A number of innovative approaches to raise funds 
for acquisition have been suggested. The Shoreline 
Protection Alliance of Honolulu has proposed a pos- 
sible State-level solution, at least for States with large 
tourist businesses. In order to raise the funds needed 
to buy expensive coastal property in Hawaii, the 
alliance proposes a 4 percent hotel tax with the 
proceeds earmarked for beach purchases. Using the 
State outdoor recreation plan as its guide, the alli- 
ance estimates the Statewide need for additional 
public beach area at 1,200 acres by 1990, costing 
about $200 million. In contrast, the alliance reports, 
only $2.3 million was expended for beach acquisi- 
tions in a 2-year State capital budget of $470 million; 
likewise, the Honolulu City Council made available 
only $100,000 in 1976-77. The 4 percent hotel tax 
would raise $20 million per year and raise expenses 
for an average tourist by only | percent, the alliance 
notes.''$ 
In addition to a straight purchase arrangement, 
there are several alternative access purchase options 
which can be used: (1) acquisition and lease-back, 
113 Newletter of the American ‘hore and Beach Preservation 
Association, March 1977, p. 1. 
(2) acquisition and resale with restrictions on future 
use, and (3) acquisition by gift with possible restric- 
tions. 
Acquisition by Easement 
Methods of acquiring public use of property short 
of outright purchase can include the following: (1) 
acquisition of an easement, which could include the 
right of the public to use property as an access way; 
(2) dedication of a piece of property to public usage 
in exchange for a tax reduction or similar benefit; 
(3) property trade, in which land of equivalent value 
would be exchanged for shorefront land needed for 
access purposes; and (4) dedication of property to 
public use as part of a subdivision approval. 
Use of the subdivision ordinance authority by 
local governments, now widely practiced for school 
sites and parks, could readily be applied to the shore 
access question in undeveloped coastal areas. The 
same applies to local property taxes; these could be 
lowered to property owners permitting public use 
of their land in shore areas. State and Federal taxes 
might be examined for similar “breaks” that might be 
applied to property owners who grant the public 
certain prescribed uses of their land. 
Proposed Federal Beach Legislation 
Between 1969 and 1975, Congressman Robert C. 
Eckhardt (D.-Tex.) has introduced bills in the Con- 
gress aimed at opening all ocean and Great Lakes 
beaches to the general public “for use as a com- 
mon.” ‘44 The Eckhardt proposal is based on the 
premise that the public has an inherent right to access 
to and enjoyment of the ocean. It seeks to realize this 
right of access by: (1) declaring that ocean beaches 
constitute a national resource and are therefore to be 
used by the public; (2) forbids barriers that restrict 
movement on or across beaches; (3) authorizes legal 
action in the name of the United States to impress 
beaches with a public usufruct; and (4) authorizes 
financial assistance to States for the acquisition of 
interests in beach and beach-related Jand. 
While the proposal acknowledges the importance 
of private property rights that might conflict with the 
114 H.R. 10394 (93d Cong., Ist sess.) is characteristic of the 
bills introduced by Congressman Eckhardt over the years. It 
would amend the National Estuarine Studies Act (16 U.S.C. 
1221) by adding Title IT thereto, and provide for administration 
by the Secretary of the Interior. 
intent of the bill, every Federal agency with a juris- 
dictional interest objected to the proposal and recom- 
mended against enactment. Constitutional arguments 
were posted against the proposal by the Department 
of Justice, while Professor Charles W. Black of Yale 
Law School argued in support of the constitutional 
integrity of the bill in the only hearings held on the 
proposal by the House of Representatives in 1973. 
There is little doubt that this legislative approach 
to clarifying the status of beach land would be the 
most direct way to bring uniformity and balance 
among the States in dealing with national shoreline 
problems. It could also possibly be the most inex- 
pensive means for creating public access to beach 
resources. It would most assuredly, however, result 
in complex and extended litigation concerning the 
constitutionality and power of the Federal Govern- 
ment to intervene in what is considered by many to 
be the legitimate rights of States to regulate and ad- 
minister property laws within their jurisdictions. 
The political path in the Congress would undoubtedly 
be difficult. 
Federal Programs Supporting Marine Recreation 
@ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
1965 (16 U.S.C. 460]. This program is administered 
by the Secretary of the Interior, Heritage Conserva- 
tion and Recreation Service (formerly the Bureau of 
Outdoor Recreation). ft authorizes grants by the 
Secretary to States on a 50-50 matching basis: (1) 
for planning for outdoor recreation, (2) for the acqui- 
sition of land for outdoor recreation purposes, and 
IV-53 
