plans that do not specifically provide for 
energy facility siting. In instances where 
the omission is clearly arbitrary, the 
OCZM will be on safe legal ground in 
complying with the agencies’ demand. Ab- 
sent such arbitrariness, the OCZM either 
will have to stretch the letter of the law 
(as it understands the law) and require 
program revisions, or it will have to re- 
ject the energy agencies’ demands.” 
In dealing with the issue, the State of Washington 
noted that the views of Federal agencies are varied 
and sometimes conflicting and, rather than adopt 
specific suggestions, maintained that the coastal pro- 
gram need only provide a process to accommodate 
the various views. The final environmental impact 
statement on the Washington program regarding the 
national interest in facility siting declared that the 
State was not obliged to plan for certain facilities, 
only that national concerns be included in State 
planning at an early stage and not arbitrarily ex- 
cluded. In exchange, the State expected to be con- 
sulted on Federal agency projects or decisions taken 
in the national interest.** (A separate energy siting 
council exists in Washington.) 
States adjacent to potential offshore oil and gas 
resources, or which are strategically located with 
regard to oil and gas imports, processing, and trans- 
shipment, are likely to come under close scrutiny by 
the Department of Energy and the Department of 
the Interior. To the extent that other States’ pro- 
grams may affect use of coastal areas of wide-scale 
national importance, they too will be subjected to 
critical review by resource management agencies. 
The discussions between Federal mission agencies 
and State coastal programs (and NOAA) point up 
one of the problem areas of coastal management. 
While the national program envisioned a Federal 
role restricted to the process by which States and 
communities were going to guide future use of the 
coasts, it is difficult not to become involved in ques- 
tions of substance. 
The impact of the Federal consistency provisions 
on the programs of Federal agencies is yet to be 
determined. Until specific cases are before the ad- 
ministrative bodies and the courts, the precise mean- 
ing of the provisions in Section 307 are uncertain. 
Implementing regulations have taken more than 18 
months to prepare. To what extent the Secretary of 
Commerce will intercede to override will also be 
determined on a case-by-case basis. 
44U.S. Department of Commerce, State of Washington Coastal 
Zone Management Program. Final Environmental Impact State- 
ment. Washington, D.C., NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 
ment, 1976, p. 100. 
State Agencies and the Administration 
of Coastal Programs 
There is little doubt that the expectations of the 
proponents of the Coastal Zone Management Act were 
for a strong agency and central authority in the State 
government fo administer the coastal zone program. 
In 1972, the Coastal Zone Workshop prescribed a 
strong, independent State agency to administer 
coastal zone programs: *° 
“The State coastal zone authority should 
be established as an independent agency, 
with its expertise and primary responsibil- 
ity exercised in cooperation with other State 
agencies involved in the coastal zone. 
Management programs should view the 
coastal zone as a complete, natural system 
and not be restricted by political boun- 
daries.” 
The Workshop’s findings were a reaffirmation of the 
Stratton Commission’s conclusions.*® 
Nevertheless, neither the actual CZMA nor the 
rules and regulations promulgated under the Act 
specify a detailed institutional structure for coastal 
management by the States. Federal requirements are 
concerned more that the agency have particular 
functions and powers than that it have a specific 
form.47 While the governor of a State is required 
to designate “‘a single agency to receive and admin- 
ister the grants for implementing the management 
program” under Section 306, there is no specific 
requirement that the agency must possess the sole 
regulatory authority for administering the substan- 
tive provisions of the coastal program in that State. 
The CZMA requires a description of the organiza- 
tional structure proposed to implement the manage- 
ment program, including the responsibilities and 
interrelationships of local, areawide, State, regional, 
and interstate agencies in the management process.** 
Furthermore, the Act writes in a role for local gov- 
ernment, recognizing even in 1972 the political diffi- 
culty inherent in the State override approach. 
While the CZMA is explicit in its requirements 
for States to consult and coordinate with Federal, 
local and interstate agencies, it is vague about the 
relationships between the designated coastal manage- 
ment agency and the other resource management 
and regulatory agencies in the State. The tacit as- 
sumption, as suggested by the legislative history of 
the CZMA and subsequent statements of its spon- 
sors, is that the designated coastal management 
agency would be a strong guiding force developing 
45 Bostwick Ketchum. op. cit. note B, p. 31. 
46 Panel Reports, volume 1, op. cit. note 1, p. III-56. 
47 Joseph M. Heikoff, op. cit. note 42, p. 28. 
48 Coastal Zone Management Act, op. cit. note 31, Sec. 
1454(a)(6). 
IV-14 
