a participant in this conference, speaking from a scientist's point of 

 view, expressed this question better than I can. 



Dr. Callioun said — 



On the coastal zone question (as distinguished from the oceanography ques- 

 tion), it is necessary to ask whether the coastal zone problems are really oceano- 

 graphic in nature. Some of the important agencies that deal with coastal zone 

 problems do not appear to have been considered in the Commission's recom- 

 mendations, for example, the Corps of Engineers of the Department of Defense 

 which plays a very large role in coastal zone activities. 



The specific mission for a new organization as seen by the Commission there- 

 fore appears to have a dichotomy — ^to be oriented on the one hand toward a 

 single geophysical system representing the ocean and the atmospheres together, 

 but on the other hand to be oriented also to the problems of people living along 

 the coast. A new Federal organization might be focused on one or the other of 

 these. Can it be focused on both ? 



I might simply emphasize that from my point of view most of the 

 conflicts in the coastal zone do appear to be essentially people-pressure 

 problems. People don't live in the water. 



Rather, they live on the land and relate to the coastal zone from the 

 land. Most of the pollution of the coastal zone comes by land, through 

 the rivers, and not by sea. Most of the pressures for outdoor recreation 

 use of the coast, the pressures for residential use, and the pressures for 

 more highways and airports along the coastal corridors — all these 

 appear to have less to do with oceanic systems than they do with ter- 

 restrial system_s, mcluding man's patterns of urban concentration on 

 the land. 



In fact, land use conflict and our presently wasteful and inefficient 

 ways of resolving it, and shoreline alterations, particularly dredging 

 and the consequent destruction of estuaries and other valuable natural 

 resources, probably are the most critical coastal zone problems. These 

 come by land and not by sea. 



As a second general question, I can't help but be ske])tical, generally, 

 of proposals to add yet another limited purpose Federal grant pro- 

 gram to the rather marvelous and wonderful and awesome prolifera- 

 tion that we already have. I ask first whether already existing Federal 

 agencies administering already-operating programs, or alterations 

 in these existing agencies or combinations of existing agencies, can do 

 the job that needs to be done. 



_ Only after the answer is "no" to existing agencies, "no" to modifica- 

 tion of existing agencies, and "no" to combinations, should we turn to 

 establishment of the new agency for the coastal zone as our best an- 

 swer. I am not yet prepared to do this. 



In any event, regardless of the domicile that is decided upon, in 

 view of the proliferation of Federal grant programs and the resultant 

 fragmentation, inefficiencies and confusion, I suggest that an approach 

 similar to the model cities approach be considered. The idea, of course, 

 of the model cities approach is to encourage coordination of existing 

 Federal programs at the receiving end, in the field. This is done by 

 providing additional carrots to the recipients of the grants, in the 

 form of a higher Federal cost share, to those who combine the existing 

 Federal programs in focused, coordinated ways. 



The idea is to make existing programs w^ork, rather than to place 

 another layer on top. The successes and the failures of the Department 

 of Housing and Urban Development, to date, with the model cities 



