262 



to the concerns that were expressed by members of other jurisdic- 

 tional committees, specifically the Committee on Banking, Housing 

 and Urban Aifairs, the Committee on Public Works, and the Commit- 

 tee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 



With respect to matters of municipalities and regional development, 

 the overall approach of this particular bill is conformance with the 

 land use bill submitted by the administration and sponsored by the 

 distinguished Senator from Washington, Mr. Jackson. We have 

 tried our very best to dovetail, should the land use bill be enacted by 

 this Congress, so that the coastal zone bill would be hand in glove 

 with it. 



Additionally, with respect to the urban spiral in housing, we have 

 not tried to preempt the committee having jurisdiction in that regard. 

 As a former member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and 

 Urban Affairs I assure my colleagues that this bill would give appro- 

 priate recognition to our 'housing and community development needs, 

 as well as the needs of our coastalzones. 



I believe the legislative history of the measure clearly indicates we 

 intend that the Coastal Zone Act be administered in a way to reflect 

 the concerns of HUD and other public agencies which have planning 

 and development missions. 



The statutory language indicates that the bill aims to protect our 

 critical coastal marine areas, and would restrict its jurisdiction inland. 

 The report accompanying the bill specifically states that the coastal 

 zone — extends inland only to the extent necessary to allow the man- 

 agement program to control shorelands whose use have a direct and 

 significant impact upon the coastal water. 



In any event, I would anticipate that the officials carrying out this 

 act would work cooperatively^ with other officials of Federal, State, 

 and local governments in expanding social opportunities and in en- 

 hancing the quality of life. 



The fact is that the bill was encompassed in S. 582, Pending the 

 hearing last year, and also reported with approval by the Committee 

 on Commerce, it stayed on the calendar for some time. It was felt that 

 the definition of "coastal zone" went too far inland. 



We thought we had reconciled the concern with the 7-mile limitation. 

 I had to agree this went into too many things. It was a matter of in- 

 terest to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. I 

 had a discussion with the distinguished chairman, the Senator from 

 Alabama, Mr. Sparkman, on the point. The bill is designed not to have 

 any conflict there. 



The cities themselves approved, in a general sense, the particular 

 measure in the original hearings. The mayor of the city of Newport 

 Beach, Calif., came forward and said it was not permissive for partici- 

 pation and did not encompass in its approach the use of local govern- 

 ments. So we went back through the bill and included in every respect 

 the terminology "local government" so that wherever possible there be 

 no misunderstanding. 



On page 9, section 305, subsection (g) it is now stated : 



(g) With the approval of the Secretary the coastal State may allocate to a local 

 government. . . . 



