While a bill to repeal CAMA was narrowly defeated, the House passed a measure restricting authority to designate areas of environmental concern. It is interesting to note that the State coastal zone management agency supported the bill. The Senate may act on it in 1978. In the opinion of several knowledgeable observers, the ability of CAMA to survive these challenges to date reflects its basic soundness. Nonetheless, as indicated, these problems may reflect the troubled state of the coastal zone management constituency.

Finally, coastal zone management does not appear to be well regarded within State government. A top administrator in the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (the agency that houses the State coastal office) said that "coastal management has not had any appreciable effect in resolving such problems as water pollution from ill-conceived developments." Further, he feels that public participation is still pro forma and that local plans will sit on shelves. An official from the Department of Agriculture states that the Department was, for all practical purposes, excluded from coastal zone planning. A respondent from the Department of Administration wondered why the State coastal zone management office did not participate in the Governor's Conference on Balanced Growth. "The State coastal zone agency could act as management ombudsman if a strong Governor, communication, and real incentives could bring agencies together to coordinate activities in coastal zone areas," another official stated.

Apprehension in the executive branch may have stemmed from concern about what would happen when the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission began issuing permits on March 1, 1978. It also may have been aggravated by a recent executive order requiring State agencies to coordinate with the State coastal zone management office. In any case, support for coastal management activities is not what it might be except for those State and local officials who receive direct benefits from the program.

An important reason for this situation, according to many, is that the Federal office strongly urged the State to move toward program approval. Thus, unlike Louisiana, where Washington was criticized for not providing clear Federal standards and deadlines, North Carolina found the reverse to be true. Due to pressures to meet State requirements, North Carolina would have liked to have had more time to inform and broaden its constituency and to develop policy positions relating to the 1976 Amendments of the Federal Act. Public opposition to coastal area management in the latter stages of the management process is not unique to North Carolina and is probably inherent in implementing effective programs. Even California, which has a comparatively large constituency, vigorous opposition to coastal zone management still exists.

Future Prospects

Since the State has just recently begun its permitting process under CAMA, it is premature to gage the impact of the program. The next two or three years are likely to be very important for its future, since CAMA is due to be reauthorized in 1981. What key problems exist on the horizon that North Carolina and perhaps other States may have to face? The Committee identifies the following three areas: (1) the merits of the program, (2) the State's balanced growth policy, and (3) the proposed Office of Management and Budget reduction of Federal funds.

First, many respondents indicated that the fate of the State program may not necessarily rest on its actual content. Since turnover in most State legislatures is high (as much as one-third), a continuing reeducation effort is necessary. A similar problem exists in many local governments. Further, segments of the public (particularly agricultural and environmental interests) oppose the program. An official for the Department of Agriculture, however, states that farmers might support the program if they were sure of what it meant. North Carolina demonstrates quite clearly that a meaningful, long-term, and more focused public participation effort is necessary if coastal area management is to gain and maintain the support of important groups.

Second, the current State administration is developing a policy framework within which programs must justify their activities. A Department of Administration spokesman said that “the coastal agency must relate to the Governor's policy on balanced growth." Agency officials have made few visible efforts to link coastal issues with this State policy. If the program is to be a policy forum for competing interests, there must be a compelling reason to coordinate with the coastal agency. Unless the program, financed largely by Federal funds, can further State objectives, coastal management will have limited appeal in States like North Carolina.

Finally, an important test of broad State support for any national grant program is the fate of the program in case of a Federal funding phase down. Unlike California (where a significant part of the population lives on the coast), North Carolina would be hard pressed to justify the necessary expenditures for the rural, coastal area in view of other priorities. A senior State senator indicated that "taxes will not be increased for the foreseeable future." Further, a mountain area management act was recently defeated in the legislature. A former State coastal administrator recommended that "the present level of funding should be maintained for several years followed by a gradual phase down. The State program must be given a chance to prove it can make a difference before it can support itself." In conclusion, although North Carolina expressed interest in coastal management before the passage

of the National Act in 1972, it has been encouraged and strengthened by Federal money, support, and leadership.

SUMMARY

This section has reported the digest findings from site visits to three coastal States. Ohio is a State where some of the important reasons for public support of coastal management do not exist. This, no doubt, helps explain why it, like other industrialized States in the lower Great Lakes region, is relatively slow in program development. Ohio illustrates the necessity of a more aggressive posture at the State level as well as a more affirmative Federal program, provided that its coastal problems are serious enough to warrant it.* Louisiana, whose coastal area is an important national resource, has experienced difficulties in formulating an adequate management plan despite the incentive of CEIP funds. Many of these difficulties are now being dealt with, and it appears that the State will join the Federal program provided that the right mix of minimal conditions and maximum funding exists. The Louisiana experience indicates that while CEIP funding is important, it may not be a sufficient incentive for States to develop management practices that meet Federal approval criteria. North Carolina is a State that recognizes the importance of coastal area management. However, it has many other priorities, since most of its population, and that of its sister States in the region, does not live on the coast. These three States, in very different ways, demonstrate the significance of establishing and maintaining a constituency for balanced use of the coastal zone. Ohio needs to do this, perhaps more than other States, but has not. The process being created now will hinder or help it later. The experience of Louisiana and North Carolina (as well as California) suggests that Ohio's policy needs review since those States are continuing to experience constituency problems. However, in Louisiana and North Carolina, most respondents indicated that opposition was based more on misconceptions of the program than on its actual substance. It should be pointed out that the presence of opposition is not, by itself, a sufficient criterion by which to evaluate coastal zone management. Any program that actually makes a difference in public policy will inevitably experience opposition. Clearly the evidence demonstrates the need for an ongoing educational effort to make the

* Alternatively, the question might be raised, “Is there anything of national significance that would be lost if a coastal zone management program were not established in Ohio?" If the answer is affirmative, perhaps a more narrowly focused, segmented program would be appropriate.

Implementation of the

Coastal Zone Management Act: A View From Federal Agencies

*

This section presents the findings from interviews with government officials in Washington, D. C. These officials represent agencies that play a significant part in national decision-making as it relates to coastal areas in the country. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that all Federal agencies with programs affecting the coastal zone review State plans prior to approval and that they comply with the Federal consistency provisions of the Act. Clearly then, Federal agencies are major participants in the coastal zone management process. The interviews were conducted in January and February, 1978, with eight important agencies: Department of Agriculture, Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Economic Development Administration. The individuals contacted were the designated "coastal zone management representatives" in their respective organizations. Federal agency field personnel in departmental regions and districts were not contacted in a systematic fashion. The number of interviewees in each agency ranged from one to five. The discussions, using a structured interview schedule, averaged one hour in length.

The objective of this section is to discuss the nature of the coastal management process as perceived by selected Federal departments. It is not an attempt to document the history of the Office of Coastal Zone Management Federal relations nor to provide a detailed analysis of all the substantive issues in intergovernmental affairs.

* It should be noted that although the term "Federal relations" applies to a specific function and section in the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM), a large number of OCZM personnel engage in relations with other Federal agencies by the very nature of their responsibilities.