Page images


i line (including Great Lakes) and strongly influenced by each

2 other.


“(4) The term 'coastal authority' means any govern4 mental entity, groups or portions of such entities, established 5 or identified by a coastal State with a broad interest in the 6 development of coastal areas within its jurisdiction. Coastal 7 States may jointly designate an interstate agency of which 8 they are a member, including a river basin commission, to

serve as a coastal authority, in which case such an authority 10 shall be subject to the same provisions as an intrastate 11 authority for the purposes of this title; except that allot


12 ments made under section 303 (a) (1) (A) may, with re

13 spect to such an authority, be of any amount not exceeding

14 the sum of the allotments of its member States.


“ (5) The term 'coastal State' means any of the several

16 States which include coastal or estuarine areas within their

17 boundaries, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin

18 Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.




"SEC. 307. Nothing in this title shall be construed



“(1) to expand or diminish either Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of water resources planning, development, or control; or to dis



place, supersede, limit or modify any interstate compact



or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally estab



lished joint or cominon agency of two or more States, or of two or more States and the Federal Government; or to limit the authority of Congress to authorize and fund




projects; or

“(2) to supersede, modify, or repeal existing laws applicable to the various Federal agencies which are authorized to develop or participate in the development




of water and related land resources or to exercise licens


ing or regulatory functions in relation thereto, except as required to carry out the provisions of this title.





"SEC. 308. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appro

14 priated not to exceed $5,000,000 annually to carry out the

15 provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of section 303 of this

16 title, of which not more than $ annually may be 17 used for making grants under such subsection (a). 18 “(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not 19 to exceed $2,000,000 annually to carry out the provisions of

20 section 303 (c) of this title.”

71 - 186 0.72 - 2

H.R. 2492—SECTIONAL ANALYSIS The bill amends the Act establishing a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development and a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources.

Sec. 301.-Short title.

Sec. 302.-Section finds that pressures on coastal zone use requires a management system which will permit rational and informed choices between competing uses.

Sec. 303.—Section authorizes Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make grants to coastal authorities for operating expenses. The Administrator will review proposals to insure that they identify the areas involved, provide machinery to resolve conflicting uses, provide widest beneficial use, balancing conservation and economic development, provides for necessary enforcement, including zoning, easements, permits, and acquisition to assure compliance, are properly coordinated with governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations, provides for an inventory of zone resources, provides for all full participation of interested parties, and takes into account interests of both State and Federal governments.

It also provides for the Administrator to guarantee certain State bonds and to make payments to enable the State to meet amortization charges or loan interest on bonds guaranteed.

Sec. 304.-Section outlines bases and constraints on grants and authorizes the Administrator to issue regulations and procedures to carry out the purposes of the title. Federal contribution is limited to 50% of costs.

Sec. 305.-Section provides for review of proposals and termination of grants where unacceptable deviations occur.

Sec. 306.—Definitions.
Sec. 307.—Effect on existing laws and programs.

Sec. 308.—Appropriations authority-Not to exceed $5 million annually for grants nor $2 million annually for administration.


Washington, D.C., July 26, 1971.
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa-

tives, Washington, D.C.
DEAB MR. GARMATZ: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to reply to
your requests for our views on H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493, H.R. 3615 and H.R. 9229,
bills designed to assist the states in establishing coastal and estuarine zone man-
agement plans. We note that similar bills were introduced in the 91st Congress,
viz., H.R. 14730, H.R. 14731, H.R. 14845, H.R. 15099, and H.R. 16155. Our views on
those bills were submitted to you in our letter of May 5, 1970.

The present bills would establish a national policy for the management and protection of the coastal zone. To effectuate this policy, Federal financial assistance in the form of grants would be made available to coastal states to aid them in the development and administration of coordinated and comprehensive plans for the management of the coastal and estuarine areas of such states.

As indicated in our reply on the earlier coastal zone bills, we fully support meaningful efforts directed to the proper management of this nation's coastal and estuarine resources, and we support the objectives of these bills.

On February 8 of this year, the President transmitted to the Congress a message on the environment in which he proposed a wide-ranging program for the further preservation and enhancement of the quality of our environment. In his message, he discussed the need to promote environmental quality in land use decisions. To further this goal, he proposed the introduction of legislation that would establish a "National Land Use Policy", by which the states would be encouraged to plan for and regulate major developments affecting the growth and use of, what he termed, “critical land areas".

This legislation has since been introduced in the House as H.R. 4332. As the President stated, this legislation is designed to replace and expand his proposal for management of the coastal zone introduced in the last Congress (H.R. 14845, noted above), "while still giving priority attention to this area of the country which is especially sensitive to development pressures."

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

In our view, the more comprehensive approach to the land management problem embodied in the Administration legislation, which recognizes the need to concentrate our planning efforts on other areas of "critical environmental concern”, as well as the coastal zone, is preferable to that of the subject bills. Moreover, we believe the President's bill would effectively realize the objectives of H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493, H.R. 3615 and H.R. 9229.

