policy and administering the State coastal zone man- 
agement program.*® 
The character, efficiency, and strength of the State 
agencies that have been assigned responsibilities for 
developing or administering coastal management 
programs vary considerably among States (table 
4-3). The “adoption” of a coastal management pro- 
Table 4-3.—Personnel and contracting activity of 
selected State coastal zone programs involving Fed- 
eral funds ' : 
[As of July 21, 1977] 
Contract 
amounts 
Full-time Part-time budgeted 
State personnel personnel FY 1977 
California ® 
California Coastal 
Commission 12 3 $249,097 
Florida 
Department of Natural 
Resources » 19 — 482,870 
Maine 
State Planning Office 11 1 382,436 
Massachusetts 
Executive Office of 
Environmental Affairs 29 1 426,539 
Michigan 
Department of Natural 
Resources 10 18 302,870 
North Carolina 
Department of Natural & 
Economic Resources 26 2 232,325 
New Jersey 
Department of 
Environmental Protection 29 4 266,900 
New York 
Department of State, State 
Planning Division 27 2 1,055,973 
Pennsylvania 
Department of 
Environmental Resources 4 14 232,125 
Texas 
Genera! Land Office 15 16 1,202,545 
Washington 2:¢ 
Department of Ecology 14 — 1,562,605 
1 Source: Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA. 
a Additional personnel, not Federally funded, known to work 
on coastal zone management. . 
bTo be changed to Department of Environmental Regulation. 
¢ In administration stage. 
gram by a State does not require that a State create 
&@ new coastal zone agency and endow it with op- 
erating authority through enabling iegislation. A 
governor may designate an existing agency as the 
coastal zone agency and use existing single-purpose 
laws to implement the coastal zone management 
49 Senator Earnest F. Hollings. Letter to the editor, The Wash- 
ington Post, 19 March 1974. 
number of the States because it frequently requires 
no legislative action. No hard and fast conclusions 
can now be reached about the effectiveness of net- 
working as a management approach, yet it does not 
fit the earlier notion of a single, strong agency ad- 
ministering a comprehensive coastal zone manage- 
ment statute. y 
The question about networking is whether it can 
provide the comprehensive approach to dealing with 
coastal lands and waters as a system, the original 
concept of the program. Can the piecing together of 
regulatory authorities which deal with specific as- 
pects of the coasts form the basis for a program that 
was to treat the coasts as a complex, interrelated 
system? The answer to the question will be one of 
the main tasks of any evaluation of State programs. 
Networking may involve simplifying the various 
State permit and licensing procedures. This generally 
entails pulling together various State-level permits, 
as administered by different agencies, into either a 
one-stop permit process or at least a more stream- 
lined procedure for applicants; e.g., permits for 
wetland alteration, wildlife protection, beach dune 
protection, use of submerged land, and similar 
specific State-controlled activities.°° 
Local Government and 
Coastal Zone Management 
The Coastal Zone Management Act was based on 
the perception that local and municipal governments 
are unable to manage the coastal resources in an 
effective manner. The key elements of the CZMA 
are: (1) that it should provide unified policies, 
standards, and processes for managing coastal re- 
sources that are applicable Statewide, and (2) that 
it would govern land and water uses of more than 
local concern. Thus, power over decisions of “more 
than local concern” would be taken at least in part 
from local control and re-established at the State 
level through a Statewide coastal management pro- 
gram; specifically contemplated is a system of State 
review of local decisions for acceptability. 
The dichotomy of “local”. and “more than local” 
has been bothersome since the inception of the 
coastal zone management effort. The only consoli- 
dated opposition to the concept of coastal zone 
management prior to the enactment of the CZMA 
came from the loca] and municipal governments 
that foresaw erosion of their control over their own 
development. Decisions of purely local concern 
would presumably be left to local governments. 
“Local concern” is intuitively defined as those deci- 
sions that have no effects beyond the boundaries of 
the local political jurisdiction. 
The ambiguities in distinguishing local decisions 
50 Interview with William Matuszeski, State Programs Office, 
Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Washington, D.C., 
21 July 1977. 
Iv-15 
