755 



29 



doing so are somewhat related to the amendments which S. 

 586 proposes. That is, the match requirements would impose 

 too great a burden on the Territory in view of our present 

 financial difficulties. AVe, therefore, support a reduction in 

 match requirements as proposed for sections 305 and 306. 



S. 586 therefore increases the F'ederal share of funding under sec- 

 tion 305 (program development) and ^section 306 (program imple- 

 mentation) to 80 percent. This action, combiued with expanded require- 

 ments for States to incorporate beach access programs and energy 

 facility planning processes in their comprehensive management pro- 

 grams, makes it necessary to increase the absolute level of funding as 

 well. Section 305 funding is therefore mci-eased from $12 to $20 mil- 

 lion annually, and section 306 from $30 to $.'")0 million annually, and 

 States may receive development grants for 4 years rather than 3, as 

 originally authorized in the Act. 



6. Furifls for Puhlic Access to Beaches and Preservation of Islands 



In recent years — both before and after passage of tlie Coastal Zone 

 Management Act — coastal States have realized the increasing diffi- 

 culty of assuring public access to and protection of beaches and islands 

 in the coastal zone. Time is of the essence, since property values are 

 rising steeply and quickly on waterfront property. 



The committee is persuaded that ]>roviding assistance to the States 

 for the acquisitions of lands for these purposes is amply justified and 

 in the national interest. With population and leisure trends pointing 

 to increased demands on limited public waterfronts, it is imperative to 

 protect these properties. To wait longer would mean the public will 

 have to pay higher prices for the property needed for enjoyment of 

 public beaches. 



A number of States have cited ]iea<'li access problems as critical in 

 correspondence with the committee. Maryland reports that only 3 per- 

 cent of the Chesapeake Rav shorelands are publicly owned. In its cor- 

 respondence with Senator Rollings, the State notes : 



The beach provisions of S. 586 would provide a planning 

 element to Maryland's fledgling public beach access program, 

 and would double the purcliasing power of limited State 

 funds that are already committed to purchasing beach lands. 

 This increased funding could provide impetus for extending 

 our beach access program to the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. 



Similarly, the Florida Coastal Coordinating Council wrote to Sen- 

 ator Rollings : 



This section will enable Florida to contend with develop- 

 ment. pressures that are threatening to close otT public access 

 to Florida's nvimerous beaches; this is a problem which, up to 

 the present, Florida has had substantial difficulty in dealing 

 with. 



The California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission endorsed the 

 bearh and island provision of S. 586 and i-eported that : 



Strong efforts to increase public access to the ocean coast 

 are contained in the preliminary coastal ])lan that is now the 

 subject of 20 public hearings in California. 



