activity if blame cannot be determined, and (3) plan- 
ning for public utilities and services required by 
OCS activities if grants from the Coastal Energy Im- 
pact Fund are inadequate. Retirement of guaranteed 
bonds has priority in the expenditure of funds obli- 
gated under the formula grant program. Formula 
grants are intended to be a secondary source of 
funding for States and communities. 
Implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
The Coastal Zone Management Act is an experi- 
ment in federalism. It involves an intricate pattern 
of intergovernmental relationships and a redistribu- 
tion of political power among State, Federal, local, 
and regional governments. Within the States them- 
selves, State and local interests can conflict; and, 
even among State agencies, differences in perspec- 
tive and constituencies often result in disagreement. 
For Federal agencies faced with the prospect of 
having to accommodate State programs in the per- 
formance of their activities, the coastal zone manage- 
ment programs hold the possibility of delays, added 
expense, constraints as to what they see as their 
mandate under law, and additional administrative 
problems. As for interstate coordination or regionali- 
zation, the concept is highly touted, but regional 
governments or interstate agencies with adequate 
delegated authority are rare. These problems in im- 
plementating the CZMA are receiving increased 
attention from inside and outside the Federal Gov- 
ernment. 
Federal Agency Involvement 
Federal agencies, other than NOAA’s Office of 
Coastal Zone Management, are directly involved in 
administering the CZMA at two levels: (1) consult- 
ing, reviewing, and commenting on State programs 
prior to approval of an administrative grant under 
Section 306, and (2) complying with the Federal 
consistency requirements of Section 307 subsequent 
to approval of the State program. Complicating this 
review is the fact that regional offices first review 
State program documents and then the Washington 
headquarters does so; the views at the two levels are 
not always the same. 
With regard to the first responsibility, the Secre- 
tary of Commerce is required to “consult . . . co- 
operate with, .. . and coordinate . . . activities with 
other interested Federal agencies,” in carrying out 
the duties prescribed by the Act.*° A State program 
cannot be approved “unless the views of Federal 
agencies . . . have been adequately considered.” In 
the case of serious disagreement between Federal 
agencies and the State, the Secretary of Commerce 
in cooperation with the Executive Office of the 
President will mediate. 
States are further constrained by the programs of 
the Federal agencies to the extent that the CZMA 
does not “diminish either Federal or State jurisdic- 
39 Coastal Zone Management Act, op cit. note 31, Sec. 1456(a). 
tion, responsibility or rights in the field of planning, 
development, or contro] of water resources, sub- 
merged lands, or navigational waters,’ nor can it 
affect an interstate agreement or interstate agency.*° 
Similarly, the operation of the Federal Water Pollu- 
tion Control Act and the Clean Air Act and their 
related State programs are to be coastal zone air 
and water requirements. 
Although the Coastal Zone Management Act was 
approved in 1972, Federal agencies have only re- 
cently become concerned with or intimately involved 
in the development of the State coastal zone manage- 
ment programs. Washington was the first State pro- 
gram submitted and approved (June 1976) under 
the authority of the CZMA; thus, it was the first 
subjected to serious review by Federal agencies. The 
review and comments led to an extended delay in 
approval of the program and modification of the 
original submission as a result of some of the Fed- 
eral reviewers’ comments.*! The problem of Federal 
agency involvement late in the program development 
process, coupled with lingering uncertainties con- 
cerning the scope of review and influence which 
these agencies have under the CZMA, will continue 
to recur. There is an indication that Federal agencies 
are not satisfied with simply reviewing the manage- 
ment process; they also want to shape if not deter- 
mine the content of the programs by requiring, for 
example, that sites be designated for energy facil- 
ities.*? This was evident in the Washington case: *3 
a3 
. with Maine, Washington and other 
states now beginning to sudmit their 
coastal management programs to the 
OCZM for review, this fledgling agency 
[OCZM] is in something of a dilemma. 
On the one hand, it does not want to over- 
step its statutory mandate by second- 
guessing states on matters such as energy 
planning. On the other hand, it is being 
pushed by the FEA (Federal Energy Ad- 
ministration) [now the Department of 
Energy] and other agencies to reject state 
40 Tbid., Section 1456(a). 
41 Marc Hershman and Robett Goodwin. Coastal Resources 
Program, University of Washington, Ports and Coastal Man- 
agement, draft manuscript report. Seattle: University of Wash- 
ington, 1977. 
42 Joseph M. Heikoff. Coastal Resources Management: Insti- 
tutions and Programs. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science, 1977, 
pelos 
43 Luther J. Carter. “Energy and the Coastal Zone: Pulling 
and Hauling Among the Feds,” Science 188 (1975), p. 1288. 
IV~-13 
