Washington make it hard for State program man- 
agers to know which direction to pursue; 
e Failure to sustain a technical information serv- 
ice valuable to the States; and 
e Lack of close monitoring during development 
of State programs, as opposed to providing support. 
The program is at a critical juncture. Because of 
the inherent difficulties embodied in the coastal zone 
management program as designed 7 years ago, and 
as discussed in the background and implementation 
sections, a difficult choice faces the program: should 
relatively weak programs be approved, on the 
grounds that they are the most effective that can 
reasonably be expected, or should the Office of 
Coastal Zone Management/NOAA and the Depart- 
ment of Commerce insist on programs matching the 
original ambitious design? 
There is a direct parallel to this question in the 
States. As seen in the discussion of the Washington 
State program, the State-local relationship is a mirror 
image of the Federal-State relationship as described 
here. 
An argument in favor of approving relatively 
weak State programs is that the continued Federal 
involvement, through program operation funding 
(Section 306), provides an opportunity to encourage 
States to meet national objectives in the coastal re- 
gion through this program and its relationship to 
other, ongoing State authorities. To do otherwise, 
according to this line of reasoning, means cutting 
off any chance for the foreseeable future of using the 
coastal zone management approach to protect na- 
tional interest goals in the coast. 
The coastal zone office has chosen to make every 
effort to insist on as much authority as it can from 
State agencies to control future coastal activities— 
and to get as many “approvable” programs as pos- 
sible. The dilemma facing the program is the balance 
between wanting the strongest possible State man- 
agement programs on the one hand, and the prac- 
tical, political difficulties of bringing effective man- 
agement programs into being on the other. 
Alternative Approaches to Coastal Zone Management 
During the 1978 assessment of the coastal zone 
management effort—whatever the resulting judgment 
as to the program’s effectiveness—it would seem 
appropriate to look at alternative approaches. If the 
judgment is that the current approach is effective or 
is likely to be in time, it will nonetheless be instruc- 
tive to look at other possible methods of dealing with 
the problems of coastal resource use. If it is judged 
that the current Federal grant-in-aid program is not 
working, and that the problems identified in the 
early 1970s are still present, then it is incumbent that 
some alternative approach or combination of meth- 
ods be suggested for adoption to achieve wise coastal 
resource use. In that spirit, the following alternatives 
are put forward for discussion purposes. 
The point of departure is the fundamental precept 
of coastal zone management itself. Are the original 
objectives of the Act—to protect coastal land and 
water resources for their best use by controlling 
development of the area at the State level of govern- 
ment—-still valid? Has the national outlook changed 
since 1972 to the extent that a new national objec- 
tive for the coastal region should be redefined? Or, 
do the methods of achieving the objectives need 
reexamination? Possible alternatives follow. 
e Either Phase Out Federal Support of Coastal 
Zone Management Ov.r 5 to 7 Years or Con- 
tinue for 10 Years. 
It has been suggested that NOAA might gradually 
phase out matching funding support to the States for 
program operation, from the present 80 percent to 
20 percent in fiscal year 1983 and presumably zero 
a year or two after that. 
The rationale for this suggestion is that the Fed- 
eral Government will have provided States and local 
communities enough opportunity by fiscal year 1984 
or 1985 in what is considered by some to be essen- 
tially a State-local matter, i.e., control of the uses of 
land and water. This argument holds that the millions 
of dollars in Federal aid which will have been ex- 
pended by then will have helped the States marshal 
the scientific and technical information needed to 
make sound decisions and will have provided them 
with sufficient impetus to assume the full respon- 
sibility for coastal protection. 
In many, if not most, States, withdrawal of Fed- 
eral matching aid would either mean the end of the 
coastal planning and management activity as a sepa- 
rate initiative, or at best, a sharp reduction in 
resources available for this effort both at the State 
and local level. 
The States and Nation would risk the loss of the 
technical competence assembled by the States under 
this option if there were a cutback or abandonment 
of the coastal management initiative. Some suggest, 
however, that a cutback would improve the quality 
of effort by weeding out lower priority activity. 
In arguing against a phase-out of Federal funding, 
the Office of Coastal Zone Management has stated 
that a phase-out by the mid-1980s would be “re- 
neging’ on an implied agreement; would compel 
States to stop their efforts before obtaining operating 
management programs; would be inconsistent with 
the action of Congress in 1976 by adding substan- 
tially to the program; and, last, would still cost a 
total of $185 million by fiscal year 1985 with much 
of that investment lost for the future. 
IV-39 
