nation. This framework seems tailor- 

 made to handle our freshwater inflow 

 concerns. However, National objec- 

 tives have not been the focus of the 

 plans to date. 



Under the CZM program, each 

 participating state must identify 

 the boundaries of its coastal zone, 

 define permissible land and water 

 uses which have a direct and signi- 

 ficant impact on the coastal zone, 

 designate areas of particular con- 

 cern, identify means of state con- 

 trol over land and water uses (in- 

 cluding constitutional provisions, 

 statutes, regulations, and judicial 

 decisions), and determine the re- 

 spective responsibilities of local, 

 state, regional, and interstate 

 agencies . 



If participation were any 

 measure of success, there would be 

 cause to rejoice because 31 of the 

 35 states which are eligible to 

 participate in the CZM program are 

 doing just that. However, compli- 

 ance with the procedural require- 

 ments of the Act does not neces- 

 sarily ensure that substantial a- 

 chievement of national coastal zone 

 management goals will be realized. 



The Water Policy Task Force 

 on Environmental Statutes noted in 

 its 1979 report that there is lin- 

 gering doubt about the efficacy of 

 the CZM program. In responce to 

 such criticism, the Office of Coast- 

 al Zone Management has offered a- 

 mendments of its enabling legisla- 

 tion which would serve to clarify 

 the national objectives for the 

 coastal zones and OCZM's authority 

 to condition Federal assistance on 

 the pursuit of those objectives. 

 The President recommended enactment 

 of these amendments in his 1979 En- 

 vironmental Message. If these amend- 

 ments were adopted by the Congress, 

 the present patchwork of coastal zone 



programs may have a chance to become 

 the tightly-knit fabric envisioned 

 by the Congress when it passed the 

 Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. 



Another major piece of legis- 

 lation which could provide a means 

 for considering freshwater inflows to 

 estuaries is the ubiquitous National 

 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

 1969. Certainly the environmental 

 impact statement (EIS) which NEPA 

 requires can and should reflect a 

 proposed project's probable impact 

 on the timing, quality, and quantity 

 of freshwater inflows to estuaries. 



One of the major impediments to 

 consideration of these impacts in 

 EISs to date has been a lack of 

 awareness of the freshwater inflow 

 problem. President Carter has al- 

 ready resolved two identity crises 

 which are similar to those suffered 

 by the freshwater inflow and its re- 

 cipient estuary. In Executive Orders 

 11988 and 11990, issued in 1977 under 

 NEPA, the National Flood Insurance 

 Act and the Flood Disaster Protection 

 Act, floodplains and wetlands gained 

 national recognition. Their protec- 

 tors are now perceived as a force to 

 be reckoned with. The WRC, CEQ, and 

 FEMA were assigned the responsibility 

 of assisting the other Federal agen- 

 cies in their implementation of the 

 orders and in monitoring their effec- 

 tiveness. Perhaps if estuaries were 

 similarly honored as the subject of 

 an executive order, freshwater inflow 

 would in turn get its fair share of 

 attention. 



Of course, the potential may 

 be argued that the existing execu- 

 tive orders are sufficient to en- 

 compass protection of estuaries and 

 their freshwater inflows. Afterall, 

 estuaries are a part of the flood- 

 plain and inflows do flow in through 

 wetlands. Estuaries are a very 

 special part of the floodplain and 



11 



