91st Congress Proposals 



Soon after the release of the Stratton Commission report, legislative 

 initiative began on the Commission recommendations. In direct re- 

 sponse to the report, Sen. Warren G. Magnuson on August 8, 1969 

 introduced S. 2802, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1969, which 

 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce. Two other coastal 

 zone management bills were introduced in the Senate shortly there- 

 after: S. 3183 on Nov. 25, 1969 by Sen. J. Caleb Boggs, referred to 

 the Senate Public Works Committee, and S. 3460, on February 17, 

 1970, referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. S. 3183 was in 

 response to the Department of the Interior recommendations proposed 

 in the National Estuary Study. U.K. 14145, also reflecting the rec- 

 ommendations of the Interior Department was introduced by Rep. 

 George H. Fallon on November 18, 1969, and referred to the House 

 Committee on Public Works. Two bills referred to the House Commit- 

 tee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries were H.R. 15099 introduced 

 by Rep. Alton A. Lennon on December 4, 1969 and H.R. 16155 by Rep. 

 Robert M. Giaimo on February 24, 1970. 



Four of these bills S. 2802, S. 3460, H.R. 15099 and H.R. 16155 

 assigned the authority for the coastal zone management program to 

 the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Develop- 

 ment, while S. 3183 and H.R. 14845 would have assigned it to the De- 

 partment of the Interior. Assignment of responsibility reflected the 

 landward or seaward orientation of the individual bills, with those 

 concentrating on the water-related problems and assigning respon- 

 sibility to the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering 

 Development being referred to the Senate Commerce or House Mer- 

 chant Marine and Fisheries Committees. Those with a landward 

 focus and favoring the Department of the Interior were referred to 

 the the Senate Public Works or the House Public Works Committees. 

 The definition of boundaries aggravated the jurisdictional problems. 



The land or sea orientation approach to coastal zone problems was 

 manifested by the definition of the coastal zone itself. Most of the bills 

 ^ere similar in recognizing the seaward boundary as the outward 

 limit of the the territorial sea while there was different interpretations 

 of the landward extent of the coastal zone. Both S. 2802 and H.R. 15099 

 defined this area as the "landward extent of maritime influences", S. 

 3460 and H.R. 16155 set the limits as "not to exceed 20 miles inland 

 where martime influences exercise direct effect on land", and H.R. 

 14845 defined the area as "that in close proximity and strongly in- 

 fluenced by the coastline". These definitions reflected the various ways 

 of interpreting the land definition of the coastal zone. 



Management provisions were similar throughout the bills with some 

 allowing for development grants of either 50% or 66%%. S. 2802, 

 S. 3460, H.R. 15099 and H.R. 16155 provided for state coastal zone 

 autliorities, while S. 3183 did not. Providing for a state coastal zone 

 authority would have been instrumental in determining the flexibility 

 the states would have in their individual management program. 

 , Included in some of the proposed legislation were provisions for 

 estuarine sanctuaries, research areas set aside to provide scientists the 

 opportunity to examine the ecological relationship within estuaries. 

 S. 3460 and H.R. 16155 contained provisions for the eoveraa:e of 50% 

 of the costs of acquisition, development and operation of estuarine 

 sanctuaries. 



