407 



propriate agency, program, mechanism, or procedure among the 

 widely diversified estuarine-related programs of the numerous Federal 

 agencies. 



This viewpoint of the State (that the Federal Government should 

 provide increased Federal-State coordination, especially in areas that 

 are beyond the scope of the coastal States) relates to the recommenda- 

 tions in the panel reports, of the Commission on Marine Science, En- 

 gineering, and Resources (V-2-6). As recommended in the panel re- 

 port, the Commission recommends that a 



. . . National seashore boundary commission, judicial in nature, be established 

 by the Congress with authority to hear and determine seashore boundary ques- 

 tions and controversies involving proprietary interests of the States under Fed- 

 eral grants to them, using present principles of coastal boundary determination. 

 Such a commission should have the following characteristics and authority : 



• The Congress should give its consent to State saiit against the United States, 

 permitting States to initiate boundary cases before the commission. 



• Jurisdiction of the Commission should be limited to boundary questions be- 

 tween the States and the United States, involving proprietary interests of the 

 States under Federal grants to fchem. 



• Lines determined by the commission or by the Supreme Court of the United 

 States after an appeal would be fixed permanently. Such stabilization should 

 apply only to ownership of submerged lands or resources, not to general political 

 jurisdiction and authority. Authority to regulate mineral lease operations should 

 be stabilized at the property line so determined and fixed. 



The general consensus of States' views regarding the role of local- 

 level governments is that in most cases there are not, at present, 

 sufficient local organizations to handle estuarine management responsi- 

 bilities and that the people at the local level — that is, county — cannot 

 support such an organization. However, whenever possible the local- 

 level organization should be promoted and built up so that it can 

 adequately handle the local government aspects of the State's overall 

 comprehensive management plan for the estuaries. Local governments 

 are often too susceptible to economic pressures and political influences 

 in respect to estuarine development to enable them to manage the 

 estuarine areas not only for the good of the county but also for the good 

 of the State ; thus they should rely on implementation of the statewide 

 comprehensive management plans. Of course, there are notable excep- 

 tions to this, such as in New York, California, and Massachusetts. A 

 complete discussion of the roles and capabilities of local-level govern- 

 ments is contained in the following chapter 3 on local governments. 



The primary role of public and private interests, as viewed by the 

 States, IS to support in each and every way possible the comprehensive 

 management plan of the State. Without the complete cooperation of 

 the citizenry, a comprehensive management plan cannot be effective 

 and thus cannot effectively protect the estuarine resources. 



THE states' role AS VIEWED BY THE STATES 



The overwhelming response from essentially all the coastal States 

 was that they should manage their own estuarine zones ; some of these 

 responses were even, surprisingly, vehemently expressed. The remain- 

 ing responses expressed by one or more States seemed to fall into five 

 broad categories : State land ownership ; cooperation/coordination of 

 statewide activities; State development of new comprehensive man- 



42-847 O — 7C 



