21 



Interior in negotiations with the Corps of Engineers over Corps per- 

 mits which have met opposition somewhere along the line. 



Without further ado, I will turn the session over to Mr. Quarles. 



STATEMENT OF JOHN R. aUARLES, ASSISTANT TO UNDER SECRE- 

 TARY EOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

 INTERIOR 



I am speaking as a pinch-hitter for Mr. Gibbons, who was extremely 

 disappointed not to be able to come to this program, which he had 

 looked forward to with a keen anticipation, but he was required to go 

 out of the city on this date. 



I am not speaking from any prepared statement and I think prob- 

 ably I should make it clear that my comments will be my own, rather 

 than representing any positions w^iich have been reviewed and adopted 

 by the Department of the Interior as a w^hole. 



I want to get as quickly as I can into the meat and marrow of this 

 problem, and therefore I intend to talk only briefly on the basic ques- 

 tions reviewed this morning, as to the questions of whether there is a 

 need for new approaches of management in the coastal zone, and 

 whether there is a problem. 



I would say in response to the question of, is there a problem, the 

 answer certainly is, ''Yes." 



We all recognize the growth of competing demands for the limited 

 resources in the coastal zone, and we certainly can see at this point in 

 time that the prospect has no direction to head in other than the direc- 

 tion of increased intensity and increased squeeze upon limited areas 

 and limited resources of the costal zone. 



In terms of whether this problem is being adequately met by the 

 existing conditions under which use of different resources is deter- 

 mined, I think we probably would also agree that the present situation 

 is not entirely satisfactory. 



At this time the determination of usage is made on the basis of the 

 free marketplace, of individual ow^ners using their land for what they 

 want to use it for, or selling it for what they want to sell it for. 



This is in keeping with our American tradition. I don't think it 

 proper to be critical of people for taking this approach, but the 

 results of this approach applied across the board are not very satis- 

 factory in terms of meeting our long-term national needs. 



In terms of the system that presently exists, the determinations are 

 made primarilj^ on the basis of short-range considerations, and pri- 

 marily on the basis of economic determinations. 



These are not perfect mechanisms for achieving the long-range, 

 overall public interest. 



This brings me to the first point that I would like to place some 

 emphasis on, and that is, assuming that there is a need for better 

 techniques of management, what is the level of government at which 

 this new emphasis of management should be placed? 



There appears to be developing something approaching a consensus 

 that responsibility should be vested primarily in the State government 

 and exercised at the State level. 



I don't believe anyone who has seriously focused on the problem 

 thinks that the Federal Govenmient can, from Washington and from 



