845 



In the years since enactment of that law, the need for well thought 

 out and practical management of our coastal areas has become even 

 more glaring. Now, we must augment and fortify the Coastal Zone 

 Management Act, so that we may meet and handle the various needs 

 and demands of the present, while also assuring that our coastline re- 

 mains a viable resource for the future. 



When Congress passed the original act, we had not yet experienced 

 any energy crisis. In a sense, that crisis may have been a blessing, for 

 it forced us to be cognizant of the fact that an alteration in our na- 

 tional energy policy was mandatory. In an effort to implement a more 

 valid energy policy, we could not but realize there would be an in- 

 creased demand for the oil and gas resources which are available be- 

 neath our offshore areas. Individual coastal States are presently ill 

 equipped to cope with inherent impacts as we pursue offshore leasing 

 programs, deep water ports, and additional energy facilities. We can- 

 not hope to secure a policy of energy self-sufficiency without these off- 

 shore deposits, and we surely cannot expect to retain them without 

 smooth cooperation between the Federal Government, and State and 

 local governments. By providing the means for States to deal with 

 inevitable consequences of accelerated energy development, H.R. 3981 

 assures that such cooperation will be achieved in a responsible manner. 



All coastal States, including the Great Lakes States, will be able to 

 develop the needed energy facilities, siting, and planning processes, 

 as the bill provides increased planning grants to such States. Perhaps 

 more importantly, the potential impacts of energy development upon 

 individual States' coastal areas may be properly assessed. 



As a Representative from Michigan, I am proud to point out to my 

 colleagues that my State is one of the foremost in facing and dealing 

 with the problems of coastal zone management. The necessity of 

 proper management was brought home hard, in part because of the 

 critical shoreline erosion with which Michigan is faced. This erosion 

 problem is not limited to tlie Great Lakes States, or even the remain- 

 ing coastal States, but has become national in nature. Close to one 

 quarter of our Nation's shoreline is eroding, some of it extremely seri- 

 ously. A large portion of that critical erosion occurs along the Great 

 Lakes coastline. As there is more development per mile of shore along 

 the Great Lakes than exists in remaining coastal areas, the amount of 

 potential and actual damage to life, public safety, property, and wild- 

 life habitats is proportionately greater. 



Estimates of annual shoreline erosion damage vary, but $300 million 

 would be an acceptable figure. In 1971, an estimate of $1 billion to pre- 

 vent and arrest this harm by erecting structural controls was given; 

 yet, between 1970 and 1974, only $104 million was spent by the Corps 

 of Engineers to reduce this eradication of our coastline. Further, the 

 corps is presently able only to implement programs where public ac- 

 cess is guaranteed, and which will protect public interests. No action 

 can be taken which benefits only private owners. While 13 demonstra- 

 tion programs have been authorized by the Congress, no funding has 

 yet been appropriated. There has been no coordinated approach to this 

 problem, since no one has seen fit to correlate the efforts of land own- 

 ers, whether public or private. It should be quite obvious that such co- 

 ordination and cooperation is essential if we are to halt the vanishing 

 shoreline phenomenon. 



