Economic concerns, the need to keep governmental expenditures to a 

 minimum, are more substantive arguments for delay, even though the 

 costs of initiating the coastal zone management program seem low com- 

 pared to others which were supported — especially in terms of desirable pri- 

 orities and potential productivity. However, the obvious short- and long- 

 term economic importance of achieving reasonable control over the en- 

 vironments and resources of the Nation's coastal margin is so great that 

 this particular budgetary squeeze could very well be counterproductive. 



The Need for Action 



With passage of the National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

 and the vigorous beginnings undertaken by NOAA, NACOA was encour- 

 aged to expect that confusion would diminish and order emerge. Un- 

 fortunately, while lack of funding has limited Federal activity to some 

 planning and fact-finding efforts, the scene at the State level has been in 

 ferment. Individual States have taken action. For example, California 

 passed Proposition 20, which brought into being California's Coastal Zone 

 Conservation Act of 1972. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972, an attempt 

 to control by permit the use of intertidal lands which since 1819 have 

 been in private hands, was also enacted. The Delaware Legislature , de- 

 clared a 1-year moratorium on coastal development while a group of ex- 

 perts was tasked with providing guidance for Delaware's long-term coastal 

 zone utilization. Other States have taken action. Some have been com- 

 prehensive, encompassing the entire coastal areas, as in the California and 

 Delaware cases. Others have been more narrowly focused on specific seg- 

 ments, like the wetlands in Virginia. NACOA is aware that many other 

 management activities are underway at State and local levels and that 

 planning is being (parried out by many others. 



NACOA is pleased to note this vigorous action, believing that it is ample 

 testimony to the criticality of the coastal zone, but certain aspects of its 

 management must be truly national. The people and economic activity 

 of the heartland as well as the coastal area are closely dependent upon 

 the metropolitan centers, ports, internal waterways, oceanic lanes, mineral 

 and fishery resources, and the recreational and aesthetic resources of the 

 margins of the seas and the Great Lakes. Too, regional (interstate) needs 

 exist. A great danger exists in unilateral and uncoordinated action by State 

 and local governments. Local, State, regional, and national interests are 

 often in direct conflict when offshore developments like deep-water ports, 

 oil exploration, and production platfonns, and other nationally or regional- 

 ly important projects are proposed. The management and utilization of 

 living resources of the coastal zone has proven to be a continuing area of 

 irritation and disagreement. Conflict and problems between States and 

 regions are yet to be resolved. Persistent conflict has seriously impeded 



26 



