States planning substantial acquisitions include 

 New Jersey, California, Maine, Connecticut, 

 Rhode Island, and Delaware. State acquisition is 

 often supplemented by acquisition by private 

 conservation groups and Federal agencies. 



New York has pioneered under the Long Island 

 Wetlands Act a program of State-local coopera- 

 tion. This provides for State cost sharing in 

 maintenance, operation, and development of 

 locally-owned wetlands dedicated to conservation 

 purposes. 



Low funding levels for land acquisition or 

 regulation programs have often hampered State 

 estuarine conservation activities, but there are 

 exceptions. For example, Maine has spent $5 

 million for park lands plus $20,000 annually for 

 waterfowl wetlands. Connecticut is spending 

 about $500,000 for acquisition in the current 

 biennium. Cahfornia's planning budget has been 

 substantial— almost one-quarter million dollars 

 annually for several years. Passage of a multi- 

 million-dollar Green Acres bond issue by New 

 Jersey voters in 1964 has resulted in large State 

 salt-marsh acquisitions. In other States substantial 

 operating and acquisition budgets may evolve for 

 some programs now in the planning stage. Use of 

 U.S. land and water conservation funds or estua- 



rine acquisitions represents a significant funding 

 source potential. 



A diversity of administering agencies exists. In 

 Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island there 

 is coordinated administration by several operating 

 divisions of a single natural resources department, 

 though with some local participation in control 

 decisions. In most other States administration is 

 divided among several agencies. Combined boards, 

 such as the Maine Wetlands Control Board, in 

 several New England States make decisions on 

 permits for wetland alteration or state land leasing. 



Little formal provision apparently exists for 

 coordinated development and conservation, except 

 by boards with diverse representation (such as the 

 wetlands control boards) or in the exceptional case 

 where all affected program interests are concen- 

 trated within a single State department. The 

 general pattern is one of informal coordination 

 among affected agencies. 



A detailed survey of State activities was con- 

 ducted by the Institute of PubUc Administration 

 under contract to the Commission and the report 

 is available separately.^ ^ 



A brief summary of State activities is shown in 

 Appendix D. 



39 



See footnote 1. 



111-106 



