167 



pollution before they occur, rather than after the fact. The environ- 

 ment is certainly subject to the old rule that ''an ounce of prevention 

 is worth a pound of cure." 



We have seen time and time again that development or other ac- 

 tivities, which could have been planned and carried out to avoid dis- 

 ruption of the environment at minimum trouble and expense, have 

 proceeded in an uncontrolled and unplamied manner. In some cases, 

 this has resulted in irremediable damage. In others, efforts made after 

 the fact to correct or jDrevent damage have been far more expensive 

 and troublesome than would have been the case if the impact upon 

 the enviromnent had been assessed at the planning phase, and cor- 

 rective measures applied. 



The bills before this committee today would establish programs of 

 grants to the States to develop management plans for their coastal 

 and estuarine areas. These management plans would be approved by 

 the Federal activities to be consistent with such plans, and contain 

 varying provisions for insuring that the States implement the plans. 



We certainly are in accord with the basic purposes of these bills. 

 They are similar to S. 3183, as proposed by President Nixon during 

 the last session of Congress. As I pointed out earlier, we need some 

 sort of mechanism to insure that proposed development and other 

 activities in the coastal zone are examined in advance \dth respect 

 to their environmental impact. We believe, however, that it would be 

 more appropriate to provide for coastal and estuarine planning in 

 the broader context of land use controls statewide. Decisions affect- 

 ing development in the coastal zone must be influenced by factors 

 affecting all aspects of land use within a State, including appropriate 

 alternatives to development which w^ould despoil or endanger the 

 coastal zone or estuarine areas. 



The administration has provided such an approproach in H.K. 4332, 

 the National Land Use Policy Act of 1971. While that bill is not 

 before this subcommittee, I believe that it would substantially^ achieve 

 the commendable objectives of the bills before you now, and should be 

 considered as a desirable alternative for enactment in their place. 



H.R. 4332 designates as "areas of critical environmental concern"' 

 all coastal and estuarine areas, and requires State land use programs 

 to include means of exercising State control over the use of lands 

 within such areas, including controls and regulations to insure that 

 applicable air, w^ater, or other environmental quality standards will 

 not be violated. We support this special emphasis on the coastal and 

 estuarine areas of the Nation. 



Section 5(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act required 

 the Secretary of the Interior to make a study of the Nation's estuarine 

 and coastal zones. The Secretary delegated the responsibility for 

 carrying out that study to the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad- 

 ministration, which is now part of the Environmental Protection 

 Agency. The FWPCA report concluded that one of the major sources 

 of pollution in estuarine zones is extensive, unplanned development, 

 including waste discharges from municipalities and industries, and 

 land runoff from construction. Dredging and filling associated with 

 development can have a severe impact upon the estuarine environ- 

 ment as well. 



er)-r,i9— 7G 12 



