919 

 33 



In Michigan, where nearly 80 percent of the shoreland is in 

 private ownership, the establishment of adequate public ac- 

 cess to beaches, and the preservation of island and beach areas 

 of environmental, recreational, and esthetic value, is an ever- 

 increasing problem. 



The Committee position is that action is needed now to help pro- 

 vide the needed access, especially in urban areas, and that to wait will 

 only mean additional expense to the taxpayers. The key again is that 

 the purchase of such access, as is provided in the addition to section 

 315 (redesignated) be tied to a comprehensive plan. That is the intent 

 of this new requirement under S05 program development — that all such 

 purchases fit into an overall program for each state. 



The erosion provision, introduced by Congressman Philip Ruppe 

 of Michigan, is particularly important to the Great Lakes States 

 where the issue has been demonstrated to be one of if not the most press- 

 ing questions facing the area.^ Nationwide, the annual damage esti- 

 mate from shoreline erosion is $300 million. What H.R. 3981 does is to 

 damage estimate from shoreline erosion is $300 million. What H.R. 

 3981 does is to require states to come to grips with the problem and 

 establish a strategy for dealing with it. And once again, H.R. 3981 

 would fit w hatever course is chosen by a given state into the overall pro- 

 gram it devises for its coastal resources in general. 



A major addition to section 305 adopted by the Committee and in- 

 troduced by the Chairman of the Oceanography Subcommittee, Mr. 

 Murphy, contains the recommendation of the Office of Coastal Zone 

 Management in NOAA that a "preliminary approval" phase be pro- 

 vided between the section 305 program development phase and the 

 section 306 management phase which follows federal approval of a 

 state program. The principal reason for introducing this interim phase 

 is to allow states time to implement or fully perfect programs. For 

 instance, a state may submit a program with proposed legislation 

 which will 'be necessary to meet the requirements of the Act that suffi- 

 cient authority to implement be demonstrated. The state's legislature 

 might meet only in alternate years and the next session could be a year 

 off. Therefore, this particularly state program cannot receive final ap- 

 proval and funding under the 306 portion of the Act. At the same 

 time it may have exhausted its time under 305 (extended by H.R. 3981 

 to four years). 



The solution is the "preliminary approval" provision in section 305 

 (h). This will allow" the Secretary of Commerce to approve the state 

 programs where the state has developed a fully approvable program 

 and action is underway to bring the program into being. Funding 

 could continue so there is no interruption in the state coastal zone 

 management effort through September 30, 1979. This is accomplished 

 by removing the four-year limitation on a state which has achieved the 

 "preliminary approval" stage. 



States, in effect, are given four years to come up with a program de- 

 sign that meets the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

 Most states, since they began their program development in fiscal year 

 1974, would then have another year or two to fully implement their 

 programs and, hence, merit final approval and passage to the 306 man- 

 agement funding phase. 



' For a more complete discussion of tills problem, see Appendix II. 



65-319 O - 76 - 59 



