666 



It continues right on down. It says the zone extends inland. 



Mr. Bellmon. How far ? 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. From the shorelines, only to the extent necesssary to 

 control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant im- 

 pact on the coastal waters. * 



Mr. Bellmon. How much of the State of South Carolina is involved 

 in the coastal zone ? 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. We have not had an approved plan as yet. I would say 

 about a 10-mile strip inland, and in two or three areas, perhaps 30 

 miles inland. 



Mr. Bellmox. The State of South Carolina being alert as it is, is 

 anything in there to keep the whole State from being in the coastal 

 zone ? 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. Yes — what I have just read. This is no tricky legisla- 

 tion. This is responsible law. the Senator from Oklahoma looks at this 

 and says it is one thing. The other Senator looks at the amendments 

 and says that the thrust of this is offshore to compensate just for drill- 

 ing. I have just read to him what this amendment concerns. I should 

 perhaps keep reading it to the Senator from Oklahoma. 



]SIr. Bell3I0N. The language is unambigiious. It is going to be up to 

 the Governor or the legislature. 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. It is going to be up to the Federal Government. It does 

 not affect the coastal areas above Trotters Shoals. 



Mr. Bellmon. The Senator from Alaska said earlier that it is up 

 to the State to decide how large its coastal zone is. 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. It has to approved by the Federal Government. 

 Under this law, never has an entire State been considered a coastal 

 zone, with perhaps the exception of island States and territories. 



Mr. Bellmon. I am sure there will be surprises when they get into 

 this. 



Mr. Glenn. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. I yield. 



Mr. Glenn. Mr. President, I associate myself w^ith the remarks of 

 the Senator from Arkansas. I have the same reservations about this, 

 and I would like to see some of the changes he proposed. 



The distinguished manager of the bill referred to some of the reasons 

 why this bill was in existence, and he referred to population growth, 

 economic development, industrial development, commerce, residential 

 development, and recreation. Those certainly are things we would like 

 to see benefit every State of the Union. They have nothing whatsoever 

 to do with whether the location of a State happens to be on a shore- 

 line or not on a shoreline. 



The one big thing we have seen come along since this was passed has 

 been on the Outer Continental Shelf activity. We will bring out of the 

 Interior Committee shortly a $100 million fund to provide for coastal 

 help and impact. 



One other item mentioned was that we wanted management pro- 

 graming in response to the national interest in powerplant facilities 

 siting. That is another one that applies to every State. We can defer 

 to a land use bill and that we should get it passed, but everyone knows 

 what the history of that has been so far. But the Senator from Arkan- 

 sas has put his finger on what I look at as very special legislation, 

 benefiting special States, whereas all our States have a particular need. 



