733 



ideas from S. 638 and S. 992, proposing a National Land Use Policy 

 Act. The committee reported the bill favorably on September 30, 1971, 

 with amendments. On March 14, 1972, the bill was recommitted to the 

 Committee for changes, then ordered favorably reported as an original 

 bill, S. 3507, on April 11, 1972. On April 25, 1972, the bill was debated 

 and passed by the Senate on a rollcall vote, 68-0. On August 2, 1972, 

 the bill was considered and passed by the House. Conferees approved a 

 final version of the bill which was agreed to by the House and Senate 

 on October 12, 1972, and signed by the President on October 28.^ 



Hopes for an early start in development of State coastal zone man- 

 agement programs after the act's signing were not to be realized. In 

 fact, it was not until De-cember 1973 that National Oceanic and At- 

 mospheric Administration received fxmding ; the previous year's activi- 

 ties were limited by the Office of Management and Budget to setting 

 up a small administrative apparatus in Washington with "repro- 

 grammed" funds from other functions within National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Administration. The Nixon Administration did not ask 

 for funding of the program for fiscal year 1974, ostensibly because its 

 leaders preferred to wait for passage of a National Land LTse Planning 

 Act, which could include coastal areas. This position became awkward 

 when the Administration decided not to continue its support for such 

 legislation. Considerable pressure from the Congress (including this 

 Committee) and the interested public, led to a request for supplemental 

 funds for the coastal zone management program. The supplemental 

 appropriation was approved in late 1973. 



The coastal zone management program has had an auspicious be- 

 ginning, and has been ably administered by the National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Administration. By ea^-ly 1975 all 30 eligible States 

 and three of the four eligible territories were receiving Federal pro- 

 gram development grants under section 305 of the act and were match- 

 ing the Federal contributions on a one-third State, two-thirds Federal 

 basis. The virtually total participation by coastal States is extremely 

 gratifying to the Committee, since coastal zone management is a purely 

 voluntary program and requires both money and eifort from the 

 States. It appears that the States have a keen awareness of coastal 

 problems and the need for sound management of coastal resources, 

 and are willing to take positive action in behalf of coastal pro- 

 tection and development along the lines intended by Congress. The 

 Committee believes that the participating States are making good 

 progress toward preparation of coastal resource inventories, compre- 

 hensive management plans, and the creation of legal and administra- 

 tive means to implement their plans. Federal grants given to coastal 

 States under the Coastal Zone Management Act during fiscal years 

 1974 and 1975 are shown in table 1. 



' One of the major areas of controversy within this period of lejrislative history was 

 the debate on whether to assign responsibility to administer the act to the National 

 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which had only recenly been created 

 within the Department of Commerce, or to place It In the Department of the Interior. 

 The Congress affirmatively assigned this program to NOAA, determining that it pos- 

 sessed the requisite oceanic, coastal ecosystem and coastal land use expertise to administer 

 the act. Subsequent votes In the Senate on S. 632, the Land Use Policy and Planning As- 

 sistance Act, further established Congressional intent that coastal zone management pro- 

 grams be separate from the noncoastal land use programs proposed by that legislation. 