While H.R. 4332 would be applicable generally to AEC licensing proceedings, as we understand it, the bill would not affect in any way AEC's exclusive statutory authority with respect to radiological health and safety and the common defense and security.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely,

E. J. BLOCH, Deputy General Manager.


Washington, D.C., June 24, 1971.
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Your request for comment on H.R. 2492, a bill “To provide for the effective management of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas," has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense.

This bill would amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 by adding thereto a new Title II to be known as the "Coastal and Estuarine Area Management Act.” This Act would declare it to be the policy of Congress to foster effective utilization of coastal and estuarine areas through assistance to coastal States in their management of such areas. The bill would authorize the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to make grants to any coastal authority for the purpose of defraying their operating expenses. The Administrator would be directed to review plans submitted by any coastal authority and to approve such plans, if they fulfill the objective of the Act. The Administrator would also be authorized to enter into agreements with any coastal State to underwrite, by guarantee, bonds issued on loans obtained by such State for land acquisition, water development, or restoration projects undertaken by such State in connection with the implementation of a coastal or estuarine management plan.

The Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, is sympathetic with the basic objectives of H.R. 2492 ; however, we wish to note that the comprehensive “National Land Use Policy Act of 1971" (H.R. 4332) which is part of the President's environmental program also contains provisions which give explicit recognition to the importance of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas. We would defer to the Council on Environmental Quality and the De partment of the Interior as to the desirability of legislation such as H.R. 2492, in light of the proposed “National Land Use Policy Act of 1971."

For the Committee's benefit, however, we would like to mention certain points that should be kept in mind in connection with any legislation designed to influence use of our coastal and estuarine areas. First, certain parts of such areas may be of great importance in connection with such national defense activities as weapons testing and development. Thus, it is vital that provision be made in any legislation in this area for consultation with the Secretary of Defense in connection with the federal approval of any State plan or program governing the use, development, or disposition of the resources of the coastal estuarine areas. We note in this connection that provision is made in the “National Land Use Policy Act of 1971" for consultation by the Department of the Interior with oher concerned federal agencies, including, of course, the Department of Defense.

Second, as a matter of international law it is imperative that any legislation in this field contain language to the effect that nothing in such legislation should be construed as authorizing, and does not authorize any rules or controls which are in derogation of the internationally recognized right of innocent passage, passage through international straits or the sovereign immunity afforded certain vessels under international law.

Thirdly, under international law a nation has a right to exercise certain types of jurisdiction over portions of the seas. The United States at present claims a three-mile territorial sea in which, subject only to the right of innocent passage, and the sovereign immunity of certain vessels, the United States exercises complete jurisdictional control. From three to twelve miles international law recognizes a contiguous zone. Within such high-seas area the United States may exercise limited additional powers including control over fisheries, custom, fiscal, immigration and sanitation matters. Beyond these general and specialized jurisdictional zones, the United States may unilaterally exercise only exclusive sovereign rights over exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the continental shelf (Convention on the Continental Shelf. TIAS 5578) Extreme care must be taken to avoid the inference that the United States is attempting to extend unilateral control to offshore areas beyond that which is permitted by international law.

Further, the President has recently issued an ocean-policy statement which calls for current law-of-the-sea questions, most of which involve questions of the limits of permissible coastal state jurisdictional control, to be resolved in the context of a multilateral convention. This initiative has been actively pursued by the United States in the United Nations, and has resulted in a General Assembly Resolution calling for a new Law-of-the-Sea Conference to convene in 1973. For the United States at this time to enact legislation appearing to unilaterally extend its offshore jurisdiction could be looked upon by many nations as a sign of bad faith with respect to our commitment to resolve law-of-the-sea problems in a multilateral context.

To avoid the possibility of any legislation being expansively interpreted, which would violate both international law and stated U.S. policy, it should be made clear that the United States coastal zone extends seaward only to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on H.R. 2492 for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. Sincerely yours,

LANDO W. ZECH, Jr., Captain, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chief.


Washington, D.C., June 23, 1971. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa

tives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the comments of the Environmental Protection Agency on H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493, H.R. 3615, and H.R. 6605, bills relating to protection of coastal and estuarine areas.

H.R. 2492

H.R. 2492 would amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act to authorize the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make grants to “coastal authorities" established by States and having a broad interest in the development of coastal areas. Such grants would be authorized to pay up to 50 percent of the costs of operation of such an authority for the first two years of its existence. Further grants at the 50 percent level would be authorized upon the submission and approval of a proposal for long-range planning with respect to coastal and estuarine area management, or for the implementation of such a plan. In evaluating such proposals, the NOAA Administrator would be required to consider the extent to which they identified important areas, fostered multiple uses and provided methods for conflict resolution with respect to such uses, established machinery such as zoning, easements or land acquisition to ensure compliance with plans, provided

« PreviousContinue »