408 



agement plans; strengthenina;/enforcing of existing State use regula- 

 tions, controls, and standards ; research/study ; and State use control 

 (table V.2.5). 



TABLE V.2.5.— BRIEF TABLE OF VIEWPOINTS EXPRESSED BY COASTAL STATES AS TO THEIR ROLE AND 



RESPONSIBILITIES 



Because of their unique colonial legislative prerogatives, three States 

 in particular own their estuarine (coastal zones) : Hawaii, Texas, and 

 Alaska. Of course, they believe strongly in State ownership of estu- 

 arine lands. Certain other States that are relatively well developed — 

 such as Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut — ^believe in and 

 are engaged in, ownership through acquisition by use of State funds 

 or Federal grants. 



Many of the States viewed coordination of all estuarine activities as 

 their prerogative and also stated that cooperation/coordination of 

 Federal-State-local-private programs was an essential element of ef- 

 fective estuarine management that was often sorely lacking. Some 

 States believed that they should coordinate the Federal and private 

 activities in their area especially because they had a better on-site 

 overall view of their area situation than the view from the Nation's 

 Capitol or Federal level. 



However, should a State be expected to view impartially its estuarine 

 resources that are an areawide asset without national support? For 

 example, the New Jersey beaches or Florida sands are enjoyed by the 

 population far beyond each State. Their effective management involves 

 consideration of regional significance instead of just statewide impact. 

 Some States even alluded to the view that more effective intrastate 

 coordination would nullify the need for additional regulations and 

 legislation, or even organizations. 



Akin to the States' view of estuarine management was the view- 

 point that they should develop a statewide estuarine management 

 plan, variously termed, and an effective mechanism for enforcing it. 



