479 



recognized both by Government and by the people. But even more so 

 has been the recognition by the people and private organizations who 

 brought their governments to the pomt of action . 



The need for a comprehensive plan of management remains evi- 

 dent in the Chesapeake. In San Francisco Bay such a plan is in force. 

 However, in terms of administration and regulation, neither Cali- 

 fornia, Maryland, nor Virginia have instituted effective State control 

 of dredge, fill, and alteration. Zoning or the control of land use adja- 

 cent to the estuarine waters is exercised at the leyel of local government 

 and certainly has not yet been generally effective in the preservation 

 of estuarine areas. The Bay Conservation and Development Commis- 

 sion plan for San Francisco Bay has been an exception to this for the 

 past 3 years and hopefully will continue to exercise appropriate 

 controls. 



At the Federal level there is considerable evidence to indicate that a 

 national policy with accompanying objectives and guidelines would 

 provide helpful impetus to State programs even though many are pro- 

 ceeding without it. The augmentation and coordination of Federal 

 programs in the estuarine zone is a very current need. Although the 

 development of the necessary basic knowledge by research and study 

 has made much progress, there remains much more to be done if com- 

 prehensive management plans are to receive the support they need. 



San Francisco Bay suffered rather severe degradation before the 

 "Save the Bay" organizations by their efforts brought the Bay Con- 

 servation and Development Commission into being. As a result, there 

 is now" a comprehensive plan for the preservation, use, and developnient 

 of the bay. The Chesapeake Bay, on the other hand, is at present little 

 damaged except in local areas generally near the population centers. 

 Nevertheless, it faces growing problems of population pressures and 

 industrial development with the problems mvolved in being an in- 

 terstate estuary. This means, of course, that preparing and carrying 

 out a comprehensive plan of management must sooner or later be a 

 coordinated effort on the parts of both the States of Maryland and 

 Virginia. 



As can be seen, these two case studies, as brief as they are, again 

 bring out the need for and the importance of a comprehensive plan 

 at the State level, national policy and objectives, augmentation of 

 programs directed to the estuarine and coastal zone, and the estab- 

 lishment and implementation of better and stronger regulatory 

 controls. 



These conclusions reinforce the discussion and findings in the study 

 of the roles of local. State, interstate, and Federal programs in 

 developing a comprehensive national estuarine program. 



REFERENCES 



V-7-1 Cronin, L E., "The Condition of Chesapeake Bay," Transactions of the 

 32d North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

 March 13, 14, and 15, 1967. Washington, D.C. Wildlife Management 

 Institute, pp. 137-150 (1967). 



V-7-2 University of Maryland School of Law, "Chesapeake Bay in Legal Per- 

 spective," prepared as a part of contract 14-12-421 with the Federal 

 Water Pollution Control Administration. Baltimore, Md., University of 

 Maryland (1969). Mimeographed report. 



