Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BRENNAN. Section 307 provides that in the approval of a State program, local and regional interested agencies would be consulted so I would presume that as a program is developed and, in cooperation with the Federal Government, we would come to a program that would be recognized on a local, regional, national level as the appropriate

program.

Having approved that program, the Coastal Zone Management Act goes on further to provide that any Federal agency undertaking activities which would directly affect the coastal zone of the State having an approved program would, to the maximum extent practicable, assure that its activities are consistent with that program. I think that we would feel that it would be required for any agency to make sure that its activities are consistent, having the assurance that the program itself was developed in accordance with the guidelines that we published.

Mr. HEYWARD. Would you not agree then that the input from the State of California, as far as drilling off California outside the marine sanctuaries is concerned, would be much stronger since it would be based on specific legislative requirements.

Mr. BRENNAN. I am not sure I understand you.

Mr. HEYWARD. I am saying that, without an approved program, California does not have the legislative sanction that this act gives them.

Mr. BRENNAN. That is correct.

Mr. HEYWARD. To require the Federal Government to operate its programs off California at least to the maximum extent practicable. Mr. BRENNAN. That is correct.

Mr. HEYWARD. Would not an increase in the authorization then be to the benefit of the State of California in this particular aspect in order to complete their planning process at the earliest date possible. Mr. BRENNAN. Well, national considerations aside, I think it is clear that each State would feel that it would be beneficial to have more money available to develop the program at a pace that it considers to be the optimum pace.

Mr. HEYWARD. Let me ask you one other question. Are the States themselves, under their own decisions, attempting to speed up these programs to get them in place as early as possible?

Mr. KNECHT. Yes, certainly that is the case.

The California initiative proposition passed also in the fall of 1972 requires that the statewide coastal commission submit a plan for legislative consideration by, I think, January of 1976.

North Carolina, as mentioned before, has passed legislation giving its coastal zone commission 18 months to develop and submit a management program.

Other States similarly have adopted shorter timetables, Mr. Heyward.

Mr. HEYWARD. Well, the State legislatures in looking at this problem have, in effect, told their operating agencies to move forward with dispatch.

Mr. KNECHT. Yes.

Mr. HEYWARD. Would the Federal funding constraints then be counter to what the States were attempting to do to get their programs in place?

Mr. KNECHT. I think so.

43-881-75-14

Mr. HEYWARD. As far as your proposal in connection with the minimum of 1 percent, I understand that that creates the problem with the possibility of a couple of the territories in particular coming under the program, since there is a minimum grant requirement of 1 percent of the appropriated funds. You would like to make that more flexible.

Do you have some specific language which you could suggest? Mr. KNECHT. I do not have it in front of me at the moment, but we would have it for you, certainly.

The case in point would be the Virgin Islands. For example, with a $9 million appropriation this year for section 305, we would be required to give them no less than $90,000 and yet, they have only asked for $60,000 or $70,000.

Mr. HEYWARD. In other words, in order to participate at all we are requiring them to take more money than they need. They probably could find ways to spend it, but the problem is they have to have a higher amount for State matching as well which could cause a problem.

It also diverts funds from other people who really need it, does it not?

Mr. KNECHT. That is right.

Mr. DOWNING. Why do we not limit that requirement?

Mr. KNECHT. We would be happy to provide that language to you. Mr. DOWNING. I wish you would.

Mr. HEYWARD. That is all.

[The amendatory language follows:]

SUGGESTED AMENDATORY LANGUAGE

A BILL To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to provide more flexibility in the allocation of program development grants to smaller coastal states, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1280) is amended as follows:

Subsection (e) of section 305 is amended by striking all the words after "Provided, however," and inserting in lieu thereof the words:

"That no management program development grant under this section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the purposes of this section nor less than 1 per centum of said total amount unless a state requests a lesser amount."

Mr. DOWNING. Minority counsel have any questions?

Mr. BEDELL. No questions.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. Following counsel's remarks, I would like to direct a couple of further questions to you.

