1003 



117 



Types A and B require a preventive approach. Information con- 

 cerning which areas are prone to future erosion must be readily avail- 

 able. Public monies to finance or insure development on such areas 

 should be prohibited ; this means that publicly owned projects should 

 not be built on erosion prone areas. States and localities will have to 

 develop their own position toward private projects through such 

 mechanisms as zoning and setback ordinances. In any case, in order 

 to implement policies regarding future public and private develop- 

 ment on erosion prone areas, a process is needed which can identify 

 those areas and which is capable of authorizing those actions the state 

 determines are warranted. The coastal zone management process is 

 the ideal mechanism to do this. 



Existing development in erosion prone areas (cases C and D) poses 

 diflFerent issues. There are three basic alternative actions : 



1. Do nothing and let erosion take its toll. 



2. Employ setbacks, i.e. move the development away from the 

 erodible area. 



3. Erect structural controls to prevent erosion from occurring. 

 It must be determined which alternative is optimal economically, 



and then a coordinated comprehensive approach must be taken. This 

 will insure that structural erosion controls do not cause more problems 

 than they solve. This type of planning effort also ties in well with the 

 existing Federal coastal zone management process. 



On public lands (case C) it is the responsibility of the proprietory 

 government to take the appropriate actions. On a state or local level 

 this can be done under the coastal zone management process and, when 

 overriding national interests are not involved, Federal actions should 

 be in line with state policy. 



On private lands (case D) it is the owner's responsibility to bear the 

 costs of the action he takes. There may be some national interests in- 

 volved (steel mills, power plants, historical homes, etc.), but taking 

 action is still a private responsibility. If a setback is chosen, then two 

 options exist for the private owner : 



1. Movte the development and keep the land it was originally on. 



2. Move the development and sell the land to the government 

 (Federal, state or local) for public access. 



In either case the owner should pay the cost of moving his develop- 

 ment. The government might want to offer an incentive to make 

 Option 2 more attractive if it deemed this is in its interest although 

 government, especially state or local entities, may have problems 

 raising the money. 



If structural controls are opted for, then the owner must finance 

 them. Great expenses are associated with this method : estimates run 

 about $800,000 per mile, or $150 per foot, excluding operating, main- 

 tenance, and inspection costs.* Thus, many times, although the struc- 

 tural solution is cost-effective the owner may not be able to afford it. 

 Since these are front-end cost problems essentially, loans or bond 

 financing would be of great help. The Federal government, with its 

 great resources, mic;ht offer help in order to insure that the best solu- 

 tion is implemented. 



* Obtained bv taklnp Corps flinir*' of $1.8 billion for structurally protecting critical shore- 

 line and dividing that by the 2,700 miles of critically eroded shore. 



