affairs or, in this case, coastal zone affairs. I don’t know that all of us will come to the same conclusions. I doubt that any of us will develop full executive State authorities or offices at the cabinet level. We will, however, probably approach it from a point of view of some coordination with the Federal Government. T can’t offer much illumination beyond that on solution of the Fed- eral Government’s probiem. I can concur with the gentleman from Oregon. That is that until NOAA floats, if it ever does, we would like to have identified a source or some major source within the Federal Government. We would like even more importantly to have sufficient funds appro- priated to these activities from which we can draw, with ample State support—and the States have to support this. I think these things have to come along before the Federal coordination problems are solved, if they ever will be. We need people with ideas, with will and with energy, and we need support. We need support for personnel. We need support for facilities. We need money. Congress must, the Executive must, provide these things if we are really going to get moving. This is not just a problem of re- search. It is a problem of trying to deal with real problems, real people, real industries, and in a real time frame. We are losing ground. I think the best thing this group could do would be to follow Dr. Chapman’s theme: Money, support, and some identification of avenues. Dr. Cuapman. Is there any other speaker? Mr. Jones. Tam from New Hampshire. I would like to correct the record, Mr. Chairman. We have 18 miles 147 of coastline, and we are trying to cooperate with our sister States of Massachusetts and Maine to get some type of coordinating effort. I would specifically like to address the group in the sense that we have just constructed a laboratory called the Jackson Estuarine Lab- oratory, largely with National Science Foundation funds. We have 40 to 50 highly qualified professors in the area of science and technology. One of my jobs in coming to Wi ashington, in addition to this meet- ing, is to try to obtain. funding £ for the labor atory as a whole. To thread one’s way thr ough ( the mystic maze of all the various agen- cies in Washington that do ‘provide support in this area is confusing and very time consuming. I think we would be we: ay ahead in the areas of State support and university support if some central agency could clear these types of programs rather than having many overlapping areas, and particularly in the area of basic research, in understanding of the various processes taking place in estuarine and ocean phenomena. Dr. CHapaan. Gentlemen, you are all very busy men. We have done very well to hold you here for this length of time, but this is all you have signed on for. You have four or five more questioners. We will take 10 more minutes. Make it short and come on. Mr. Cunsertson. It seems tome that the reason that we have failed at some of these things is because we are not set up properly. We are talking about coastal zones here. Many of these fish that we have to manage and take care of are not native to any of the States, but they are migratory. T speak first of the great sardine resource of California that we have lost. It used to go all the way up into British Columbia. We have a similar resource on the Atlantic and on the Gulf. They are not native to any States. They don’t lend themselves to study like they should because of that. On Federal responsibilities, we are talking about coastal manage- ment. I don’t know that you have the same problem. The coasts will still be there, but these resources, some of them, will not be there. If we had taken care of these two that I am speaking of, they, today, could be producing over four billion pounds of fish. That is as much as we are producing all together. Just an an illustration, I was associated for many years with Alaska. The coastline there is just as great as it is in all of the United States. The management of coastal areas there was divided into a dozen or more districts. They were under the same jurisdiction. You didn’t have to get permission from some State down the line to study or manage these resources. Tt seems to me that we need to get a better base from which to operate. I don’t know that that is the problem here. But I wanted to mention that. I think certainly the coastal management of the fisheries is cer- tel