900 



14 



in the programs being: developed by the States. The three new require- 

 ments specifically included in the bill deal with planning processes 

 relating to protection of and access to public beaches and other public 

 areas, an evaluation of the adverse effects caused by shoreline erosion 

 and remedial actions necessary to correct such actions, and the develop- 

 ment of an energy facility planning process within the coastal zone. 



Due to the fact that land prices have been escalating steadily over 

 the past years, it has become increasingly difficult for State and local 

 governments to provide access ways to public areas such as beaches, 

 historical areas, and other similar sites which the public has come tx) 

 enjoy. Some States can utilize their condemnation rights under 

 eminent domain provisions in state laws, but the ability to provide 

 such access ways using techniques of less thaji fee-simple acquisition 

 or condemnation are generally not provided for by most States sur- 

 veyed. The requirement in the bill would have states develop a plan- 

 ning process to evaluate various options particularly suitable for each 

 State, including methods of preserving public coastal areas from 

 excessive or unsuitable uses. 



The second planning process included in the bill is one which would 

 require each coastal State to develop a comprehensive process dealing 

 with both the planning and the impacts of the siting of energy facil- 

 ities. Because of the unique nature of the coastal zone, it is anticipated 

 that a substantial portion of the new energy facilities the nation needs 

 may be located in coastal areas. Any federal energy program will be 

 dependent upon the cooperation and the individual actions of State 

 and local governments. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

 encourages a cooperative working relationship between Federal, State, 

 and local governments in the decision-making process involved with 

 land and water uses. Since the framework is already established, the 

 inclusion of an energy facility planning process seemed to the Com- 

 mittee to be a necessary and appropriate addition to the present Act. 



The third addition to section 305 planning elements would require 

 that the States dev^elop a plan to assess the effects of shoreline erosion, 

 whether caused by natural or man-induced reasons. This particular 

 amendment was introduced by Mr. Ruppe in an attempt to encourage 

 a comprehensive and coordinated planning effort to deal with the 

 significant erosion problems incurred in the Great Lakes as well as 

 in other areas. 



In a report entitled, "National Shoreline Study," by the U.S. Army 

 Corps of Engineers in 1971, it was stated that almost one-fourth of our 

 nation's 84,240 miles of coastline is eroding, with approximately 2,700 

 miles, or 3.2 percent, critically eroding. 



The Committee realizes that the addition of these three program 

 elements will require additional funding as well as time for the States 

 to properly evaluate and develop their prospective plans. Therefore, 

 the authorized level of funding for section 305 planning grants was 

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

 would be permitted to receive developmental grants for four years, 

 rather than the three-year period which was originally authorized in 

 the 1972 Act. 



The Committee has introduced an important new phase in the coas- 

 tal zone management program. Between the program development 



