846 



H.R. 3981 provides for just such an organized effort, by requiring 

 coastal States to institute a planning process to assess the effects of 

 shoreline erosion, and to evaluate methods of control, and restoration 

 of areas stricken by such erosion, whether the damage is natural, or 

 induced by man. Knowing full well the grave implications if this ero- 

 sion is permitted to continue unchecked, and having heard much ad- 

 ditional testimony on the subject, I was pleased to introduce this provi- 

 sion into the bill, H.R. 3981, and greatly satisfied that the necessity 

 for such a measure was recognized by my colleagues on the committee. 



Further, the committee realized that the addition of this program 

 would require additional funding, permitting the States to conceive 

 and develop their respective programs to remedy the erosion threat. 

 Consequently, the level of funding authorized for planning grants was 

 increased from $12 million to $24 million annually, and States would 

 be allowed to receive developmental grants for 4 years, as opposed to 

 the 3-year period authorized in the original 1972 act. When weighing 

 the potential destruction of our national coastline if action is not taken 

 to preserve it, and when considering the Corps of Engineers estimates 

 of funding levels to terminate such loss, I do not believe that there is 

 any way we can afford not to sanction this funding. 



However, though I do support a provision that calls for the devel- 

 opment of a State planning process for the protection of and access to 

 public beaches and other public areas of identified value, I must re- 

 iterate my opposition to the provisions of this bill that provide for 

 grants to assist States in acquiring land accessways. I am of the opin- 

 ion that until the planning process is completed, the Federal Govern- 

 ment, by the addition of an attractive though unnecessary funding 

 provision, should not as a matter of policy impose what would be tan- 

 tamount to a Federal mandate to acquire public accessways across 

 private lands. Since the principal thrust of the basic act is preserva- 

 tion and protection, we should he cautious tliat our calculated Federal 

 action does not have such a detrimental effect on adjacent private 

 property as to give rise to the need for another form of impact fund. 

 Congress needs to know the impact of a provision for accessways that 

 may well result in the degradation of the areas to be reached as well 

 as adjacent areas without strict and costly State regulatory and super- 

 vision regimes that this bill does not provide for. In the final analysis, 

 the States have the authority and perhaps even the funds to acquire 

 necessary rights-of-way by exercising their own inherent right of emi- 

 nent domain. A few have programs underway even now without addi- 

 tional Federal impetus — others, at their discretion and prompted by 

 the planning process in this bill, may follow suit. In my opinion, an 

 additional grant largesse is not an essential ingredient of a coastal 

 zone management program at this time. 



I have opposed Federal land use legislation in the House Interior 

 Committee and have serious reservations about imposing a land use 

 plan upon the States which is accomplished by the coupling of land 

 grants with a planning process for access to specified public areas. 



I lost in my eft'orts to amend this bill in both subcommittee and full 

 committee markups and so bow to the will of my colleagues on the 

 committee. Except, for the reservation expressed ai30ve, I support this 

 bill wholeheartedlv, commend my colleagues for their work, and urge 

 my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House to support the 



