In attempting to cope with the myriad of problems, States 

 have sought to regulate development by a variety of means. 

 The States have come to realize that the dependence of 

 local government on property taxes for support has fostered an 

 inherent conflict when they are petitioned by the developer. 

 The resolution of this conflict of tax base versus social, 

 environmental, or aesthetic interests of the region also 

 has serious political ramifications. The fact that the 

 decisionmaking power rests in local hands does not cause 

 these problems; the defect is that the criteria for decision- 

 making are exclusively local, even when the interests 

 affected are far more comprehensive. 



In recent years there has been a renaissance of state initiatives to 

 manage aspects of the development process. Well over one half the states 

 have approved measures dealing with basic environmental problems on 

 numerous fronts, land management receiving the greatest attention. An 

 array of statutes imposing controls on subdivisions, wetlands, natural 

 areas and strip mining have been passed. New statutes also include air 

 and water pollution control, solid waste disposal, dredging, and the 

 protection of endangered species. Many have a relatively narrow focus-- 

 agricultural lands, "critical areas" or the coastal zone. 



The first major exercise of the state police power through zoning 

 occurred in 1961 when Hawaii enacted a comprehensive statewide zoning 

 plan. The plan eventually set up four classifications of land within 

 the state: agricultural, conservation, urban, and rural. Under this 

 legislation the state determined the policy for development, allowing 

 local input in the administration of the zoning program. 



Many other states have taken back the authority over privately owned 

 coastal wetlands and require state or coordinated state-local review and 

 permit approval for any uses that might be potentially damaging to the 

 coastal ecosystem. These programs have a variety of declared purposes, 

 the most prevalent of which are to conserve fish and wildlife resources, 

 to protect ecosystems, and to control development (Table 1). 



It is clear that the authority remains with the states to legislate 

 in this way for the promotion of health, safety, and welfare of their 

 citizens. There is no constitutional necessity for the delegation of all 

 of the power to the local governments. The courts have consistently 

 sustained a state's regulatory authority in the field of land management, 

 even at the risk of circumscribing the seemingly traditional rights of the 

 landowner or local authorities. 



Regional planning commissions also exist in most metropolitan areas. 

 They attempt to deal with the growth and development problems affecting 

 the area they serve. Typically they group local officials who act as 

 delegates to the regional unit. With few powers beyond consultation. 



82 



