owner, based upon a contractual agreement. All 
three of these approaches have a role in providing 
additional coastal resources for public use. 
Acquisition by Purchase 
Purchase of coastal property in fee simple is the 
most direct and positive means of acquiring public 
beach and similar facilities. Federal aid in the form 
of matching grants to the States for purcuase of 
recreational land, or transfer of excess Government 
land to the States, is available under several pro- 
grams administered by Federal agencies. 
The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
1965 provides the bulk of Federal funds available 
for purchases of recreational lands by the States and 
Federal agencies. The Fund has been expanded in 
recent years and now has a maximum authorization 
level of $900 million per year through 1989. The 
Fund, which is available for purchase of recreational 
land in any State, has been used extensively by the 
coastal States to acquire property in coastal counties 
(table 4-9). The information available provides no 
indication whether the funds expended in coastal 
counties were for shoreland or inland facilities. 
States have used their Statewide recreation plans 
to emphasize a need for acquisition and development 
of coastal areas, as well as for providing access to 
the coast. The Florida plan has directed that State’s 
efforts toward providing accessibility to water recrea- 
tion areas, particularly coastal areas, for both ex- 
tensive recreation use and preservation purposes 
with limited recreation use. South Carolina and New 
Jersey have had several large projects that enabled 
them to protect permanently extensive salt marshes 
and barrier beach fronts from development while 
affording a number of outdoor uses on these lands 
and waters. Connecticut has been able to acquire 
several outstanding beaches through the program. 
California has used significant amounts of the fund 
for both acquisition and development of facilities 
that have increased recreational use of the coastal 
zone. Washington has used a significant portion of 
the fund for both large acquisition projects as well 
as numerous small projects such as boat access and 
parking areas that provide access to coasta! lands 
and waters. Texas has acquired several coastal areas 
including a 2,000-acre state park. On the Great 
Lakes, 2 number of boat access and parking areas 
have been acquired and developed, which has sig- 
nificantly increased access to those waters in the 
States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and 
Wisconsin. 
Limits on the amount of State money available for 
matching Federal grants, however, reduce the prac- 
tical effectiveness of the Land and Water Conserva- 
tion Fund and other matching grant programs. 
Rhode Island has commented ‘"™ that, 
“The State has considerable difficulty util- 
izing all [Heritage Conservation and Rec- 
reation Service] recreation funds within 
each disbursement year, even with local 
units of government and private donors 
contributing matching funds.” 
Similarly, New Hampshire reports an inability to 
acquire coastal lands for recreation because the State 
is unable to match the major assistance programs of 
the Department of the Interior. The States are finding 
it increasingly difficult to raise matching funds in 
order to participate in the numerous Federal progams 
requiring Federal-State cost sharing. 
Table 4—9.—Total acquisitions by States in coastal 
counties compared with total Statewide acquisition 
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund ! 
Coastal Per- 
county Statewide cent- 
State purchases purchases age 
Alaska $ 4,013,575.00 $ 5,431,424.50 73 
Oregon 3,237,536.60 14,569,812.77 22 
Washington 7,987,953.46 12,541,425.73 64 
California 48,651,484.23 64,092,765.87 76 
Hawaii 7,417,963.95 7,956,322.95 93 
American Samoa 67,650.00 67,650.00 100 
Guam 15,000.00 79,000.00 19 
Illinois 21,298,551.78 48,284,595.19 44 
Indiana 360,234.85 8,114,770.27 4 
Michigan 9.510,374.34 18,218,671.00 52) 
Minnesota 298,592.00 16,118,140.69 2 
Ohio 12,177,162.56 29,045,565.50 42 
Wisconsin 4,070,620.86 16,413,422.33 25 
Alabama 333,079.12 3,020,289.45 11 
Florida 23,858,009.45 29,327,216.00 81 
Georgia 436,500.00 10,409,070.23 4 
Mississippi 74,542.00 2,193,803.49 3 
North Carolina 2,414,779.54 10,729,165.45 22 
South Carolina 2,779,777.97 7,394,460.22 37 
Puerto Rico 367,985.00 480,969.00 76 
Virgin Islands 253,740.25 818,984.11 31 
Connecticut 13,992,301.28 19,054,021.41 73 
Delaware 9,454,260.88 9,554,260.88 98 
Maine 3,362,578.47 6,783,782.02 49 
Maryland 11,850,059.49 19,843,281.91 60 
Massachusetts 4,703,339.47 15,078,365.02 31 
New Hampshire 94,139.25 376423023) 97] me 
New Jersey 6,021,381.42 14,008 ,542.66 43 
New York 10,925,448.98 17,280,443.50 63 
Pennsylvania 850,759.97 7,644,322.85 11 
Rhode Island 3,131,186.47 3,181,922.35 98 
Virginia 6.741,546.26  21,106,484.17 32 
Louisiana 7,783,450.21 12,236,407.79 -63 
Texas 6,837,268.55 17,096,254.97 40 
' This analysis was prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone 
Management, NOAA, from data supplied by the Heritage Con- 
servation and Recreation Service, Department of the Interior. Data 
we cumulative figures from the implementation of the fund 
through December 31, 1976. ; 
112 Letter from Daniel Varin, Chief, Department of Adminis- 
tration, Rhode Island, to Robert Knecht, Acting Associate Ad- 
ministrator, Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, June 
27; 1977. 
TV—52 
