419 



denying, after public hearings, permits for all fill or excavation 

 projects. 



The BCDC study documented the deteriorating conditions and com- 

 plex problems of the bay. In 1850, before extensive diking and filling 

 had begun, the bay comprised about 680 square miles. Presently, it is 

 400 square miles in area. Further, if all relatively shallow parts of the 

 bay were filled, as planned by some interests, the bay would consist of 

 only 187 square miles. Similarly, marshlands and mudflats at the rim 

 of the bay, once totaling 300 square miles, have 'been reduced to 75 

 square miles. The bay is especially vulnerable to land-fill projects be- 

 cause more than 70 percent of its area is less than 18 feet deep. 



Existing political, administrative, and legal mechanisms were in- 

 adequate to protect this invaluable resource. Haphazard planning and 

 zoning practices abounded, with each municipality operating inde- 

 pendently of its neighbors. Ownership of the bay was divided between 

 the State (50 percent), cities and counties (23 percent), the Federal 

 Government (5 percent), and private owners (22 percent), whose 

 titles were often disputed. Moreover, there were differences of opinion 

 on the extent of the public trust, such as whether cities could fill in 

 lands granted to them by the State 



In January 1969, BCDC filed a final report which included the com- 

 mission's detailed stud}^ of the bay (V-3-12). A comprehensive plan 

 was adopted and to maintain and carry out this plan, an appropriate 

 agency was recommended, at an estimated annual cost of $400,000 to 

 $500,000. A bill, the McAteer-Petris Act as amended, implementing 

 the BCDC recommendations and extending its life was enacted in 

 August 1969 ( V-3-13) . The bill gives the commission in general terms 

 the following powers : To analyze, plan, and regulate the entire bay 

 and shoreline as a unit with jurisdiction up to 100 feet; to make an 

 effective use of each prime site ; and to grant or deny permits for all 

 bay filling or dredging in accordance with the standards in the plan. 

 The commission is also able to regulate shoreline development to in- 

 sure that prime sites are reserved for priority uses, to provide for max- 

 imum public access and repurchase, and to encourage attractive design 

 of shoreline development. 



In conclusion, San Francisco Bay is not unique in its estuarial prob- 

 lems. The picture BCDC painted of a neglected, shrinking, polluted 

 bay, yet an irreplaceable and immensely productive resource, is typi- 

 cal of most of our Nation's estuaries. What is significant about the San 

 Francisco Bay experience, in addition to the comprehensive and de- 

 tailed background reports, is that this study commission was oriented 

 toward practical planning and implementation, and that it was also 

 endowed with interim power to prevent further despoliation and un- 

 coordinated development. Under the act that created BCDC, this com- 

 mission could grant permits for fill or excavation only if a proposed 

 project was "(1) necessary to the health, safety, or welfare of the 

 public in the entire bay area, or (2) of such nature that it will not 

 adversely affect the comprehensive plan being prepared." Thus BCDC 

 showed how a regional agency endowed with permit powers and 

 focusing its studies on program implementation did not merely study 

 the problem but also served as a catalyzing agency to perserve this 

 irreplaceable estuary. 