very important. Dr. Cuapman. Thank you. Mr. Ray Lennon. Dr. Chapman, I am chairman of the Texas House of Representatives Interim Study Committee on Oceanogra- phy. I am not an oceanographer or scientist. I am a businessman. All I hear is problems here. I came looking for some solutions. Somebody has to be the head man someplace. At some point in time fond 48 it appears there should be national policy. I haven’t been associated with oceanography for an extended period of time. But all I hear is problems, problems. With this mass of intelligence that is here, it would appear that somebody would say specifically: “This is what we ought to do.” It may be a wrong course at some point in time, but you can always correct your course , 1 find. But I haven’t seen a great deal of movement here. It appears s there either has to be an agency or a coordinating agency so that we can find out from these people what you can do back in your State and how you can be funded. If you have to go to one, then two, then three, right down the line, hunting like in blind man’s bluff, I don’t know how 3 you can ever get out of this quagmire. But it appears to me, as a businessman, that somebody has to make a decision and stop restating the same problems over and over again. That is all I heard. I saw you at the MTS conference at Miami and heard the same thing. I heard the same people, or a number of them, stating the same problem. You are backtaiking to one another again. I hope I don’t offend anybody. This might ‘be in bad form. Some- body ought to make a decision either in the legislative or the executive branch of the Government. These people here ought to try to press for a decision and offer specific solutions instead of reiterating the same problems. Dr. CHarman. Sir, I would just like to call your attention that you will have a copy of the hearings sent to you of last night, and you will see some recommendations that I made, and my own difficulty is [ can’t get people to adopt them. Mr. Lennon. I would like to try them on for size. Mr. Harotp Bisseri. I am representing Governor Reagan and the Lieutenant Governor today. The Lieutenant Governor has already appeare ed before the subcommitee and has testified concerning the bill that would establish NOAA. I have a statement that I will not read. IT would like to make a few comments. I will quote some of the Governor’s message that he gave to the legislature when he set up last winter a department of navigation and ocean development in California. Among other things he said “IT propose the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development would have the continuing responsibility for implementation of this plan.” Then he goes on to say “The Department of Navigation and Ocean Development will be the key to California’s ocean future.” The report, “Our Nation and the Sea”, calls for coastal manage- ment, which would provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants in aid to facilitate the establishment of coastal zone authorities empowered to manage the coastal zones. The report goes on to state that “The key functions will be to coordi- nate plans for uses of coastal waters and adjacent lands”. California has its department, the navigation and ocean develop- ment, or as of November 11, it will be effective, and there no doubt will be Federal legislation creating the coastal zone management act. In California, the Department of Navigation and Ocean Develop- ment has been ‘desionated by the administration to be the coastal zone authority. We feel the coastal zone authority should be an arm of the executive branch of the Government, responsible in a direct line 149 to the Governor. The present department of navigation and ocean development is only a beginning. It has the power to plan, regulate and require and develop. Because of both Federal and State jurisdic- tions, this coastal zone authority concept must be a joint venture and, therefore, jointly funded. We have reviewed the report and we agree with the majority of the recommendations. I have already referred to the Lieutenant Governor having already appeared to comment on the bill. Our objective in California will be to tailor a coastal zone authority for maximum benefit in conforming to the recommendations of Con- gress. We would expect to participate to the extent that funds are provided by Congress and intend to continue to move aggressively at the State level. Thank you. Dr. Cuapman. Thank you. Mr. 