ment process are likely to encounter similar problems unless they are resolved. Data gathered by the Committee and recent lawsuits (and threats of court action) by environmentalists and oil companies in other states make this clear. These provisions of the Act, therefore, have created considerable uncertainty and tend to undermine public and private sector confidence in the coastal management process. Coastal States must develop programs that set forth objectives, policies and standards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal zone. These programs must provide the basis for determining the consistency of Federal actions and provide for adequate consideration of the national interest in planning for, and siting of, facilities.

First, the very existence of the consistency requirement has stimulated Federal concern over State programs. In order to ensure that State programs consider Federal agency missions, Federal agencies must engage in effective, balanced consultation with States to develop programs that address competing national needs and agency missions. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's consistency regulations were developed through the use of an interagency, Office of Management and Budget sponsored review process. The regulations are, as a result, Administration directives which will facilitate enforcement. Controversy continues, however, as shown by the data presented earlier in this report and by the prohibition of the consistency provision from the California program by a Federal court pending a final judgment on its legality.

Concern has been expressed that it is difficult to certify that a given activity is consistent with a "vague" program. For this reason, the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that State plans contain specific land and water use provisions and identify what uses will be permitted and where they will be allowed. In addition, Federal consistency regulations require States to assist applicants with their certifications upon request. To date, there has been no occasion for the Secretary of Commerce to review an appeal by an applicant for a Federal permit or to mediate disputes between Federal agencies and the State as provided by law. This may be indicative of the fact that the provision encourages intergovernmental debate and coordination and that major disagreement will occur only if this consultation breaks down. It may also demonstrate that the viability of the concept has not yet been fully tested.

Since the Federal consistency requirement applies only to approved programs, a judgment on its workability cannot be rendered at this time. Only the State of Washington has had any significant experience in this area. Three major projects in Washington have been dealt with

in different ways. First, the Trident Submarine Base on Hood Canal did not comply with all of the provisions of the Washington coastal zone management program. However, as a national security project, it did comply to the maximum extent practicable as mandated in the Federal consistency regulations. Second, a proposal by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to build an office complex and ship mooring facility on Lake Washington was judged to be consistent with the State program. In both cases, the Federal agencies provided the State with consistency determinations as required by the Federal activity development project consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Finally, a proposal to expand an oil refinery and pier in Puget Sound raised the issue of Federal consistency. However, the conclusion of a Federal consistency determination was preempted by Congressional action. On the whole, controversial projects in the State subject to consistency have resulted in increased intergovernmental coordination and attempts to be consistent with the State program. Routine projects have generally been handled informally and expeditiously.

In order to fulfill the intent of the Act-balanced use of the coastal zone-State and Federal governments must insure that an adequate level of specificity and predictability is contained in programs now being approved. For example, given a State's program policies, there must be a high probability of predicting what kinds of uses are permitted in selected areas. The Committee recommends that the Secretary take action to insure that an adequate level of specificity include but not be limited to:

(1)

(2)

(3)

definition of performance standards regarding the specificity of State program elements (e.g. priority uses),

monitoring of consistency determinations over time as a gage of specificity, and

a review of Office of Coastal Zone Management procedures concerning Federal agency views, informal efforts to resolve differences, responses to serious disagreements, and the use of mediation as prescribed by the Act.*

The second concern about program specificity is that the State may not provide for an adequate consideration of the national interest in its program. Although the Act requires State programs to consider the

* In this area, the Office of Coastal Zone Management has indicated that it will act as ombudsman for States and Federal agencies in order to resolve conflicts prior to Secretarial level mediation. Success in this necessary, if difficult, role will be important in improving the Office's Federal relations.

national interest in the management of their coastal zone, NOAA regulations invite the broadest possible claims in the name of national interest while at the same time are virtually silent on what constitutes its adequate consideration.

Numerous and fruitless attempts have been made to define the national interest.* Recently, the Office of Coastal Zone Management has attempted to grapple with this problem by developing a series of functional national interest statements in selected subject areas based on official documents and existing statutes. This may be a step in the right direction, since the most pragmatic solution to the question, "What is the national interest?" is to recognize that there may be many short- and long-run national interests to balance. This balance is best achieved by competing interests presenting their views in an open, adversary process.

The nature and importance of short- and long-term national interests should be clarified in the coastal zone management process. States are presently expected to consult with Federal agencies to assure that their management programs do not arbitrarily exclude or unreasonably restrict the siting of facilities that serve the Nation. State contributions to the siting of facilities with national impact must be identified and procedures to deal with facility siting issues must be described. Finally, States are required to identify how their programs will consider national interests on a continuing basis in the future. Some of these problems are addressed by the revised program approval regulations published on March 1, 1978. Federal law does not now require a State to develop a comprehensive, long-term or site-specific program element for the location of facilities in the coastal zone.

