Imágenes de páginas

along California's beautiful shoreline to recognize the importance of this dimension both to the State's economy as well as its charm.

The various aspects of ocean and coastal activity all seem to be present in California. Fishing, coastal recreation, marine transportation concerns, port and harbor development, aesthetics, offshore oil and gas development, second home development, and a host of other coastal uses seem to come to "full flower" in this State. Yet California manifests something more than a mere confluence of forces-something more than an inventory of ocean-related dimensions would imply.

A number of these activities appear to be approaching the critical levels where the open conflicts with other uses are occurring. One can see this in the tension between private and public development, in the fight for improved public access to beaches, in debates between commercial and sports fishermen, to say nothing of the more basic differences that exist between a conservation and preservation orientation and economic development.

It is clear the time has come to this State as well as to many of the other coastal States-for development of a rational process of decisionmaking and intergovernmental cooperation to address these developing conflicts in a balanced and reasonable manner.

The citizens of California clearly and dramatically registered their concern and recognition of the problem when, in November of 1972, they approved Proposition 20, the California Coastal Conservation Act. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, this act created the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and its six substate regional commissions.

An important forerunner of this statewide effort was initiated by the State legislature's action in 1969 which created the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and assigned it responsibility for regulating development of the San Francisco Bay, again, a unique development in coastal zone management.

In adopting its coastal zone management program in 1972, California became one of the first States in the Nation to begin the development of a comprehensive coastal zone management program. The people of this State, by their action, the first coastal zone initiative in the Nation, demonstrated an awareness of the value of California's coast and its resources and the necessity for establishing a process of sound planning and administration which would seek to balance the forces competing for the use of the State's finite coastal zone.

During the same period, as the State of California was working to adopt coastal zone management legislation, the Federal Government was engaged in a similar activity. Strong recommendations for both State and Federal action were contained in the so-called Stratton Commission Report issued in January of 1969.

After 3 years of congressional deliberations and debate on various measures, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was passed in October of that year. A reading of the policy statements and findings contained in the Federal legislation will show that its basic philosophy and legislative intent are rather similar to those contained in California's proposition 20. Because the two pieces of legislation were developed during the same time period, they devetail in their overall approach.

However, it must be understood at the outset that the Federal role in coastal zone management is vastly different than the State role


contained in proposition 20. The Federal role, as outlined in the Coastal Zone Management Act, is one of providing incentives, encouragement, and support to the State efforts.

In the Federal legislation, the prime responsibility for developing, implementing and operating the coastal zone management program is left at the State government level.

The Federal measure creates a voluntary program to provide financial assistance and support to States as they begin or continue the process of the development of rational coastal zone management programs.

It clearly does not put the Federal Government in the land use or local zoning business. Those important functions remain the responsibility of local and State governments.

Several of the findings contained in congressional reports which accompanies the Coastal Zone Management Act are of interest. Specifically, Senate Report No. 92-753 contained the following findings:

That the increased demand for use of the waters and adjacent uplands in the coastal zone for commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes are endangering biological organisms and natural features of this area; and,

The fragmentation of State and local governmental authority in the coastal zone has exacerbated pressure for economic development at the expense of other values, and, therefore, there is a need for expanding State participation in the control of land and water use decisions in the coastal zone, but within the context of a comprehensive management program.

In fairness, it also must be said that uncoordinated and single-purpose Federal actions also have contributed importantly to our current coastal zone problems. Recognizing this, the Federal act requires that, after a State has its coastal zone management program approved at the Federal level, Federal activities directly affecting the State's coastal zone, must be consistent with the State's approved program to the maximum extent practicable.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to address myself very briefly to the progress we have made to date in implementing the Federal legislation. A two-step process is established in the act to assist States in coastal zone management.

States are assisted in the planning and development of coastal management programs by applying for and receiving program development grants under section 305 of this legislation. The second phase, provided under section 306, authorizes Federal grants for the operation of management programs which have been federally approved. Both types of grants involve two-thirds Federal funding and one-third State matching.

To date, management program development grants under section 305 have been awarded to 28 of the 30 coastal States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. A Federal grant of $720,000 for this purpose was awarded to the State of California in April of this year. I should add that this grant was the largest that our office could make to any State under the law during fiscal year 1974 reflecting our strong desire to assist the State in its coastal management efforts.

In all, approximately $7.4 million of Federal funds have so far been made available for grants to the coastal States and their subdivisions.

Upon the completion of congressional action on our current year budget, we expect to have an additional $9 million available for secondyear grants to these States so that they can continue their work.

We expect that the first applications for grants for the administration of approved management programs under section 306 will be received by our office next spring or summer.

Mr. Chairman, the initial response of the coastal States to the first phase of the Federal program provides sound evidence that the Coastal Zone Management Act is both viable and effective in encouraging States to establish more rational processes for managing their coastal


I would like now to address myself to two provisions of the Federal act which have application to the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas issue currently facing southern California.

The first requires that an applicant State show that its proposed management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. This is the so-called national interest provision. It asks that the State not take a blinderson view and develop a management program devoted solely to meeting the State's needs. It should show understanding of its role in helping to meet national needs.

Precise delineation of the meaning of the national interest is, of course, a difficult interpretive judgment and our office is presently considering the parameters of this issue. Our preliminary conclusions in this regard are contained in a set of program approval criteria published in draft form in the Federal Register on August 21, for public comment and review.