'Tsomas Sopprrr. I would like to state as a matter of record that the State of Georgia has created the management system to co- ordinate with the Federal Government in management of coastal zones. This agency is called the Ocean Science Center of the Atlantic Commission. It has been given broad guidelines by the State legis- lature. I would like to submit the guidelines for the record, to show that the State of Georgia is prepared to coordinate with the Federal Government, when the Federal Government gets an agency that we can get some funds from. Dr. Cuapman. Thank you. Tt want to thank very much the gentlemen who have been with us this afternoon, who participated so frankly. I know how busy you all are. I know we all appreciate your com- ing here to be with us. (The following material was received for inclusion in the record :) ATTENDANCE LIST AT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RODE MB ADCs aoe Sea Grant Pregram. DD) RAS PAN aTIIGY th2 he MOLG ARIAS mind Wilmington, N.C. WewismeAlliexan der eats ee University of Rhode Island. DBAs PAU Oy isis ee SE ale Se AS University of North Carolina. Johnie Andersons] ae Virginia. NVA MATT GETS Orie Hs) 4 ok on ce ie Alabama. \nvalbienaa die Aadays Indiana. DaATAS AG, Avy MAS, Washington, D.C. Arthur J. Arseneault, Jr___________ Science & Technology Commission, Georgia. MirnsheAtidireys Acyersu— 2 usr sa es League of Women Voters Education Fund. Charles=Beardenwes2 aes South Carolina. Hon. James M. Beggs________-___ Under Secretary, Department of Transporta- tion. Walliams See is ell ere ate une eae Hawaii. red enickels Claire anes eke Coastal Plains Center for Marine Resources, Washington, D.C. Ea rold Bissell See seek edie tea State of California. BAIN G ead S171 f<( Ween ar een ye meaner ne RINT = Ree i California Advisory Commission. OMIM IC WALT oe Ocean Science News. Stephen S. Boynton _____~_----- Office of Senator E. F. Hollings, South Carolina. Ralph we Braver.0e Boo eis Duke University. Morris L. Brehmer_______________- Virginia. Aone Wd ISO WAN Division of Commercial & Sport Fisheries. North Carolina. 150 ‘CB TISSmann ae ee ee Virginia. JONMUB yTnNe S22 eee Sl Oregon. Je) MemCal dwells s2iiat 2a eae U.S. Army Hngineers, Coastal Engineering & Research Center. Tonnes Calhounss =. 22 eevee Texas A & M University. John, Cappers. 22 .- es eo Maryland. DAU Cd Maoae( Ore aig SY cao nea aie a Department of the Interior. de Ean Oa wh 31) aie po ie ine ee at TE EL Travelers Research, Hartford, Connecticut. WAM @ ha pinnate ee eee California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources. Je poet Olobworthya se. see Florida. Asie | COLAGLUSSO= = sti: atte een Durham Morning Herald, North Carolina. Bert -COlek ae eee Washington. Iso (Chonan, diese Department of Resources and Wconomic Development, New Hampshire. John VE. Dolamw=s2 2)" 22s. eel State of California. CeoreemeD Oumar ee eee LRS, Library of Congress. \Wwallllgneol 1D), IDO Sea Wlorida. Robert: Doyles. Awe eet es Office of Science & Technclogy, State of Maine. EG We) ub ach ees Coastal Plains Region Commission, Wash- ington, D.C. MWi%o do: IDxnoKolikegorn Conservation Foundation. Calvin’ B. Dunwoody___-__ = Department of Natural Resources, Rhode Island. Cecil eh dWwantd S22. ae Oregon. (Cngbaitpan(Oh IOWANS dips Washington. RIB Vere it sis a ee ee Council on Marine Resources, Mississippi. George: We Marwell= 2-222 University of Washington. IDS AME eS a ee See Massachusetts Port Authority. Georze Creed elena American Management Association. Verb er Gero lai¢ Cae ae Oregon. Seu? Aro SES SE eh ee Department of Natural Resources, Colum- bus, Chio. Pata, Ug ates ist crea tart es sich b Jackson, Mississippi. D EeCa DMPA Le SNR SR et Sa ee og pyle Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. MIRA NG ATIC sees eee a eu Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy. Elliman G. Og oie see ne eee Maine Sea & Shore Fisheries, Maine. Stanley R. Goodnow — —-------=— Maine. is mG OOO) isa cl eee a ae Great Lakes Commission. IRyy Jd me (Cheyer 1 es a New England River Basin Commission. idehyaha “Wb JehacwG Resources for the Future. © (Bena 22-2 eae ad Sepeneet st Ocean Science News. IPI Jel, eee nel North Carolina. ANY oe iad. s CNRS fp pee eee er ee Ey oh Panel Member, Virginia. Crivell, Ison ee Swedish Embassy. LBWEHKES, diol masons Florida. 