special attention must be paid to 

 them. But, the President's articu- 

 lation of this point in an order to 

 the executive agencies could very 

 well provide the impetus needed to 

 get the inflow problem considered 

 in environmental impact statements 

 issued under NEPA and in other agency 

 decisionmaking . 



There remains one further piece 

 of legislation which predates all 

 that I have discussed this far. In 

 1968, Congress passed what has since 

 been dubbed the Estuary Protection 

 Act. Unfortunately, this is not the 

 name that Congress gave to the act. 

 In fact, Congress did not name the 

 act at all. Ordinarily, that dif- 

 ference would be inconsequential. 

 After all, NEPA has proven to be 

 a potent statute, even though many 

 still call it the National Environ- 

 mental Protection Act rather than 

 the National Environmental Policy 

 Act. But, in the case of the Estu- 

 ary Protection Act, the misnomer 

 signifies all that is missing from 

 current U.S. performance on estu- 

 aries. The act purposes to "provide 

 a means of considering the need to 

 protect, conserve, and restore es- 

 tuaries." The act provides for 

 consideration, not protection. In 

 1970, a study was made pursuant to 

 this act. No protection has ensued. 

 There is a section of the act which 

 has the potential to force Federal 

 agencies to give special considera- 

 tion to the needs of estuaries. 

 This section provides that "in plan- 

 ning for the use of development of 

 water and land resources all Fed- 

 eral agencies shall give considera- 

 tion to estuaries and their natural 

 resources, and their importance for 

 commerical and industrial develop- 

 ments, and all projects and reports 

 affecting such estuaries and re- 

 sources submitted to the Congress 



shall contain a discussion by the 

 Secretary of the Interior of such 

 estuaries and such resources and the 

 effects of the project on them and 

 his recommendations thereon." Note 

 the delegation of responsibility to 

 the Secretary of the Interior. 



The Congress in 1968 clearly 

 gave the Secretary of the Interior 

 the responsibility for administer- 

 ing the act. Since that time, Pres- 

 ident Nixon transferred responsibili- 

 ty for commerical fisheries from In- 

 terior to Commerce, thereby creating 

 the problem of who should administer 

 the Estuary Act. President Nixon is- 

 sued that reorganization order in 

 1970. Since then, no action has been 

 taken under the 1968 act. 



This conflict between Interior 

 and Commerce over responsibility for 

 the Estuary Act embodies all of the 

 conflicts which plague our coastal 

 areas. The coastal zone is a combat 

 zone. Spawning grounds are fast be- 

 coming sparring grounds. The men- 

 haden and the mollusk pitch their 

 freshwater demands against those of 

 the power plant, the refinery, the 

 irrigation canal, and the reservior. 

 It doesn't take much to figure out 

 who's winning the battle. If you 

 need help--recall the snail darter 

 and the Tellico Dam. 



Consider the interests of En- 

 ergy, Transportation, Commerce, and 

 Agriculture--all represented at the 

 Cabinet level. Then it becomes clear 

 that the problems which beset the 

 estuary are the problems which beset 

 the Estuary Protection Act. The bat- 

 tle which rages in the coastal zone, 

 rages as well on Capitol Hill. Trans- 

 portation wants upwater ports. En- 

 ergy wants hydroelectric power 

 plants. Agriculture wants upstream 

 diversion. Commerce wants coastal 



12 



