provision to create an estuarine 

 sanctuary at the mouth of the Apala- 

 chicola in the Gulf of Mexico. But 

 this sanctuary protection does not 

 extend upward into Alabama and 

 Georgia to reach the freshwater trib- 

 utaries which feed the river and the 

 estuary. The sanctuary designation 

 cannot or at least does not ensure 

 proper quality, quantity, and timing 

 of the freshwater inflow which origi- 

 nates beyond the sanctuary's reach. 



The states of Florida, Georgia, 

 and Alabama have agreed to pursue a 

 Level B study to evaluate the water 

 resources in the Apalachicola-Chata- 

 hoochee-Flint River Basin. In their 

 FY 1982 study proposal to the Water 

 Resources Council, the three states 

 recognized that "all the uses and all 

 the parts of the river system are in- 

 terrelated." The states and the 

 council believe that a Level B study 

 can enhance the existing uses and 

 values of the river system, while at 

 the same time reducing the present 

 conflicts over river system manage- 

 ment . 



Another factor which makes the 

 act unresponsive to the freshwater 

 inflow problem is one which could 

 be corrected by a change in the ad- 

 ministrative interpretation of a few 

 choice words. The act provides that 

 land and water uses governed by state 

 coastal zone plans be only those 

 which "have a direct and significant 

 impact on the coastal waters." I 

 think all of us here today would 

 agree that freshwater inflow has a 

 direct and significant impact on our 

 coastal waters. Unfortunately, most 

 of the states do not see it quite 

 that way. In their evaluations of a 

 sited project, they too often tend to 

 look no further than the site itself. 

 States must be encouraged to see be- 

 yound the site, beyound even state 

 borders. But, if they are to do so, 



they need the impetus the Federal 

 Government can provide; that means 

 the money, and the authority to make 

 interstate agreements. That means 

 the Coastal Zone Management Act, as 

 it may be amended this fall. 



Up to this point, I have painted 

 a rather gloomy picture. This was 

 done in the spirit of realism. I 

 would like to have been able to come 

 before you and assure that freshwater 

 inflow has been duly considered in 

 every federally assisted development 

 plan or project. It has not. 



There are several actions the 

 council could take to assure that 

 estuaries and their freshwater needs 

 are more adequately considered. 

 First, the council could examine the 

 adequacy of existing and proposed 

 policies and programs and recommend 

 to the President changes in Federal 

 programs and policies which might be 

 needed. We have this authority under 

 the Water Resources Planning Act. 

 Second, the council could also take 

 more concrete steps to encourage the 

 states, which are funded by our Title 

 III grants, to regard estuarine needs 

 in their water resources planning. 

 The Title II river basin commissions, 

 which are funded partly by the coun- 

 cil, have already begun to move 

 toward proper consideration of fresh- 

 water inflow and we can further en- 

 courage this. 



These commissions are the ideal 

 body to deal with the problems of 

 interstate coordination in water 

 resources plans. They have been 

 created at the request of the states 

 because those states recognize the 

 inferiority of a development plan 

 which does not look across state 

 lines. As I mentioned earlier, three 

 of these commissions have succeeded 

 in getting CZMA funding in addition 

 to our Title II funds. This is one 



14 



