435 



programs. It is the nature of the governmental process in this coun- 

 try that these line agencies as a rule must be especially responsive to 

 special client groups. Sound management, therefore, requires that the 

 special evaluative function here proposed for the compact agency be 

 directed by persons not associated with the more narrow interest or 

 viewpoint usually characteristic of these agencies. 



The second objective is to obtain an agreement between Maryland 

 and Virginia that each will develop and implement a comprehensive 

 plan for the use and management of its portion of the estuarine re- 

 sources of Chesapeake Bay. In essence, the goal here is to apply to the 

 resources of the interstate bay the planning and management ap- 

 proach that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 

 Commission has applied to, and proposed for, the resources of that in- 

 trastate estuary. (See part V, chapter 3, for a discussion of BCI>C.) 

 Also implicit in each State's agreement on this point would be a com- 

 mitment on its part to establish a greater degree of State-level super- 

 vision and control over zoning and other local regulations over land 

 uses within the basin that affect estuarine values. At present, of course, 

 each State's original authority to exercise these controls itself has 

 largely been delegated to its local units of government. These units, not 

 surprisingly, have wanted to promote the economic growth of the local 

 area and improve its tax base. However, in the absence of effective re- 

 view and supervision by a State agency charged with protecting estua- 

 rine resources, the result too often has been that local governments suc- 

 cumb to strong local pressures to proceed with poorly planned or lim- 

 ited-purpose development of these resources. 



The third objective is to enact in each State, by means of the com- 

 pact, statutory provisions requiring that all State or local legislative 

 or other significant action proposals affecting the estuarine resources 

 of the bay include an assessment and justification by the proposing 

 entity of the proposal's effect on those resources and their use. 



Sectign 3. Summary and Conclusions 



The effectiveness of existing compact agencies in managing the Na- 

 tion's estuarine resources has been limited. The reasons are basically 

 three. 



First, the predominant concern of most compact agencies in exist- 

 ence has been with a single phase, or at most a few of the multiple 

 phases, of estuarine management. Single purposes that have received 

 special emphasis are the protection of fishery resources and the pre- 

 vention or control of water pollution. 



Second, concern with estuarine resources in most instances has been 

 only an incidental part of a broader assigned mission to the agenc5^ 

 In other words, estuarine resources and problems ordinarily have not 

 been the agency's special point of focus. 



Third, the actual role of most compact agencies — in law or in fact — 

 has been predominantly one of rendering supporting services to the 

 signatory States. Tlie States, in other words, have continued to make 

 and execute most of the important estuarine management decisions 

 outside of the compact agency's framework and procedures. 



