60 



ership of lands, using condemnation proce- 

 dures if necessary. If the coastal area in 

 question can meet only the needs of the local 

 Ix)pulation, the local government should ac- 

 quire the land if regulatory and other means 

 prove inadequate. 



Federal assistance for coastland acquisi- 

 tion is available through several existmg pro- 

 grams, and the State Authorities should work 

 through established channels to utilize this 

 assistance insofar as possible. The enhanced 

 opportunities provided by recent legislation 

 augmenting land acquisition funds with rev- 

 enues from outer continental shelf leases 

 should be exploited fully. Current legisla- 

 tion, however, makes limited provision for 

 acquiring wetlands having no recreation 

 benefit. To increase the availability of funds 

 to acquire and set aside wetlands for future 

 use, 



The Commission recommends that the 

 Land and 'Water Conservation Fund be 

 more fully utilized for acquisition of wet- 

 lands and potential coastal recreation 

 lands. Legislation should be enacted au- 

 thorizing Federal guarantees of State 

 bonds for wetland acquisition when 

 necessary to implement the coastal man- 

 agement plan. 



In the Commission's view. States will re- 

 spond vigorously to a Federal initiative to as- 

 sist in the establishment of State Coastal Zone 

 Authorities. There is growing evidence that 

 the States are ready to act. In the San Fran- 

 cisco Bay area and in Nassau and Suffolk 

 Counties of Long Island, New York, local 

 planning commissions have recommended the 

 formation of State authorities similar to 

 those recommended by the Commission. 

 Measures taken by California, Oregon, Wis- 

 consin, and Florida exemplify the public 



concern for planned management of coastal 

 waters: 



Management in Interstate Estuaries 



Estuaries or coastal watei-s of concern to 

 more than one State — for example, the Dela- 

 ware and Chesapeake Bays or Lake Michi- 

 gan — can jjose special problems. Without im- 

 derestimating the potential difficulties, the 

 Commission is persuaded that in most cases 

 sound planning and management undertaken 

 by one State probably will not differ greatly 

 from that undertaken by an adjacent State. 

 Wlien differences do arise, they may be set- 

 tled by direct negotiations between the parties 

 concerned or by the establishment of ad hoc 

 interstate committees or an interstate com- 

 mission or compact. Strong Coastal Zone Au- 

 thorities representing the variety of State 

 interests will facilitate such agreements. The 

 Commission believes that such interstate 

 agreements are preferable to coordination 

 through river basin commissions in which the 

 Federal Government is a member. Not hav- 

 ing management or enforcement authority, 

 such commissions can only plan and advise. 



The Federal Role in the Coastal 

 Management System 



The Federal Government has strong in- 

 terests in the effective management of a 

 State's coastal waters. First, a number of 

 Federal agencies operate in the coastal waters 

 and sometimes profoundly affect their use. 

 As a contributor to the problem, the Federal 

 Government has to share in the responsibility 

 of coastal management. Second, the Federal 

 Government must ensure that such vital Fed- 

 eral interests as navigation and military secu- 

 rity are not endangered by State actions and 

 that the general national interest in effective 

 coastal planning is protected. It is in the Na- 

 tion's interest to understand the natural proc- 

 esses occurring in the nearshore environment 



