816 
although our total environment is suffering from the three-fold pressure of popu- 
lation growth, urbanization, and industrialization, the coastal portion of that 
environment is in greater jeopardy than the rest. It is here that all pressures 
reach their peak intensity and conflicts among competing uses are most serious. 
To use the words of the Commission, “The coast of the United States is, in 
many respects, the Nation’s most valuable geographic feature. It is at the junc- 
ture of the land and sea that the greater part of the Nation’s trade and industry 
takes place. The waters off shore are among the most biologically productive 
regions of the Nation.” 
Further, I agree with the Commission’s assessment that “rapidly intensifying 
use of coastal areas already has outrun the capabilities of local governments to 
plan their orderly development and to resolve conflicts. The division of responsi- 
bilities among several levels of government is unclear, and the knowledge and 
procedures for formulating sound decisions are lacking.” 
And finally, I concur with the Commission’s conclusion that “the key to more 
effective use of our coastland is the introduction of a management system permit- 
ting conscious and informed choices among development alternatives, providing 
for proper planning, and encouraging recognition of the long-term importance 
of maintaining the quality of this productive region in order to ensure both its 
enjoyment and the sound utilization of its resources. The benefits and the prob- 
lems of achieving rational management are apparent. The present Federal, State.. 
and local machinery is inadequate. Something must be done.” 
The proposal that follows this statement of the problem in the Commission 
report is, in my opinion, the boldest, most imaginative, and most far-reaching 
recommendation in the entire report. It is likely, also, to be the most contro- 
versial. It is, you recall, as follows: 
“The Commission recommends that a Coastal Management Act be enacted 
which will provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal 
grants-in-aid to facilitate the establishment of State Coastal Zone Authorities 
empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent land.” 
I cannot better the Commission’s presentation of the nature of the coastal 
zone, its description of increasing multiple-use conflicts and their potentially 
disastrous consequences, nor its development of the appropriate role and imple- 
menting activities of the Coastal Zone Authorities. In particular, its emphasis on 
the States as the focus for responsibility and action is perceptive and wise, as 
is its specification of the Federal role as that of assistance and support in the 
development of State Coastal Zone authorities, and the protection of the national 
interests in ithe coastal zone. 
Finally, I concur with the identification of the Great Lakes as urgently in need 
of special attention, and that work toward the restoration of the water quality of 
the Great Lakes should be an urgent national commitment. The Commission pro- 
posal of a Great Lakes Restoration Feasibility Test National Project is a step 
in this direction, and I endorse it in concept, also. 
Turning briefly to the related proposals concerning Coastal Zone Laboratories 
in Chapter 2, I would agree that the coastal states, whether or not they establish 
Coastal Zone authorities, do now and will continue to need access to research cen- 
ters specializing in the solution of local and regional problems associated with the 
use or misuse of the environment. I would also agree that, where the marine er- 
vironment is concerned, the Sea Grant program is an appropriate vehicle for 
establishing and supporting such laboratories or centers. I worry about three as- 
pects of the Commission’s treatment of this subject, however. First. the Commis- 
sion is silent concerning the rationale for determining the number and location 
of Coastal Zone Laboratories, except to state that they should be local and re- 
gional, in conformity to the local and regional differences in the nature of the 
problems to be solved. In the absence of a clearer criterion, it will be all too easy 
to conclude on purely political grounds that there should be at least one in every 
coastal state. On this basis, unless funding is very generous, the chances are that 
a number of these, and perhaps all, will be “sub-critical” in size and, hence, too 
small to mount effective programs. This is the criticism the Commission itself 
has leveled at the Feteral im boner reseavch laboratories, leeding to its rocom- 
mendation that they be consolidated into a smaller number of stronger centers. 
I feel that to avoid future criticism of coastal zone laboratories of a similar 
nature, the location and number problem should be subjected to further study. 
This might be an appropriate responsibility of the Sea-Grant Program staff. 
My second misgiving has to do with the explicit recommendation that such 
laboratories be established only in association with academic institutions. The 
