144 
crucial recommendations set forth in every study as to the role that 
the Federal Government must play in the overall management 
system. Each bill calls for State coastal authorities to develop plans 
that set forth objectives consistent with regional and national 
interests—yet none provides for the establishment of uniform guide- 
lines for the States to follow in the determination of these interests. 
Each bill calls for the States to provide a mechanism for the resolu- 
tion of conflicts, fostering the widest variety of beneficial uses to 
maximize social return—yet none suggests the mechanism by which 
the needs and values of neighboring States can be effectively in- 
cluded in the trade-off analysis. 
In addition, none of the bills makes provision for the establishment 
of national policy objectives and guidelines for planning by which the 
plans of the various coastal States can be coordinated. Nor is there 
any indication of how the administrator at the Federal level is to go 
about determining whether or not each individual State’s master plan 
is consistent with the national interest. Only one bill suggests a mech- 
anism for the resolution of Federal-State conflicts while none tackles 
the crucial issue of inefficient allocation due to secondary effects 
between States. While all these bills seem to effectively spell out the 
roles of the States in coastal zone management and establish the 
financial and informational bases of support for such efforts, they are 
seriously deficient in providing for a strong Federal involvement that 
is necessary for two important reasons: (1) to establish substantive 
policy objectives and guidelines for effective coordination, on a 
regional basis, of the separate activities of the individual States; and 
(2) to take the lead in tackling the difficult issue of how to make 
decisions (at State, regional, and Federal levels) based on trade-offs 
between measurable and nonmeasurable benefits and costs to society 
at all levels. Unless this involvement is provided for at the Federal 
level any political reorganization that relies on the primary role of the 
States attacks only half the problem. Thus, we would have to be 
prepared to accept, at best, halfway solutions. There is doubt in my 
mind that this would be any improvement over the situation as it 
exists today, as inefficient and deplorable as it certainly is. There is 
real danger here for we run the risk, for all our well intentioned 
uO of creating more serious problems than those we are striving 
to solve. 
