400 



teration and destruction in the near future, the legislature permitted 

 these lands to remain privately owned, but allowed the commissioner to 

 restrict their use. Such use retriction orders may be adopted only after 

 holding a public hearing in the municipality in which the affected 

 wetlands were located. It is still to early to assess fully the implemen- 

 tation of this act but its effectiveness as a legal tool for estuarine man- 

 agement has been widely praised ( V-2-4) . 



Another approach towards land use has been taken by the State of 

 Hawaii. Recognizing that land use is a policy power of the State, it 

 has not delegated this authority to its local subdivisions. Rather it has 

 adopted a zoning system to promote statewide and regional goals to 

 protect its invaluable aesthetic and natural resources. 



Finally, the State of Wisconsin has adopted a Shoreline Zoning Act 

 which, although Wisconsin is not a coastal State, could be applied to 

 the estuarine zone of coastal States. Under this act, the State sets 

 standards for "county" zoning of unincorporated areas as well as 

 broad objectives such as the prevention and control of water pollution 

 plus the protection of fish and aquatic life and natural beauty. Further, 

 the State is directed to adopt its own ordinance for counties that fail 

 to enact or meet minimum objectives or standards. The State has also 

 issued a model ordinance and planning guide which designates three 

 zoning areas — conservancy districts, recreational areas, and general 

 purpose zones (V-2-5). 



Adoption and adaptation of the Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Hawaii, 

 or model approaches to State zoning and/or use control would elimin- 

 ate piecemeal estuarine zone planning and lead to optimum manage- 

 ment and development in the public interest. 



Section 5. Evaluation of Coastal, State Frameworks 



An evaluation of the overall coastal State picture of estuarine man- 

 agement reveals a pattern or trend that is quite bleak. However, some 

 coastal States have made significant progress toward effective estu- 

 arine management. 



In the realm of organization, each coastal State has some type 

 of mechanism, capabilities, or organizational framework directed 

 towards estuarine management. But most of these frameworks are, 

 unfortunately, inadequate, not effectively coordinated, not strong 

 enough, or not adequately staffed nor financed. Those States, which 

 seem to be making a definite attempt to handle their estuarine man- 

 agement capabilities, have a central organizational/coordinational 

 focal point. A primary factor in the organizational format is that 

 the effective ones are placed high enough in the State structure so that 

 they can operate efficiently and not be overburdened by needless bu- 

 reaucratic delays. But this focal point cannot exist alone. It is only a 

 first step toward estuarine management. Second, the policy dictated 

 and effected by this central agency must be in accordance with, and 

 supported by, a statewide comprehensive estuarine management plan. 

 The plan must be approved by the State and it must consider all as- 

 pects of the use, development, and protection of the estuarine resources 

 for the maximum possible benefit of the populace, not only in the 

 State but also in the region affected by the resource. Third, the com- 



