40 



Secretary Hicelel. I agree. Would you excuse me, I have to be 

 someplace at a quarter to 12. 



Mr. Howard. We have been very happy to have you before the sub- 

 committee. We were very happy to have your testimony. 



Mr. Harsha. Again, I would like to thank you. As usual, we are 

 happy that you came. 



What does this legislation do in assisting the States to protect their 

 interests, if those interests happen to differ from the Secretary's? Is 

 there protection afforded the States, if they have interests that are 

 involved in this zoning problem over the comprehensive planning 

 problem that seemed to differ from your overall objectives ? 



Mr. Traix. Of course, the basic protection which the bill provides 

 the States in this connection is that it places the initial responsibility 

 for developing the plan and then in implementing the plan, upon the 

 State itself. So the initiative for the details of a State plan lies with the 

 State itself. And I believe that that arrangement provides a very basic 

 protection against the kind of problem which you refer to. 



Mr. Harsha. What if you have a conflict between the neighboring 

 State, then we arrive at a stalemate some way, don't we, because of 

 these peculiar interests of the first State ? 



Mr. Train. In the final analysis, I suppose what would happen in 

 such a case, if there is an irreconcilable conflict, I would assume the 

 Secretary would have to not approve one or the other of the two plans. 

 This seems like a most unlikely situation. If that were the case, of 

 course, the only penalty paid by the State would be the loss of this 

 rather modest grant money. 



And so I don't really think that there is what you would call a 

 Federal club at all. There is a rather modest — the legislation is de- 

 signed to encourage the States to develop comprehensive management 

 plans within the framework of a very broad statement of national 

 policy, and not to beat the States over the head into some kind of 

 conformity w^th a national plan. 



Mr. Harsha. Now, who will make the final detennination of the 

 bomidaries of the coastal plain, subject to the management plan? 



INIr. Train. Each State will make its own determination. The coastal 

 zone as defined by the legislation, gives a seaward boundary that is 

 faced by the 3-mile territorial sea boundary, but the inland boundary 

 is defined as the area strongly influenced by the sea. 



Now, that is necessarily a somewhat vague and indefinite boundary, 

 but purposely so. Here again, one of the efforts of this bill is to leave 

 maximum initiative with the States, and it could well be that each 

 coastal State will come up with a somewhat different definition of its 

 coastal zone. And there is nothing in this legislation, nor in the think- 

 ing within the Department that would consider this inappropriate. 

 There are local differences; there are regional differences; and it is 

 the whole purpose of the approach the administration is taking in 

 this legislation, to appropriately recognize those differences as long as 

 they do not do violence to the overriding national policy as laid down 

 in the bill. 



Mr. Harsha. All right, can estuaries be separated from whatever 

 rivers in determining the environmental impact ? 