The second provision which is relevant to the present discussion is contained in section 307 of the act. Subsections (c) (1) and (2) provide that any Federal agency conducting activities or undertaking any de-, velopment projects directly affecting the coastal zone of a State shall conduct those activities or undertake those projects in a manner which is consistent with a State-approved management program, to the maximum extent practicable.

Commonly referred to as the "Federal consistency" provision of the act, this stipulation does not become legally operational until a State has its management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Those of us involved in administering the program and the coastal States we are working with, see the Federal consistency requirements as an important incentive to State and local governments. The critical question, is, of course, the relevance of the Federal consistency provision in a State which is in its program development phase under section 305 and which does not yet have a coastal zone management program approved under section 306 of this act.

Legally, Federal consistency does not yet apply in this case. However, a key policy which guides our support of State management programs during their development phase is drawn from section 303 of the act. In that section, the Congress declared that it is national policy "for all Federal agencies engaged in programs, affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and participate with State and local governments and regional agencies in effectuating the purposes of this title." We believe that the intent of Congress was that Federal agencies

[ocr errors]

should work closely with the States and should take into account evolving State coastal zone policies in planning and carrying out their Federal missions. The Office of Coastal Zone Management is strongly encouraging Federal agencies to work actively with State coastal zone management agencies in the formulation of State management plans. Upon approval of a State's management plan, the more stringent requirements for Federal consistency with State policies will apply and will be supported by our office. We feel that this provision will establish a new kind of more effectively coordinated Federal-State relationship which will result in more balanced decisionmaking relating to the myriad of Federal activities which could impact a State's coastal zone, including oil and gas exploitation of the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mr. Chairman, I think the rationale contained in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act makes a great deal of sense. Until a State has developed the comprehensive planning called for under both the State and the Federal act and therefore has decided the policies that will govern the uses of State coastal waters, those of southern California, for example, it is not in a strong position to deal effectively with the Federal Government concerning uses of the Federal Outer Continental Shelf in that area. Also, until the State has officially adopted a coastal management program by appropriate legislative and executive action, it has difficulty speaking with one voice with regard to its desires and intentions.

The responsibility of my office is to encourage and support the development of State coastal management programs at as rapid a pace as possible. In the case of California, it is probably unfortunate, but true that the proposed leasing action could occur prior to the submission and Federal approval of the State's coastal zone management


As we know, the State is involved in litigation with the Department of Interior with regard to a possible delay in the leasing timetable. From the standpoint of the Federal coastal zone management program, we will do everything in our power to provide assistance to the State in completing its management program development process as rapidly as possible.

We are already engaged in discussions with the State with regard to the possibility of additional and accelerated grant funding. Also, we will make every effort to get as rapid a review as possible of the State management program once it is submitted for Federal approval.

In the meantime, we are attempting to use our good offices to encourage the closest possible cooperation between Interior Department representatives engaged in planning for the offshore activities and the States' coastal commissions. Clearly, if the Federal Government does decide to go forward with leasing on the present timetable, a maximum effort should be made to develop operating plans and regulations that are in harmony with the general directions being taken by the States' current coastal planning efforts.

In closing, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act calls for a new kind of shared decisionmaking with regard to the use and protection of our Nation's valuable coastal areas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is dedicated to realizing this goal at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I appreciate the interest and support of the committee in the work of the coastal zone management program and I commend the National Ocean Policy Study for the initiatives it is taking in the ocean policy area.

I would be happy to answer any questions from the committee. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Mr. Knecht, for your interesting statement. I think it is important to point out that your Office of Coastal Zone Management is the only agency of the Federal Government charged with the responsibility of preserving and protecting and planning for the management of our coastal zone areas. Is that correct?

Mr. KNECHT. To my knowledge, that is true. However, there are lesser parts of the problem being dealt with on a per-topic basis, for example, in the area of coastal wildlife refuges, in other Federal Government departments.

Senator TUNNEY. One thing I would like to have clear for the record-if there were a delay by the Interior Department in the leasing schedule until after the California Coastal Commission had prepared its report and it has been accepted by the State legislature, at that point in a leasing program, the leases of the Department of Interior would have to indicate that they had gotten a certification of the Coastal Commission that their drilling activities were in compliance with the coastal plan, is that correct?

Mr. KNECHT. I think, Mr. Chairman, that would generally be the case. I would answer the question this way. The Federal consistency requirement and the strength of various aspects of that requirement has yet to be tested. I think we are in the same situation we were in a year or so prior to the time that the first environmental impact statements were prepared and submitted under the National Environmental Policy Act.

At that point, the strength of the EIS process was untested. We now understand the impact of that program better. Until we have a chance to test the strength of this aspect of the CZM program, my answer has to be somewhat vague. Section 307, C-1 and C-2, involve Federal activities and C-3 involves licenses and permits. It is a question of whether or not a Federal oil and gas lease would be considered a direct action by a Federal agency or be considered a license and permit as to just what the consistency provisions might mean.

When the State has officially adopted a program and it has been approved at the Federal level, it becomes an equal partner with the Federal Government determining how the coastal areas should be used.

Senator TUNNEY. In going ahead with the leasing program prior to the time the State coastal commissions develop their plans, the law in a sense is circumvented by the Department of Interior because they do not have to comply with section 307,

Mr. KNECHT. Using that timetable, it would not come into being, that is right. The FEA representation indicated that after the lease sale the Interior Department receives development and operation plans from the leasee. If, in the interval between the lease sale and the development plan, the State had its program approved at the Federal level, it seems an additional opportunity would exist to see to it that the development aspects are made consistent with the State's approved plan.

« AnteriorContinuar »