16 



interests in tlie coastal zone, and not be dominated by any single inter- 

 est whether it be fishing, recreation, industrial development or con- 

 servation. 



The Commission believed the following powers should be available 

 to the typical coastal zone authority : 



1. Planning — to make comprehensive plans for the coastal waters 

 and adjacent lands and to conduct the necessary studies and investiga- 

 tions. 



2. Regulation — to zone ; to grant easements, licenses, or permits ; and 

 to exercise other necessary controls for insuring that use of watei-s and 

 ■adjacent lands is in conformance with the plan for the area. 



3. Acquisition and eminent domain — to acquire lands when i)ublic 

 ownership is necessary to control their use (condemnation procedures 

 should be used if necessary) . 



4. Development — to provide, either directly or by arrangement with 

 other government agencies, such public facilities as beaches, marinas, 

 iind other waterfront developments and to lease lands in its jurisdic- 

 tion, including offshore lands. 



With respect to the later point, I should note that the Commission 

 recommended that : 



States develop procedures to permit the leasing of offshore areas for 

 new uses consistent with the overall plan of the State coastal zone 

 authorities for the development of these areas. 



We referred to these leases as "seasteads" in analogy with the Home- 

 stead Act of 1862. 



QUESTIONS CONCERNING COASTAL ZONE AUTHORITIES 



Of the various questions and objections that were raised to the idea 

 of State coastal zone authorities during the formulation of our report, 

 I'd like to mention two. The first is that State boundaries are usually 

 not natural division lines for the coastal zone and, for example. Lake 

 Michigan, Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bay are shared by more 

 than one State; thus regional authorities would be preferable. 



The objection is certainly a valid one, but I don't believe most States 

 are willing to transfer to regional groups the Idnds of power and au- 

 thority we have suggested for coastal zone authorities. Furthermore, 

 the Commission was persuaded that "in most cases sound planning and 

 management undertaken by one State probably will not differ greatly 

 from that undertaken by an adja-cent State. "N'^Hien differences do arise, 

 they may be settled by direct negotiations between the parties con- 

 cerned or by the establishment of ad hoc interstate committees or an 

 inerstate commission or compact. Strong coastal zone authorities rep- 

 resenting the variety of State interests will facilitate such agreements." 



The second question concerns the Federal role vis-a-vis coastal zone 

 authorities. The Federal Government has strong interests in the ef- 

 fective management of a State's coastal waters and a number of special 

 interests and responsibilities including navigation and security. 



The Commission felt that some kind of Federal review of coastal 

 zone authorities was desirable to insure that national interests are 

 protected. Recognizing that any action of a coastal zone authority 

 must be consistent with such programs as the Department of Interior's 

 -continuing recreation, wildlife and mineral development plans and 

 with those of the Army Engineers relating to navigation and flood 



