76 



In these, the most heavily populated areas of the country, the pro- 

 posed coastal authorities would exercise a very strong influence on 

 future economic development. 



Such exercise, I believe, would not be well received by local govern- 

 ments. Should a coastal authority decree that a given area be reserved 

 for a wildlife refuge, recreational area or whatever, but not utilized 

 for industrial, port or residential development, no matter how logical 

 in any broad scheme of things, who would compensate the local unit 

 of government for the taxes forgone ? 



Purchase of easements or fee simple title would assist in part, but 

 would have to be supplemented by payments in lieu of taxes to make 

 the local units whole. If I were a city or count}^ official, I should 

 want to see the color of the Federal or State money before I acquiesced. 



Before I conclude, I want to add that I see no reason why there 

 should be in section 304(b)(1) any reference to taxability of State 

 bonds. To begin with, a Federal guarantee for State bonds is worth 

 almost nothing in interest costs. Beyond that. State and local gov- 

 ernments can do without the continual nibbling away at the tax 

 exemption of their obligations. 



In conclusion, let me say I accept the diagnosis made by the Com- 

 mission on Marine Science, Engineering and Kesources and implicit 

 in Congressman Lennon's bill concerning the ills of the coastal and 

 estuarine zones. 



I accept, too, the need for strong medicine, and that there should 

 be Federal and State interest in and administration of the medicine 

 prescribed. I believe that the measure of discretion presently accorded 

 local units of government each functioning independently is not con- 

 ducive to the fulfillment of regional or national objectives. 



On the other hand, in its immediate area a great value should be 

 placed on the views of a local government and its people. Somehow we 

 must manage to devise an arrangement that will accord to local aspira- 

 tions and decisions a considerable weight, but w411 give to States a 

 power to oversee and, if need be, to revise. This might be accom- 

 plished_ by a review procedure at the State level at which, among 

 others, interested Federal agencies might be heard. 



Perhaps the way has already been pioneered by Wisconsin and, more 

 recently, Oregon. These States require local zoning, but if there is a 

 failure to perform or to perform adequately, the State may step in. 



The Wisconsin statute, for example, requires that local zoning ordi- 

 nances meet minimum standards, including "land division regulations 

 to control building sites, placement of structures and land uses as 

 well as santitary regulations to prevent and control water pollution 

 . . . [and] . . . administrative provisions insuring enforcement of 

 the controls and regulations." 



A similar requirement was enacted with respect to flood plain 

 zoning. 



In the alternative, control might be lodged directly in the State, as 

 Massachusetts has done. Quite possibly, some States might wish to 

 create coastal agencies to function in a 'coordinating capacity. ■\'\nnch 

 of these or possibly other routes should be followed is a decision to be 

 made at the State level, it would seem to me. 



To resolve this dilemma, if the Committee on Merchant ]\Iarine and 

 Fisheries contemplates legislation, I should favor the brief amend- 



