State commissions. In the much larger land-use bill, the urgency would 

 be diffused in the enormous variety and complexity of both physical and 

 social problems that the larger act involves. (2) The technical problems, 

 including the biological aspects, are sufficiently distinct that there could 

 be no net gain, and almost certainly a loss, by mingling marine-oriented 

 technology with land-use technologies. (3) The logical place in the Fed- 

 eral Government for a land-use program is the Department of the In- 

 terior. By contrast the governmental reorganizations of the last 7 years 

 have placed most of the expertise in coastal zone affairs in Department 

 of Commerce, in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

 Further, other agencies that have expertise in this area, such as the Corps 

 of Engineers, have strong links to NOAA. 



We consider S. 3507 and H.R. 14146 progressive in the sense that 

 they match very closely the developments of many of the coastal states, 

 who are moving toward separate coastal zone programs of their own. 

 H.R. 7211 is regressive in this respect. The movement towards separate 

 management of the coastal zone is clearly supported by the National 

 Governors' Conference, which for 3 successive years has strongly endorsed 

 national coastal zone legislation. The same movement has been supported 

 on the parliamentary level: viz, in the National Legislative Conference. 



The Committee feels very strongly that there should be strong coupling 

 between the information-gathering and the management functions. The 

 legislation that we support does not do so explicitly; however, the fact 

 that the Department of Commerce, with NOAA, would have the pri- 

 mary Federal responsibility for implementation of this program (under 

 S. 3507 and H.R. 14146) assures the opportunity of this coupHng. H.R. 

 7211 creating a land-use program centered in the Department of the 

 Interior would impede achievement of this desirable goal. The legislation 

 we favor does provide that the Secretary of Commerce will prepare rules 

 and regulations which State coastal zone management plans must meet. 

 NACOA observes that the Secretary, with the expertise available to him 

 through NOAA, is in a position to recognize the necessity for close cou- 

 pling of the information-gathering and the management functions in formu- 

 lating these rules and regulations and to monitor state activities to see 

 that this coupling actually occurs. Indeed NACOA is specifically charged 

 with oversight of these issues and intends to make further recommenda- 

 tions in the future. 



39 



