from non-local ones, and the basic resentment to- 
ward State involvement in local decisions, have per- 
haps worsened rather than improved since the adop- 
tion of the CZMA. The General Accounting Office 
(GAO), in reviewing the coastal zone management 
program, found State-local relationships troubled.* 
“In our opinion, resistance [to coastal 
planning efforts] exists because (1) local 
governments may regard coastal zone 
management as an example of Federal- 
State interference in planning decisions 
traditionally made by localities and (2) 
the public, especially coastal landowners, 
contend that State management programs 
infringe on their private property rights 
and affect property value by restricting the 
uses to which their land can be put. For 
instance, California has felt resistance 
even though the public established the 
State’s coastal zone management by popu- 
lar initiative in 1972. According to State 
and regional officials in Michigan, there 
is strong local opposition to expansion of 
State land-use powers. A State coastal 
zone management program official said 
there has been substantial local resistance 
to the somewhat limited State regulatory 
powers that currently exist.” 
In some States, the coastal zone program has 
brought about, at least on the staff level, better 
communication and improved relationships. In 
North Carolina, for instance, the State approach has 
been to pass through the funds for coastal cities and 
counties to develop the actual coastal plans. This 
has served to upgrade the professional plannning 
capabilities of the coastal governments. There has 
been a similar upgrading of capacity noted in Wash- 
ington State under the program implementation (sec- 
tion 306) funding there. Where there is a good 
working relationship between local and State pro- 
fessional staff, accommodations between the two 
levels of government can be worked out informally. 
This appears to be taking place in some instances 
under the coastal management program. 
The State-local relationship surfaced in the debate 
on the energy impact provisions of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act Amendments of 1976. Provision 
was made for local comment on any State land use 
or water use decision that conflicts with a local 
government ordinance.*? The House Merchant Ma- 
rine and Fisheries Committee report on the bill 
51 U.S. General Accounting Office, op. cit. note 29, p. 27. 
52 Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976. P.L. 
94-370, Sec. 306(c)(2)(B). 
stated that the intent of the provision is to “protect 
the interests of local units of government.” ** 
This little-noticed addition to Section 306 of the 
original Coastal Zone Management Act represents a 
shift in emphasis. From the original concept that 
State agencies would, by virtue of their broader 
perspectives and non-dependence on property tax 
revenues, be better able to reach balanced coastal 
zone decisions, there seems to be emerging a trend 
toward providing the local governments with a 
stronger role in coastal decision-making in the 
coastal management program. The 1976 amendment 
reflects this trend. 
Consistency Provisions and 
State Expectations 
The Coastal Zone Management Act is an exer- 
cise in persuasion. There are no compulsory reasons 
why States must participate. Three provisions of 
the CZMA as amended offer incentives to the coastal 
States to enter the program: (1) development and ad- 
ministrative grants under Sections 305 and 306, (2) 
Federal consistency requirements, under Section 307, 
and (3) participation in the 305 and 306 grant pro- 
grams to assure receipt of coastal energy impact 
funds under Section 308. (States can qualify for 
such aid with their own coastal management pro- 
grams.) 
Although the requirement that Federal activities 
conform to State plans and objectives is an exception 
to the rule, it is not unique to the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. The Intergovernmental Coopera- 
tion Act of 1968, Title IV, requires that Federal aid 
for private development purposes be consistent with 
State, regional, and local comprehensive planning, 
“to the maximum extent possible.” The prospect for 
a measure of control over Federal activities offshore 
and within the coastal region is, however, a powerful 
potential incentive for the States to participate in 
the CZMA. Whether the expectations of the States 
will be fulfilled will depend on the final operation 
of the consistency provisions through the coopera- 
tion of the Federal agencies and the definitions of 
the uncertain terms used in the Act by the court on 
a case-by-case basis. The provisions of Section 307 
may turn out to be as pregnant with legal uncer- 
tainties, if not as prolific in causes of action, as 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). 
The General Accounting Office, in reviewing the 
provision, labeled Federal consistency as “an un- 
certain prospect.” GAO concluded that,** 
“The problem is that, notwithstanding 
CZMA’s Federal consistency provision, 
53 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Coastal Zone 
Management Act of 1976, Report No. 94-878, 94th Cong., 2d 
sess, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1976, p. 37. 
54 U.S. General Accounting Office, op. cit. note 29, p. 86. 
IV-16 
