399 



their management capabilities. Of course, it is recognized that some 

 States have made significant progress in this direction. Such guidelines 

 were developed on the basis of a selected geographic area (Chesapeake 

 Bay) merely to insure an element of reality and practicality rather 

 than a purely theoretical approach. Therefore, these guidelines do not 

 imply the need for action by the governing States, but merely a 

 response to an expressed need. 



SUMMARY OF STATE ESTUARINE-RELATED LAWS 



State governments are both owners and regulators of the estuarine 

 zone. They generally have sufficient legal and constitutional author- 

 ities to act. Yet in practice, most State laws are ineffective; they are 

 sorely out of date and need updating, revision, and a basic reorienta- 

 tion toward comprehensive management and regulation of estuarine 

 resources. 



At their worst. State laws affecting estuaries are rudimentary, anti- 

 quated, and fragmented. There may be laws dealing with water quality 

 or land zoning but they are uncoordinated and sometimes inconsistent 

 with each other. 



On the other hand, some States have adequate laws which touch 

 upon estuaries but they fail to focus on the estuarine zone as a unit 

 and deal with fragments and pieces of the total picture. Thus, a State 

 may have a law to control dredging or filling or regulate leasing and 

 sale of public lands or the construction of harbor and marina facilities 

 and yet fail to develop a comprehensive estuarine management policy 

 for optimum use. Further, they may fail to use effectively or enforce 

 the 1 aws that they have. 



With the increasing concern over the future of the estuarine zone, 

 there has been a gradual change from general permissiveness toward 

 greater Government planning and control. A few States have begun 

 to use the full array of tools already available in a total,, coordinated 

 manner for estuarine conservation and development — use control 

 through planning, a less than full fee interest, permits and licenses, 

 and favorable tax treatment. Here, too, the Federal Government can 

 encourage State planning and coordination of the operations of sev- 

 eral interrelated agencies dealing with water quality standards, eco- 

 nomic development, recreation, and conservation. One of the best means 

 toward this end are the grants for State planning under section 701 

 of the 1954 Housing Act (40 U.S.C. 461) . 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is probably farther along the 

 way toward optimum estuarine management. First it enacted a stop- 

 gap law, the 1963 Coastal Dredge and Fill Act (Massachusetts General 

 Laws ch. 130, sec. 2TA, 1963), which gave the director of marine fish- 

 eries 14 days notice to impose protective conditions on the permit he 

 issues. However, to allow for the long-range planning and optimal 

 resource evaluation and allocation, the Massachusetts Coastal Wet- 

 lands Protection Act was enacted ISTovember 23, 1965 (Massachusetts 

 General Laws ch. 130, sec. 105, 1965). This law authorized the com- 

 missioner of the department of natural resources to promulgate orders 

 regulating, restricting, or prohibiting alteration or pollution of Massa- 

 chusetts' coastal wetlands. Alarmed by a report (V-2-3) which stated 

 that 43 percent of the remaining wetland acreage was subject to al- 



