551) 



They must expend added efforts in getting their coastal zone programs 

 in place and the additional funds will assist them m domg so. 



The second basic change proposed by H.K. 16215 relates to the maxi- 

 mum and minimum linntation provisions. While there has been no 

 difficulty in applying the maximum percentage limitation to develop- 

 ment grants, since '61 of the 34 eligible States and territories are al- 

 ready participating, difficulties will be created early next year, and 

 possibly later this year, when a few States will complete their devel- 

 opment programs and will be prepared to make application for ad- 

 ministrative grants. It is obvious that in this early period, a percentage 

 limitation of 10 percent of appropriated funds will serve no basic pur- 

 pose if relatively few States are ready to apply and, as a matter of fact, 

 if there are less than 10 States applying, a 10-percent maximum will be 

 actually harmful and will prevent the full utilization of available 

 funding. The bill, therefore, changes the maximum limitation to $2 

 million per grant in fiscal year 1975, $2.5 million for fiscal year 1976, 

 and $3 million for fiscal year 1977. The change for fiscal year 1975 is 

 merely a precautionary one, since at this point, there is no appropria- 

 tion for administrative grants for the present fiscal year and it is un- 

 likely that any will be sought. If, however, the situation develops so 

 that one or two grants might be applied for and supplemental appro- 

 priations sought for that purpose, the change is desirable. 



The changes for subsequent years are considered necessary. As to 

 the minimum 1 -percent limitations, there are a few of the smaller 

 States and territories where this percentage serves as an overprotec- 

 tion and particularly as appropriations may increase, those few States 

 will neither need nor desire the mandatory funding provided for. 

 Therefore, the bill will amend the basic act to provide that when the 

 State affected requests a waiver of the minimum allocation require- 

 ment, the Secretary shall grant such a waiver. 



Finally, the extension of authorization for the estuarine sanctuaries 

 grants, while not absolutely necessary at this time, provides for standby 

 authorization so that funding may be sought as the States reach the 

 point in their program where they can participate in this meaningful 

 provision. More than 20 States have already indicated their desire to 

 seek grants under this program, but their applications will necessarily 

 be delayed until their programs are further along toward actual oper- 

 ation. Since there are presently available approximately $3 million in 

 carryover funds from the first appropriation for this purpose, it is not 

 anticipated that this authorization extension will immediately result 

 in further funding. Nevertheless, the authorization should be in place 

 so that it will be available at such time as the funding is needed and 

 can be iustified. 



Mr. Speaker, the Coastal Zone Management Act, in its less than 1 

 year of operation, has demonstrated the wisdom of the 92d Congress in 

 passing the Coastal Zone IManajrement Act of 1972. This is not a pro- 

 gram where States merely apply for and are granted Federal funds. 

 It is a program mutually supported by both the Federal and State 

 governments and Federal grants are dependent upon each State's 

 willingness to supnly its proportionate, share of program costs. The 

 fact that 31 of 34 States have joined the program in its first vear dem- 

 onstrates their enthusiastic belief in its value. Early in the next Con- 

 gress, our committee intends to undertake a complete and thorough 



65-319 O - 76 - 36 



