134 
and the Federal Government taking on the responsibility of developing 
and maintaining the viewpoint and interests of the national system as 
a whole, while coordinating activities and providing a mechanism for 
the resolution of conflicts between States. | 
More recently, a number of other studies have made recommenda- 
tions as to the proper political framework for sound coastal zone 
management. These include: 
(1) A report by the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, 
and Resources. 
(2) The National Estuarine Pollution Study, sponsored by the Water 
Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior 
(November 1969). 
(3) The Coastal Zone Management Conference, House of Repre- 
sentatives Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries (October 1969). 
_ (4) A report to the Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone 
of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering De- 
velopment, on ‘Coordinating Governmental Coastal Activities’ 
(September 1968). } 
(1) Report of the Commission on Marine Sciences, Enguneering, and 
Resources.—This Commission, headed by Dr. Julius A. Stratton, was 
formed in 1966 by the Marine Resources and Development Act and 
charged with the responsibility of formulating a program of national 
action for the most effective use of our marine resources and a plan 
for governmental organization for the fulfillment of that program. The 
relevant recommendations of that commission were put forth in a 
statement by Dr. John A. Knauss, former Chairman, Panel on Coastal 
Zone Management of the Commission: ™ 
A major conclusion of our Commission was that the primary problem in the 
coastal zone was a management problem with all the attendant problems that 
proper management implies. It is true that the Federal, State, and local govern- 
ments share the responsibility to develop and manage the coastal zone. In review- 
ing the situation, we concluded that effective management to date has been 
thwarted by the variety of Government jurisdictions involved at all levels of 
government, the low priority afforded to marine matters by State governments, 
the diffusion of responsibility among State agencies to develop and implement 
long range plans . . . the Commission was of the opinion that the states must 
be the focus for responsibility and action in the coastal zone. We believe an 
agency of the State is needed with sufficient planning and regulatory authority 
to manage coastal areas effectively and to resolve problems of competing uses. 
We recommend that a Coastal Management Act be enacted which will provide 
policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in-aid to facili- 
tate the establishment of State coastal zone authorities empowered to manage the 
Coastal waters and adjacent land. 
(2) Department of Interior Report—The National Estuarine Pollution 
Study ”.—The recommendations and proposed program outlined im 
this report put forth the policy objectives for a comprehensive national 
program for coastal zone management and spell out the suggested 
responsibilities and roles of the Federal, State, and local governments 
within such a program. 
What is proposed in a program that recognizes the primary responsibilities of 
the States in a management program for their estuarine and coastal areas, and on 
51 “Coastal Zone Management Conference,” hearings before Subcommittee on Oceanography of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, serial No. 91-14, Oct. 28, 29, 1969, 
p. 11, vols. I, II, III. é 
52 Thid., reference 1; vols. I, II, III. 
