418 



The port development agency may favor filling estuaries at the op- 

 position of the parks department; or the building of public-access 

 roads by the highway department may destroy the wildlife protected 

 by the fish and game department. 



Intergovernmental relations among agencies are also haphazard. 

 For example, rational estuarial management must integrate related 

 land and water uses. Yet land-water zoning plans are rarely coordi- 

 nated, because the State sets water quality use standards and owns 

 the submerged lands, while the counties and local governments control 

 the use of land bordering these waterways. 



Conflict may also occur, as illustrated by the following statement : 



State and local governments frequently find themselves in adversary positions 

 concerning conservation and recreation facilities, with local governments both 

 hesitating to move themselves (financial limitations being the chief factor) and 

 objecting to State action that vpould remove real estate from local property tax 

 or otherwise impinge on local government prerogative (V-3-10). 



Strong economic pressures often work against preservation of es- 

 tuaries. Heavily dependent on property taxes, local governments need 

 the revenues brought in by "developed" land. Similarly, heavily taxed 

 private landowners find selling their land to developers more profitabe 

 than retaining it in natural state. Because of these immediate and 

 tangible benefits and the insistence of industrial, commercial, and re- 

 sidential interests, it is very difficult for hard-pressed communities to 

 conserve such things as the habitat and recreational values of the es- 

 tuaries for long-range benefit. As a result of these compelling needs 

 for revenues and profits, estuaries are dredged, filled, and developed. 



The picture presented here is not encouraging : multiple fragmented 

 units of government, inadequately staffed, desperately competing for 

 use of the same tax base; permissive laws and regulations; few com- 

 prehensive programs; few formal mechanisms for State-local or in- 

 terlocal cooperation; and little coordination of water and shoreline 

 zoning and uses. Without local government direction, the decisionmak- 

 ing initiative lies within the area of private interests as more and more 

 estuares are destroyed, 



Sectton 4. Selected Interlocal Coastal Management Programs 



san francisco bay conservation and development commission 



San Francisco Bay vividly illustrates the problems and promises of 

 comprehensive estuarine management. Alarmed by this shrinking and 

 polluted bay, the California Legislature in 1965 created the San Fran- 

 cisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The 

 act provided for a 27-member commission representing all elements of 

 government including the cities and counties. It declared that : 



The present uncoordinated, haphazard manner in which San Francisco is being 

 filled threatens the Bay itself and is, therefore, inimical to the welfare of both 

 present and future residents of 'the area surrounding the Bay (V-3-11). 



The BCDC was directed to make a detailed study of the bay and to 

 prepare a comprehensive and enforceable plan for its conservation 

 and the development of its shoreline ( V-3-12) . It was given the power 

 to protect the bay during the study and planning period by issuing or 



