altogether different story but does 

 go a little further. After the 

 states have a federally approved 

 management program, funding be- 

 comes a longer term (8 years) prop- 

 osition which will allow for more 

 in-depth research and studies nec- 

 essary in making sound management 

 decisions on say, for example, the 

 siting of a facility. Almost all 

 states are now able to provide 

 substantial funding to local 

 governments which are usually the 

 first in the decision-making pro- 

 cess, proponents of the activities, 

 and have the least in their pocket- 

 book to look at the implications 

 of their actions. Local governments 

 are developing their own site-specif- 

 ic comprehensive programs which will 

 allow all parties to get a better 

 handle on the problems if they become 

 involved at the appropriate stage of 

 development. 



Some of the Gulf States are just 

 now in the process of getting their 

 programs approved. Alabama is ap- 

 proved and we hope Louisiana and 

 Mississippi will be approved shortly 

 (programs were approved in September 

 1980) . Florida and Texas are cur- 

 rently in the Public Hearing Draft 

 stages . 



Even though state participa- 

 tion is voluntary, the Coastal Zone 

 Management Act is substantive as 

 well as procedural. States are re- 

 quired to develop enforceable poli- 

 cies to manage coastal resources. 

 I would like to give a few short 

 examples of some of the policies 

 which were developed by the states 

 which address our topic of concern. 



California: "30231. The bio- 

 logical productivity and the quality 

 of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, 

 estuaries, and lakes appropriate to 

 maintain optimum populations of 



marine organisms and for the pro- 

 tection of human health shall be 

 maintained and, where feasible, re- 

 stored through, among other means, 

 minimizing adverse effects of waste 

 water discharges and entrainment, 

 controlling runoff, preventing de- 

 pletion of groundwater supplies and 

 substantial interference with surface 

 waterflow, encouraging waste water 

 reclamation, maintaining natural veg- 

 etation buffer areas that protect 

 riparian habitats, and minimizing al- 

 teration of natural streams." (The 

 California Coastal Act of 1976 - PRC 

 30000 et. seq.) 



Oregon: 



Goal 16 - Estuarine 



Resources is a comprehensive goal 

 enforceable by law. It addresses 

 many issues about estuaries and re- 

 quires comprehensive plans to take 

 these into consideration. It is too 

 lengthy to even summarize here but 

 there is one interesting aspect I 

 wanted to highlight. Namely, many 

 states recognize that coastal zone 

 management affords a good opportunity 

 for restoring degraded estuaries. 

 Under the mitigation requirements 

 of the goal, it is suggested that: 

 "Estuarine areas removed from 

 effective circulation by causeways 

 or other fills, where circulation 

 can be restored or improved through 

 replacement of the causeway with 

 pilings or culverts." (Oregon 

 Statewide Planning Goals and Guide- 

 lines 16-19 for Coastal Resources, 

 Effective: 1 January 1977). 



New Jersey: New Jersey has 

 developed policies for surface and 

 groundwater uses and for special 

 areas such as shellfish beds re- 

 lating to freshwater inflows. For 

 example, the Groundwater Use Pol- 

 icy (7:7E-8.6) states: "Coastal 

 development shall demonstrate, to 

 the maximum extent practicable, 

 that the anticipated groundwater 



98 



