49 



accord to the protection and management of the natural systems 

 themselves a priority over other uses. 



Current decisionmaking processes tend to place these natural sys- 

 tems in a defensive position relative to development of initiative, 

 the initiative for change. It seems to me that if these natural systems 

 and the human values that they produce are going to be preserved, that 

 congressional policy might well assert that it is the intent of the Con- 

 gress to protect the value of natural systems in the coastal zone and to 

 provide for the accommodation of developmental uses in ways which 

 don't destroy the value of the natural systems. 



The natural systems can't be replaced. Many of the other demands 

 on the coastal zone can be met in other ways. Some cannot and this 

 suggestion, of course, that a clear secondary order of priority should 

 go to marine dependent uses as distinct from those kinds of uses which 

 can clearly be satisfied elsewhere. On the second point, the question 

 of joint Federal-State planning, the draft bill which was distributed 

 for this conference envisions financial assistance to strengthen State 

 planning and also implementation perhaps for the coastal zone. 



The Marine Commission, the Magnuson bill, Mr, Lennon's bill, and 

 the administration proposal announced a few weeks ago by the Vice 

 President, all identify the States leading role in making decisions about 

 the coastal zone. There is unanimity here and I have no objection to 

 this finding. The State does have the logical constitutional as well as 

 operational responsibility to establish the goals and objectives in the 

 use of its own resources and it should lead to the formulation of plans 

 for programs to make use of these. But the degree of national and re- 

 gional interest in the programs in the coastal zone and the impact 

 of Federal agency programs suggests to me that planning for use 

 and management of these resources ought to be a joint State and Fed- 

 eral enterprise from the beginning and I mean in the field from the 

 beginning. 



There is a procedure implied in the bill which was distributed for us 

 to read before this conference and also in Senator Magnuson's bill 

 which suggests that Federal agencies, perhaps NOAA, the National 

 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency or the Marine Council, will 

 review State coastal development plans after they are prepared, and 

 that this constitutes an adequate involvement by the Federal agencies 

 in the actual planning of local goals and objectives. 



I am pretty sure that this is not a workable procedure. There is a 

 parallel in reverse in the case of river basin planning and I think it 

 is apt here. You will recall that for decades planning for use and devel- 

 opment of waters and related land resources in river basins was dom- 

 inated by Federal agencies, by Federal construction agencies, and the 

 States often participated by invitation and ^^'ithout any Federal finan- 

 cial support so that they could really plaj^ a decisive role in making 

 decisions about the development of the rivers. 



Over a period of time a consensus developed that this wasn't right, 

 that the State ought to play a vigorous fully co-equal role and this 

 ultimately led to the Water iResources Planning Act of 1965 which es- 

 tablishes an interagency Water Resources Council at the Federal level, 

 which exists for the purpose of coordinating Federal programs in this 

 field in much the same way that a new agency has been proposed for 

 this field. 