1d, AWVNnoIn, Ako N. C. State University. Gallen lal Tomegeg a New Hampshire. UMAGA ID, keine se North Carolina. SEG 10 Le 70 SRC il] (yee Mayor’s Office, New York City. Russell ei 2a es ee National Academy of Engineering, Califor- nia Marine Commission. JONMEIPAR BG AUS Sis ee ee University of Rhode Island. ID IO, 1B a eOl Special Consultant, Marine Council, Univer- sity of Texas. HCO ET, ESOT C2: CY ee California. Samuel A. Lawrence__-=_________ Saguenay Shipping, Ltd. INGhy JA, IU @raTTboN OGL Texas. Dae a Weyyee ona eee ee Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. VV piililitcaran isle spy Seen er cas Port of New Orleans, La. Ahovay WWI, Unb avol overeat Washington State. MM NOMA IO, Wihaioy oh North Carolina. AOlaba” BO yaoake ore Ne ee ees Do. I, Gh IMieNig mange New Jersey. 151 Ste i INE Cale coasters Seek ee Coastal Plains Regional Commission. WAR BIMiG (1S lay 2228 es 2 a Maryland. CPE McConnell Sete as Pennsylvania. ‘Col. William V. McGuinness, Jr.__ Corps of Engineers. MAS UM CTE eo glauca aie he Cape Fear Laboratory, N.C. Charlies Maechling, Jr-___________ National Science Foundation. ey OL) rae Ora TES ML TS REI 1 Office of Congressman Paul Rogers. INelsonw Marshall wea see University of Rhode Island. Dorothy “Morrell es eee Washington. Maunence) Hy Mot eae ees Wisconsin. Jerome P. Mullings_______________ Georgteown University. Dr. Herbert L. Myers____________ Maritime Administration. EUS ae Vy. ers 2 oie eee Po ea Louisiana Department of Public Works. Lawrence Nakatsuka____________ Office of Senator Fong. evineNewhouses. so) woe ae Washington State. Wallace H. Noerenberg__________ Alaska. Donwldwey Norling was ea Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Med" Pankowskilou ss _ Sess ee Izaak Walton League. RetereVie Perce vales a eee eee University of West Florida. Paulie CPE ls OGLE Oy ie = eee Attorney, New Jersey. JIN AMGyAPE ET Ce sian, Grete sree ae LRS, Library of Congress. EUR SEACHHI Py Git ae ate LRN Wh ah ee State of Hawaii. Aol Qienismns.) | ee ee Deport of the Interior. iennethydy Randall] = aes eee Maritime Administration. Mikerappoporta 2s NAEC, Washington, D.C. CO SAVerTE Ca eee Ea EOS ee Grumman Aircraft Engineering Co. TEV EN FVCT ORE Sd aS ee a Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington, N.C. HM ReyMoOl ds 2s say PLS ey ihe ee State of Alabama. Bredt@l Rouses 2Ve2 See se Great Lakes Basin Commission. Nee Vlercer Rowers ee eee Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington, N.C. EN Ufo LRSM Gy Cee ee aN ee EE, c/s Oceanographer of the Navy. VWs Jl, TRUE asic CLL ee Illinois. EO MInaSaviace 2 eile Se Maine. Chartes Hh Schwan, Jiro 2 Attorney, Washington, D.C. EUOV ea SCSSUM Sen Le ree Le es New Orleans, Louisiana. Walliame Seymours 2.22 2a ses New York. ILI® SES Aone ay peek ee Wildlife & Fisheries, Louisiana. Admiral H. C. Stephan__________-_ Ocean Systems, Ine. William A. Sternhoff_____________ State of New Jersey. MB uUIStewart, ore 2 el 2 wee ESSA & Florida. \allbigyon 18G Sio be ee Texas. WMnowmAs 18, Swoon. Georgia. Gerard EB. Sullivan_______________ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Massachusetts. aUTS Siubtone es Seis Sse ae eS Italy. IN/GismMe aL ID, Vea ee Geonauties, Inc., Falls Church, Virginia. WAMmesmVME TO DlASL eke Sarre Uae South Carolina. Hon. Russell WH. Train 2-2 eee Under Secretary, Department of the Interior. Fon Viy.ron iribusl22 22) See Assistant Secretary, Department of Com- merce. V. Admiral P. Trimble__________~- U.S. Coast Guard. BOCAW ALY SOm eh Abe es See ee Gulf Universities Research. DABS STs diareeha ee Westinghouse, Ocean Research & Engineering Center, Annapolis, Md. AAC 18, Wen Iboydlich es es Ee Louisiana State University. Louis Vande Velde-_---_--_-2_-__ Marine Technology Society. Wayne H. Vespoor_____-____-.-—- Michigan. Cm AR Wiebergii te ROTI a per Alaska. DavidvAMWallaceiite foie si N.Y. State Conservation Department. Hidward Wenk, Jr_i-_--_-__-=--- National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. IEA roldiGyWalm = ae eee Water Resources Council. Hola MESWO Oz. VesOU ate ae Marine Resources Commission, Virginia. 