135 



and local governments — to design institutional mechanisms that make 

 these separate agencies work together in some effective way to carry 

 out public policy that we all want. 



I am sure that all of 3-ou are just as well aware as I am that our 

 estuarine and coastal zones are a vital natural resource, and that as 

 rich as they are in resources for man and nature, they are equally 

 sensitive and "vnlnerable to the damaging side effects of man's and 

 nature's activities. 



Our coastal zone will have tremendous importance to the future 

 of this comitry. The coastal environment is a breeding or nursery 

 ground for most of our marine commercial and sport fisheries. It is 

 the location of most of our marine oil and gas and other mining 

 activities. 



Except for our lakes and inland waters, it is the place where the 

 aquatic environment is most threatened by man's activities. It is a 

 recreational area of rapidly growing importance. It is the place from 

 which most of our growing needs for water must be met. It is the 

 arena in which our ability to cope with conflicting interests and uses 

 of the environjnent will receive a major test. The future welfare of our 

 Kation makes it imperative that we resolve the comr)lex problems of 

 the cocistal zone. 



As the economic value of the estua,rine zone rises, and population 

 pressures increase, the conflicting and competing uses of these areas 

 cannot help but increase in terms of continuously greater pressures for 

 housing and commercial sites, for marinas and harbors, for more and. 

 larger power plants, and for deeper channels. 



The need for recreation itself in the estuarine and coastal zone grows 

 by leaps and bounds, but the open space for it does not. 



My associate from the Department of Commerce mentioned that 

 economic development and the protection of natural values of the 

 coastal zone are or tend to be inconsistent with one another. I would 

 like to comment, and not necessarily to take exception with that re- 

 mark, but to point up, I think, a very real aspect of the matter. 



That is to suggest that the supposed economic benefits are often, in 

 fact, illusory or short term, and that the loss of natural areas or the 

 disturbance of natural functioning often has very real economic costs, 

 although sometimes they are not readily apparent, and sometimes 

 rather long range, but nonetheless they are very real. 



I think all I want to suggest here is that in measuring economic 

 benefits or weighing economic benefits in development programs we 

 should be careful to utilize an economic measurement that more truly 

 accounts for the kind of long-range course of benefits than are usually 

 found in a typical GjSTP measurement. 



The fact is that present planning and development now proceeds 

 on a piecemeal basis, with unplanned and unregulated modification of 

 the estuarine and coastal zone. As a result, incompatible uses of the 

 coastal areas often are developing adjacent to each other. 



We are in danger of allowing unfortunate destruction of fish and 

 wildlife resources and the habitat on which they depend. We are losing 

 forever the opportunity to set aside areas for recreational use, and we 

 are permitting unnecessary damage to scenic areas and aesthetic 

 qualities generally. There is obviously need for action. 



What is needed to combat the above situation. I feel, is to put into 



