V-135 



Texas, and Alaska. Of course, they believe strongly in State 

 ownership of estuarine lands. Certain other States that are 

 relatively well developed -- such as Massachusetts, California, 

 and Connecticut -- believe in and are engaged in, ownership 

 through acquisition by use of State funds or Federal grants. 



Many of the States viewed coordination of all estuarine activities 

 as their prerogative and also stated that cooperation/coordination 

 of Federal-State-local-nrivate programs was an essential element 

 of effective estuarine management that was often sorely lacking. 

 Some States believed that they should coordinate the Federal and 

 private activities in their area especially because they had a 

 better on-site overall view of the area situation than the view 

 from the Nation's Capitol or Federal level. 



However, should a State be expected to view impartially its 

 estuarine resources that are an area-wide asset without national 

 support? For example, the fJew Jersey beaches or Florida sands 

 are enjoyed by the population far beyond each State. Their effec- 

 tive management involves consideration of regional significance 

 instead of just Statewide impact. Some States even alluded to 

 the view that more effective intrastate coordination would nullify 

 the need for additional regulations and legislation, or even 

 organizations. 



Akin to the States' view of estuarine management was the view- 

 point that they should develop a Statewide estuarine management 



