905 

 19 



Dr. Charles Herdendorf , Center for Lake Erie Area Research, Ohio 

 State University, Columbus, Ohio. 



Ann Jennings, conservation chairman. South Carolina LeConte Chap- 

 ter, Sierra Club, 25 Grandville Road, Columbia, S.C. 



Hon. Thomas McCall, professor, Linfield College, 2300 Broadway 

 Drive S.W., Portland, Oreg. 



O. William Moody, administrator. Maritime Trades Department, 

 AFI^CIO, Washington, D.C. 



Dr. Joe Mosley, executive director, Texas Coastal & Marine Council, 

 P.O. Box 13407, Austin, Tex. 



Dr. Y. R. Nayudu, marine and coastal zone resources management 

 consultant. Box 323, Mile 2i^ Glacier Highway, Junea, Alaska. 



Carl Savit, senior vice president, technology, Western Geophysical 

 Co., P.O. Box 2469, Austin, Tex. 



John Spellman, county executive. King County Courthouse, Seattle, 

 Wash. 



Scott Whitney, professor of law. College of William & Mary, Wil- 

 liamsburg, Va. 

 January 15, 1976. 



III. INTERSTATE COORDHSTATION 



Many of the problems facing the coastal zone are regional and 

 multi-state in nature. Coastal zone activities in one State may have 

 pervasive effects on the coastal region of an adjoining State. The 

 northeastern coastal states, for example, are faced with the need for 

 closely coordinating the development and implementation of their 

 coastal zone management programs because of the compactness and 

 interdependence of the region. 



An improved system of regional coordination should also facilitate 

 communication with Federal agencies and will provide a forum for 

 resolving the collective issues dealing with Federal-State ad- 

 ministration. 



The Subcommittee hearings on H.R. 3981 revealed that interstate 

 planning and coordination have been ineffective under the present 

 coastal zone management act because the Act does not provide in- 

 centive funding to establish interstate entities, and requires that the 

 States use their own funds to support such activities. The States have 

 found it necessary to devote their resources to internal coastal zone 

 problems. 



Separate funding is provided in the bill for support of interstate 

 planning arrangements and compacts. If States decide to enter into 

 interstate planning arrangements, 90 percent funding assistance 

 would be available from the Federal goverment. Advance consent by 

 the Congress is given to States to negotiate interstate coastal zone 

 planning and coordinating compacts. Provision is also made for States 

 to establish ad-hoc coordinating agencies immediately while formal 

 interstate arrangements are pending approval. In order to carry out 

 the provisions of this section, $5 million is authorized to be appro- 

 priated annually for a five-year period commencing with the year in 

 which the bill is enacted. 



