15 



•ind that the Federal Government should encourage the States to accept 

 this responsibility. 



Even th& most ardent federalists amongst us despaired of ever doing 

 an effective job at the Federal level. It seems highly unlikely, even if 

 it were considered desirable, to put together in a single agency all of 

 the authority and functions related to the coastal zone that one now 

 finds scattered throughout the Federal establishment. 



Probably the most that one could expect would be a somewhat more 

 powerful and effective Marine Council or Water Resources Council. 



However, we in the Commission wei-e of the opinion that the proper 

 level of Government was the State level. ]\rcst of the management 

 functions we are suggesting are traditionally State functions. The 

 extent to which any State wishes to delegate authority to local or 

 regional groups can, within certain limits, be determined by the State. 



THE COASTAL ZONE AUTHORITY 



Coming to our recommendations, the Commission was of the opinion 

 that the States must be the focus for responsibility and action in tl:e 

 coastal zone. We also concluded that in most cases the States now lack 

 adequate machinery for that task. 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. 



Such agencies should be strong enough to deal with the host of over- 

 lapping and often competing jurisdictions of the various Federal 

 agencies. In addition, a strong State organization is essential to sur- 

 mount special local interests, to assist local agencies in solving common 

 problems, and to effect strong interstate cooperation. 



Specifically we recommended that : 



A Coastal Management Act be enacted which will provicle policy 

 objectives for the coastal zone and authorise Federal grants-in-aid to 

 facilitate the establishment of State coastal zone authorities empow- 

 ered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent land. 



We recognize that the Federal Government cannot compel a Stat^ to 

 develop a special organization to deal with coastal management prob- 

 lems. However, by such an act it can encourage a State to do so. 



We also recognize that the great diversity of resources, scope, and 

 activities of coastal State governments will prevent adoption of a uni- 

 form administrative approach to State coastal zone authorities. In 

 some States a single authority might appropriately be given juris- 

 diction over the Sta.te's entire coast ; in others, several groups might be 

 established under a single authority within a State to deal with sep- 

 arate estuarine areas. 



llie form of a State authority may vary from a volunteer commission 

 with a small staff to an agency like the New York Port Authority with 

 maior de\elopment authority buttressed by the power to issue bonds. 



In our review, the guiding principles for the authorities should in- 

 clude the concept of fostering the wildest possible variety of beneficial 

 uses so as to maximize net social return. When necessary, public hear- 

 ings should be held to allow all interested parties to express views be- 

 fore act ions are taken or decisions are made changing or modifying the 

 coastal zone. 



All information and actions of such an authority should be made a 

 matter of public record. The authority must represent all legitimate 