152 STATEMENT BY FREDERICK O. ROUSE, JR., CHAIRMAN, GREAT LAKES BASIN CoMMISSION, ANN ARBOR, MICH. The Great Lakes Basin Commission was established by Executive Order of the President on April 20, 1967, under authority of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-80). It is charged with the responsibility to “serve as the principal agency for the coordination of Federal, State, inter-state, local and non-governmental plans for development of water and related land resources...” and prepare and keep up-to-date a coordinated joint plan for the basin. The Commission was established at the request of five of the eight member states, with the concurrence of the other three states, because of the general realization of the pressing need for coordination among the multiplicity of Federal, State, local and non-governmental organizations with strong interest and responsibilities in water resource planning in the Great Lakes Basin. The Commission is pleased to note the ever increasing interest in natural resource planning being evidenced at all levels of the public and private segments in this country. We commend the significant efforts of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources in investigating the problems and as yet untapped resources of the oceans and in suggesting more effective institutional arrangements for their management. The Great Lakes Basin Commission wholeheartedly endorses the concept that effective planning for utilization of our natural resources requires that continued, coordinated, joint efforts from the earliest stages of all levels of the public and private segments. Institutional arrangements which cast one level of Government in the role of planner and another in the role of the reviewer, or “judge.” or which compartmentalize the planning functions by political entity, place restric- tions on the planning process which severely reduce its effectiveness. The Great Lakes Basin Commission was established in order to overcome the problems of the single-state, single-Federal agency approach to the planning process. Its member commissioners are unanimously enthusiastic about the progress made to date by the Commission and the success of the coordinated joint approach to planning for the effective utilization of the water and related iand resources in the Great Lakes Basin. A statement of the Vice-Chairman of the Great Lakes Basin Commission, Mr. Fred E. Morr. Director, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, to the State and Federal Water Officials in Salt Lake City, on the report, “Our Nation and the Sea” reflects my yiews which I believe to be generally supported by other members of the Commission. Mr. Morr states that, “As Vice-Chairman of the Great Lakes Basin Commission, | am afforded a rare partnership with seven other Great Lakes States. Because of the general structure and purpose of the Great Lakes Basin Commission, f can look at the Report as it concerns that relationship.” The following few paragraphs are paraphrased from his statement. The report quite obviously Geals with two major water areas—the oceans and the Great Lakes. So much of the original intent of the Marine Study and its proposals are significantly aimed at the Great Lakes. Fitting such a concept equally to the Great Lakes, where geographic, physical, political, and institu- tional arrangements are so sharply different, will bring the total report under fuller scrutiny and debate. The Great Lakes Shorelines (U.S. portion) represent about one-tenth of the nation’s shorelines. However, the Midwest region which these shorelines serve, has about 4% of U.S. area, 17% of the population, and produces close to half of the nation’s taxes. The coastal zone for the Ohio portion of Lake Erie, for example, would vary from 30 miles to 100 miles, and cover about one-third of the state. The report recommends the establishment of coastal zone authorities for the purpose of planning, regulating, acquiring and developing. These are familiar words to all of us. These same functions are also placed in numerous state and Federal agencies, as well as in local governments. A new overlapping coastal zone authority in any area could not easily superimpose itself over all other entities without multiplying the confusion. There are a number of sections of the report. “Our Nation and the Sea,” which are of concern to us. First is the recommendation of establishment of coastal zone authorities. These authorities would be created by the States. Their principal purposes would be to plan and regulate land and water uses and to acquire and develop land in the coastal zone. We feel that this proposal would have diffi- culty, in its present concept, in obtaining enthusiastic reception by the states of the Great