138 
(3) S. 3183; H.R. 14845.—This legislation, submitted to the Con- 
gress by former Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel, is based 
on the findings of the National Estuarine Pollution Study and an 
interdepartmental Coastal Zone Task Force chaired by Under Secre- 
tary of the Interior Russell E. Train. Under the provisions of the 
bill, the Secretary is authorized to make grants to any coastal state 
for the purpose of assisting in the development of a comprehensive 
management program for the land and water resources of the coastal 
zone. In order to qualify for such grants, the coastal State must 
demonstrate to the Secretary compliance with the following re- 
quirements: 
The coastal State must be organized to implement a management plan. 
The agency or agencies responsible for implementation must have the regulatory 
powers necessary to implement the plan, i.e., permit authority, authority to ac- 
quire interests in land through eminent domain and zoning, authority to require 
conformity of local zoning to the State plan. 
The coastal State has developed and adopted a management plan for its coastal 
zone. 
The plan must include identification and recognition of National, State, and 
local interests in the preservation, use, and development of the coastal zone. 
The plan must identify and describe means by which the management proposal 
will be coordinated with interstate and regional planning. 
The plan must be developed in cooperation with relevant Federal, State, and 
local governments, and all other interests. 
The plan must develop a feasible land and water use plan, reasonably reflecting 
the needs of industry, transportation, recreation, fisheries, wildlife, natural area 
protection, residential development and other public and private needs, both in 
the short and the long term. 
The bill makes additional provisions for interagency coordination 
and cooperation on the Federal level. 
The Secretary shall not approve the plan submitted by the State. . . until he 
has solicited the views of Federal agencies principally affected by such plan or his 
evidence that such views were provided the State in the development of the plan. 
In case of serious disagreement between any Federal agency and the State in the 
development of the plan, the Secretary shall seek to mediate the differences. . . 
Federal agencies shall not approve proposed projects that are inconsistent with the 
plan without making investigation and finding that the proposal is, on balance, 
sound. The Secretary shall be advised by the heads of other agencies of such prob- 
lems and be provided an opportunity to participate in any investigation. 
Based on the analysis in this article and the conclusions and rec- 
ommendations of the aforementioned studies, we are now in a posi- 
tion to outline some of the considerations that would go into the legis- 
lative formulation of a new political framework for coastal zone man- 
agement. It is clear that the destiny of shoreline resources should be 
removed from the hands of local decisionmaking and entrusted to a 
broader based governmental unit. 
Many of our present-day problems, such as air and water pollution, 
electric power production, and land use, are inherently regional in 
nature and could seemingly be handled most efficiently by regional 
governmental bodies. But if we are to assume that it is desirable to 
work within the existing governmental structure, then it is clear that 
the States should play the primary role in coastal zone management. 
We must be careful, esol to realize that even the State may not 
be broadly based enough to handle many coastal land-use problems. 
We have noted how the trend toward increasing mobility and the 
uneven distribution of suitable coastal opportunities has made the 
problems of shoreline recreation ignore all State and local boundaries, 