While the provisions outlined above meet the requirements of the Act, the development of an affirmative response to the facility issue is needed. As a beginning, the Committee recommends that a policy document be prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone Management that describes what constitutes the adequate consideration of the national interest. That is, the methods and procedures by which a State makes this determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act needs to be clarified. There must be an identification of the kinds of issues or projects to be considered, the steps taken by States during their decision-making process, and the criteria used in assessing the national interest (e.g., alternative courses of action, nature of coastal dependency,

* See, for example, Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, A Report on the National Interest in the Coastal Zone, (Washington, D.C.: Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1974).

and so on). If procedures like these do not prove to be sufficient, remedial legislation may be necessary.

Either way, it is evident that coastal zone management must have a substantial constituency among environmental, industrial, and other groups for these controversial problems to be resolved. A meaningful process for accommodating the many demands and for resolving the conflicts that occur among them is the greatest benefit a program like coastal zone management can provide. There is no question that such a program is superior to the confusion of single resource-oriented programs on the Nation's coasts. If management programs weigh and balance alternative demands upon coastal resources in a responsible manner, the opportunity exists to garner support among coastal users. One way to put consensus decision-making to the test and make coastal zone management a more affirmative program would be to direct the management process toward discrete areas or problems. For example, at Grey's Harbor, Washington, all concerned parties were brought into the process and most of them were satisfied with the result. In short, a management program must establish objective policies and standards that can be used as a guide for public and private uses of coastal lands and waters. Criteria for determining the specificity of State programs need to be established. Adherence to the Federal consistency clause is necessary to insure that Federal agencies administer their activities in a manner consistent with the national interest provision of the program. Effective implementation of these provisions is necessary if public support for coastal zone management is expected.

FEDERAL FUNDING ISSUES

The final policy area that the Committee examined is the funding of coastal zone management programs. It was found that the availability of Federal money was crucial to the establishment of comprehensive coastal programs in nearly all States. Congress anticipated that coastal States would participate in the grant program and they have. More than $63 million in Federal assistance will have been expended to develop programs by the end of this fiscal year. Approximately $25 million in matching funds have been contributed by States and localities. For different reasons in different States (see section two), a Federal phasedown of funds would have a significant impact on State coastal programs.

The Committee (as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) recognizes the need to phase down program development funds. Nothing is more corrosive of public confidence than to have planners spend planning monies ad infinitum. However, the Coastal

Zone Management Act authorizes program development funds only through fiscal year 1979. Federal agencies and coastal user groups believe that to cut off funds for all States at that point would be an arbitrary action. The Committee recommends that selected States that have made significant progress deserve an extension of preliminary approval of funds for a limited period such as two years beyond the current authority. Original Congressional and Administration expectations that all eligible States would complete and implement programs in a short, designated time period have proven to be unrealistic. Coastal zone management is basically a political process that involves hard choices and social trade offs. This is what building a constituency means and that process takes years to accomplish. It is the consensus of the Committee, however, that States not making meaningful progress should be dropped from the Federal program. These States would include those that have not demonstrated concrete evidence of interest in coastal issues, lack urgent coastal problems, and do not have strong State leadership in coastal zone management. Those States that lack interest in coastal management, but have serious coastal problems should receive funding to deal with specific segments of their coasts.

Perhaps a more important dimension of the funding problem is the role of Federal support once State programs are in place and working. At present, the Act authorizes program implementation funding through September, 1980. If States have only one or two years of Federal support for which to plan, it may be difficult for the Office of Coastal Zone Management to insist on strong State programs during the approval process. Indeed, some States may simply drop out of the program rather than be subject to the national interest and other controversial provisions of the Act discussed earlier.

In light of the importance of Federal monies in establishing State programs and the need to extend that support, an abrupt cutoff of program implementation funds would be detrimental to the balanced use of coastal resources and clearly not in the national interest. Instead, the Committee recommends a gradual phasedown of Federal matching monies for operating programs. This would (1) permit States to assume greater responsibility for their coastal zone programs, (2) protect the Federal investment in coastal management, and (3) recognize that there is a continuing national interest in management of the shorelines of America. The matching Federal share might drop from the current 80 percent to 662/3 percent, 50 percent, and 3313 percent over a 10-year period.

By that time, States will have assumed responsibility for activities in the national interest to warrant a continuing Federal match of 3311⁄2 percent. While an indepth financial analysis is necessary, the Committee