56 



tion of high-speed hovercraft, and hydrofoils 

 will call for new safety measures. With activ- 

 ities stretching across several jurisdictions, 

 Federal, State, and even international jjol- 

 icies must be coordinated. 



A Proposed Coastal Management System 



Federal, State, and local governments share 

 the responsibility to develop for the coastal 

 zone a plan which reconciles or, if necessary, 

 chooses among conn>eting interests and pro- 

 tects long-term values. Effective management 

 to date lias been thwarted by the variety of 

 government jurisdictions involved, the low 

 priority afforded marine matters by State 

 governments, the diffusion of responsibilities 

 among State agencies, and the failure of 

 State agencies to develop and implement 

 long-range plans. Until recently, naviga- 

 tion — over which Federal authority is pre- 

 eminent — has tended to dominate other uses 

 of the coastal zone, and, perhaps for this rea- 

 son. States have been slow to assume their 

 resix)nsibilities. 



The Federal role in the coastal zones has 

 grown haphazardly. Closely related func- 

 tions are discharged by the U.S. Coast Guard, 

 Army Corps of Engineers,' Department of 

 Housing and Urban Development, a number 

 of bureaus of the Department of the Interior, 

 and several other Federal agencies. The Fed- 

 eral Government sponsors planning activities 

 in certain coastal areas through river basin 

 commissions, established pursuant to Title II 

 of the Water Resources Plamiing Act of 1965, 

 and in certain others through regional com- 

 missions established under Title V of the 

 Public Works and Economic Development 

 Act. 



At the Federal level, the Committee on 

 Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone of the Ma- 

 rine Council considers the broad aspects of 

 coastal management and se<^ks effective and 

 consistent Federal policies. The Water Re- 



sources Council, a cabinet-level coordinating 

 and planning group analogous to the Marine 

 Council but chaired by the Secretary of the 

 Interior, also has an interest in the coastal 

 zone, although its work is primarily directed 

 to inland waters. But, of course, neither com- 

 mittee can be concei-ned with the detailed 

 management of particular coastal areas. 



The diffusion of resiwnsibility has been re- 

 flected' within State governments, within 

 which individual agencies deal directly with 

 their counterparts at the Federal level. Too 

 often States lack plans of their own based on 

 an appraisal of all State interests in their 

 coastal resources. In these cases. States have 

 tended only to react to Federal plans. 



The States are subject to intense pressures 

 from the county and municipal levels, bec-ause 

 coastal management directly affects local re- 

 sponsibilities and interests. Local knowledge 

 frequently is necessary to reach rational man- 

 agement decisions at the State level, and it is 

 necessary to reflect the interests of local gov- 

 ernments in accommodating comi^etitive 

 needs. 



After reviewing the various alternatives 

 (see the Panel Re^wrt on INIanagement and 

 Development of the Coastal Zone) , the Com- 

 mission finds that the States must be the 

 focus for responsibility and action in the 

 coastal zone. The State is the central link 

 joining the many participants, but in most 

 cases, the States now lack adequate machinery 

 for that task. An agency of the State is 

 needed with sufficient planning and regula- 

 tory authority to manage coastal areas ef- 

 fectively and to resolve problems of compet- 

 ing uses. Such agencies should be strong 

 enough to deal with the host of overlapping 

 and often competing jurisdictions of the 

 various Federal agencies. Finally, strong 

 State organization is essential to surmount 

 special local interests, to assist local agencies 