Lakes region. Most states already possess the regulatory machinery proposed, and any new layering of agencies at this level would have a difficult 153 journey to success. In addition, the coordination of programs visualized for the coastal authorities is perhaps already being approached. Because of the acceleration of problems of the Great Lakes, the States and Federal agencies have formed the Great Lakes Basin Commission to guide the development of the lakes via planning on a partnership basis. This is a young organization ; in fact, it had not even emerged at the time the Marine Study was started. However, we feel great progress can be made through this existing arrangement, and we are apprehensive that the creation of yet another agency with overlapping powers and inevitably limited funds would only confuse and constrain progress now being made. Time is critical if we are to preserve the Lakes. We agree with the goals of the Marine Sciences Commission regarding the Great Lakes, but feel the institutional vehicle for achieving these goals has already been formed and is now functioning. Private industry, conservation groups, municipalities, port authorities, and appropriate State and Federal agencies are represented in the Great Lakes Basin Commission, or its task forces. The overall coordination of the Basin Commission in policy, State and Federal planning, fund sharing, and the establishment of priorities for project and pro- gram development is provided by the Water Resources Council. Through this chain, Congress and the President receive well organized and vital recommenda- tions on critical needs. At present, the Great Lakes Basin Commission is working on a framework plan. Twenty-six different Work Groups are now at work—each containing Federal, State and other representatives. Some of the Work Groups which are similar to the study projects recommended in the Marine Commis- sion report include: Limnology of Lakes and Embayments, Water Quality, Fish, Navigation, Lake Levels and Flows, Shore Use and Erosion, Land Use, Recrea- tion, and Plan Formulation. The Great Lakes Basin Commission Framework Study is scheduled to be completed in 1972. There are indeed legal institutional impediments to getting the job done on the lakes. Some are serious, but none will be solved by the creation of additional State and Federal agencies. The Marine Commission’s recommendation that financial grant approval be continued upon the States’ formation of such a coastal zone authority might easily become an obstacle to a harmonious State- Te.era! relationship. (This particular recommendation does not seem oriented towards solving actual program needs as we would feel it should. We feel that the Basin Commission, because of its broad membership, offers a far more effective vehicle than would be gained by creation of State coastal zone authorities. Certainly we wouid be the first to recognize whether or not existing imple- mented programs are fully meeting the needs of the Great Lakes area. They are not. We are deeply concerned with inadequate progress being made on limnologi- cal research, shore erosion control, shore line management, pollution contro}, silt problems, recreational development, and preservation of scenic areas. Inadequate and timid management goals and policies for the development and use of the Lakes are aiso hang-ups we are painfully aware of—perhaps ccnditioned by inadequate funds. These are matters which the State and Federal governments must face clearly around the conference table. Kut we hasten to assure you that the conference table does exist. and as long as it has its legs well shored up. we see no institu- tional impediments to using it. What we need most are: 1. A clear policy for the use and development of the Great Lakes. 2. More money. Dollars have come painfully slow to many of the States: but that trend is changing dynamically. Large water bond issues have been passed by several states. There is a new and forceful program of State water planning, aiced by the grant program of the Water Resources Council. For example, Ohio has ccm- pleted a $500 million long range plan for Northwest Ohio and is spending large sums to implement it. We are convinced that Federal grant programs—dacked up with money to the States—not authorizations, or new agencies—will acceler- ate this tempo even more. Our reasons for citing a hesitancy about accepting the Marine Commis