ing the Gateway National Recreation Area in New 
York, N.Y., and the Golden Gate Recreation Area 
in San Francisco. 
Concern for the Nation’s environment continues 
today; however its emphasis has been modified by 
other national priorities. Economic conditions, un- 
employment, and energy supply/demand have be- 
come the top priority items on the Nation’s agenda 
since 1972. For instance, industries allege that en- 
vironmental regulations are costing jobs, delaying 
the development of new energy supplies, and other- 
wise contributing to the recession of the mid-1970s. 
Enforcement of environmental laws has become in- 
creasingly difficult. Pollution contro] deadlines have 
been extended, and standards lowered in some cases. 
Although The Coastal Zone Management Act was 
enacted at the apex of the environmental movement, 
its implementation spanned a period during which 
energy and economic problems have forced the 
Nation to restructure its priorities in a more prag- 
matic fashion. Some energy and economic problems 
led to increased pressures on the coastal regions. 
The administrator of the Commerce Department’s 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), in reviewing a General Accounting Office 
report on the status of coastal zone management in 
1976, stated: 2° 
“The political climate for programs per- 
ceived as environmental in their thrust 
and those which involve additional govern- 
mental intervention and regulation is 
much harsher today than when the Coastal 
Zone Management Act was passed four 
years ago. States with coastal zone legis- 
lation on the books at that time are now 
fighting to prevent repeal of that legisla- 
tion. In no case has preexisting state 
coastal legislation been strengthened. 
Without doubt, passing new State coastal 
legislation today is a much more difficult 
task than the framers of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act of 1972 envisioned.” 
North Carolina illustrates the changing political 
climate in the States. The passage of the North Caro- 
lina Coastal Area Management Act in 1974 was 
seen as a landmark in the coastal zone management 
program.*° Key to the North Carolina Act is the 
authority for a Coastal Resources Commission to 
name “areas of environmental concern,” in which 
development would require either a local or State 
permit, depending on size. Such new development 
would have to be in accordance with a locally pre- 
pared and State-approved county coastal plan. 
In 1977 the North Carolina Act came under 
serious attack in the State General assembly. The 
State Senate considered a bill repealing the coastal 
act. In the House a bill making major modifications 
to the basic act and curbing the authority to name 
“areas of environmental concern,” was supported by 
the State coastal office as a compromise measure, 
and was adopted. The legislature adjourned with the 
State statute still intact. 
Despite the harshness of the climate, coastal legis- 
lation has been enacted in a number of States such 
as Alaska, Alabama, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, 
and South Carolina. These acts have to be examined 
carefully to see how far they go toward being com- 
prehensive State coastal acts. For instance, the 1977 
passage of a State Coastal Act in South Carolina is 
cited as one of the current successes of the national 
program. The principal controls in the act are for 
a State permit system governing wetlands alteration. 
The Act also contains a provision countenancing 
suits against the State by individuals who feel they 
have a claim to shore areas down to the mean high 
tide line. 
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as Amended 
National Policy 
In enacting the Coastal Zone Management Act of 
1972, the Congress identified five elements of na- 
tional policy which form the basis for the Federal 
CZM program. They are:** 
e to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, 
to enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal 
zone... ; 
29 U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Congress by 
the Comptroller of the United States. The Coastal Zone Man- 
agement Program: An Uncertain Future. Washington, D.C., 
Government Printing Office, 1976, p. 101. 
30 For an account of the North Carolina experience, see “How 
North Carolina Came to Pass a Coastal Zone Act,” Marine 
Technology Society Journal 8 (10), p. 9. 
31 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 
et seq. 
® to encourage and assist the States to exercise ef- 
fectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone 
through development and implementation of man- 
agement programs... ; 
e for the Federal agencies engaged in programs 
affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and partici- 
pate with State and local governments . . . in ef- 
fectuating the purposes [of the Act]; 
© to encourage the participation of the public, of 
Federal, State, and local governments and of re- 
gional agencies in the development of coastal zone 
management programs; and 
© to encourage cooperation among the various state 
and regional agencies, including the establishment 
of interstate and regional agreements, cooperative 
IV-9 
