zone managem. nt and land use planning issue dominated this set of 

 hearings. 



Passage and Emvctment 



In the 2d Sessicn of the 92nd Congress, the Senate Committee on 

 Commerce considered the coastal zone management bills before it and 

 favorably reported a "clean bill", S. 3507, introduced on April 11, 

 1072 and reported on April 19, 1972. The presence of the land use pro- 

 posals had clearly affected the make-up of the new piece of legislation, 

 for the idea of a specific inland definition of the coastal zone as S. 582 

 had possessed had been dropped. Instead, a very flexible and water- 

 oriented definition of the inner boundary of the coastal zone was given : 

 "shorelands whose use had a direct and significant impact upon the 

 coastal water". The flexibility of this definition was to allow for ade- 

 quate coordination with the then proposed land use legislation. Since 

 this was a water-oriented bill, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

 Administration, because of its work in the coastal zone, was given au- 

 thority for the management program. S. 3507's debate and passage 

 emphasized the tightening of jurisdictional boundaries, the provisions 

 for "dovetailing" with future land use legislation if necessary and for 

 cooperation between the states. S. 3507 was passed 68 to with 32 not 

 voting. 



Similarly, the House of Representatives Committee on Merchant 

 INIarine and Fisheries reported its actions in the form of a new bill 

 H.R. 14146 on May 5, 1972. H.R. 14146 deliberately left the definition 

 of the landward extent of the coastal zone broad to fit the varied and 

 divergent conditions of the states, including "only those shoreland 

 a]-eas the control of w^hich is necessary to the effective management of 

 the coastal waters themselves." It too recognized that these provisions 

 must be acceptable to any future land use legislation, and the National 

 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration because of its broad and 

 extensive responsibilities in the coastal zone was given the authority for 

 the program. 



Action on the H.R. 14146 came on JVugust 2, 1972. Among the issues 

 brought up during debate was whether this was a piecemeal approach, 

 addressing only part of the problem. In addition, the possibility of 

 duplicate land use programs was voiced, along with concern over the 

 Department of Commerce having management responsibility for the 

 program. An amendment was offered and accepted which moved the 

 responsibility from the Department of Commerce to the Dcpai+ment 

 of the Interior. Thus amended, H.R. 14146 was passed by 376 to 6 with 

 50 not voting. S. 3507 similarly amended was passed by the House in 

 lieu of H.R. 14146. Both Houses insisted on their provisions and con- 

 ferees Avere appointed. 



The conference repoi-t was accepted by both Houses on October 27, 

 1976. The managers had agreed to adopt the House languages as to the 

 seaward extent of the coastal zone because of its clarity, while tlie 

 definition of the land areas to be included was limited to "those lands 

 which have a direct and significant impact upon the coastal waters", 

 thus reinforcing the water orientation of the legislation. The con- 

 ferees adopted tlie Secretary of Commei'ce as tlie i-esponsible de))ai-t- 

 mcnt citing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration''s 

 capability to assist state and local governments. Future concurrence 

 with the Department of the Interior in the event national land use 



GS-.'ilO— 7(3 2 



