45 



either contrary or conflicting activities permitted, the effectiveness of 

 that plan would obviously be reduced, there is no question about it, 

 and this is a problem that is not created by this bill. 



I am sure it exists with respect to our existing water pollution abate- 

 ment programs and so forth. 



Now, this is something we could get at by our International Joint 

 Commission with Canada and by bilateral discussions at various times. 



Mr. McEwEN. On page 6 of the bill, ISIr. Train, beginning at line 6, 

 it states : 



The Governor of the coastal State has designated a single agency to receive 

 and administer the grants. 



Would that include this single agency of the State in turn working 

 with a number of agencies within the State? 



Let me illustrate that, for example, in my own area. The State has 

 recently instituted a commission charged with the responsibility of 

 studying the land use of the riparian properties along the St. Law- 

 rence Kiver. It would seem to me, as I understand the structure and 

 the purpose of that Commission, that it would be a logical agency to 

 work on just such a plan as this legislation envisions, but their juris- 

 diction is not statewide. So, using that as an illustration, do j'ou see 

 this bill pennitting or prohibiting, let's say, the New York State 

 Department of Conservation, if that were the agency, in turn working 

 with a regional commission of this type within the State, or a number 

 of these regional commissions? 



Mr. Train. I would see no problem in this at all. And it is certainly 

 not the intent of this legislation to create any such impediment. 



This provision which you have referred to is designed to insure that 

 there is one specific entity that the Federal Government can deal with, 

 particularly in the giving of grants. But we would certainly encour- 

 age the State to require tliat that agency, if it is to be the responsible 

 overall agency for the administration of tlie coastal zone management 

 plan, actively work with, coordinate with all other State and local 

 regional, et cetera, agencies involved in land-water planning; no ques- 

 tion about it. 



Mr. McE^v'EN. Do you envision under this legislation some uniform- 

 ity of standards to be developed by the States, if I may contrast it 

 with these sections on water quality that we have now, where the 

 States submit their water quality plans to the Department, as I 

 undei"stand it, it looks at certain standards to he uniform nationally. 



Mr. Train. I would be very much surprised if we found much uni- 

 formity amongst the various State plans. 



Now, we may with greater eyperience in this country, evolve in a 

 certain direction and find certain common trends running through 

 plans as a result of that evolution. But I v;ould again streps that we 

 recognize local differences, regional differences, and we would expect 

 that there would be substantial differences among the States in the 

 nature of their particular plans. 



The bill does not set down certain specific requirements. It is quite 

 limited but quite definite at the same time. To that extent the plans 

 would have certain comn)on elem.ents. The provisions of which you 

 have just referred must appear in all plans. 



Now, there must be, all of the plans must be within the framewoi-k 

 of the national policy which we set out in the bill. And we are looking- 