What is the status of approval of the program in California? In other words, how soon can they proceed legally as a result of proposition 20?

Mr. KNECHT. In December of 1975 or January of 1976 the Commission has to complete its program and submit it to the legislature. Mr. ANDERSON. For 1976?

Mr. KNECHT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDERSON. So that would mean then that even though California's program was good as far as you are concerned, and from

the way I read your remarks, you do approve of our program right now as an example, nevertheless you legally cannot approve it until 1976.

Mr. KNECHT. Well, we cannot approve it until it is submitted to us for approval.

Mr. ANDERSON. When would that be?

Mr. KNECHT. That depends on the State. There is no indication that that submission is pending at this moment.

As I understand it, the State commission is in the process of completing the major elements of the plan.

They have at least 1 year of work to wrap that up. Then there are some technicalities that will have to be faced.

The statewide commission under proposition 20 does not include all of the State's coastal zone under the Federal definition.

Mr. ANDERSON. There was one exemption; the BC/DC.

Mr. KNECHT. Yes; the BC/DC and there maybe a problem with the Sacramento River Delta that may have to be dealt with.

We will have to take a slightly broader view than the State commission.

Mr. ANDERSON. During the time proposition 20 was being drafted, our office worked very closely with the State Drafting Committee because we wanted them to dovetail their work with us as much as possible. We think we did coordinate our efforts so that when we do get our legislation through, it will fit quite well with the State bill.

I think the thing I am trying to find out for practical purposes is whether or not you can approve our State program before 1976. If not, then there could be an awful lot of oil wells drilled off those sanctuaries by 1976.

Mr. KNECHT. As a practical matter I think your timetable is

correct.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is what I am concerned about. We have a time problem. The people in the State of California are not delaying this process, they are moving as fast as they legally can to comply with the act we drew up.

The act was drawn up to a great extent as a result of our initial legislation while it was in process. We would like to protect those marine sanctuaries between now and the time that the State plan can be approved.

Then, of course, counsel's comments on the words "directly effect," although he did not make very clear whether the words "directly affect" would go outside the 3-mile limit to 6, 7, or 8 miles offshore. That is another area that I am concerned with.

That is all I have.

Mr. DOWNING. I would like to assure the gentleman that we can attempt to expedite hearings on his bill. We ought to have some statement from our Federal agencies.

I am afraid that amending this bill may possibly jeopardize passage. This bill is simply an extension and maybe an increase in authorization.

You have made your point there, but I can assure the gentleman we will hold hearings on that very soon.

Mr. ANDERSON. Then let us have a hearing on it.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Knecht, thank you so much for appearing here this morning. I wish you would tell your associates and employees. this committee thinks they are doing an excellent job and keep up the good work.

Our next wintess is Mr. William D. Marks, chief, Water Development Services Division, Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan.

Mr. Marks, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MARKS, CHIEF, WATER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION, BUREAU OF WATER MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LANSING, MICH.

Mr. MARKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning and would submit a prepared statement for the record and I will briefly summarize it then.

Mr. DOWNING. Your prepared statement will appear in full in the record following your oral presentation.

Mr. MARKS. I think at the outset I would like to echo what several have said this morning.

The need of the coastal zone management program has greatly accelerated in the 2 years since it was passed. The situation that the energy crisis has brought about, and many other things going on and the increase in overseas export of farm products has also created additional pressures.

Certainly, on the Great Lakes the navigation situation has changed rather radically in the last 2 years.

We are now getting Western coal moving down the lakes which is a reversal of a century old trend.

The production of iron in the upper Great Lakes has greatly expanded.

The shipyards on the Great Lakes are booked solid beyond 1980. I mean, Mr. Chairman, that their total yards are committed.

We are experimenting with winter navigation.

In addition to these kinds of problems on the Great Lakes we are having very serious problems with erosion and flooding.

The Great Lakes are entering their fifth year of above normal lake levels. We have about 700 miles in Michigan that are subject to critical erosion and nearly 1,000 homes are jeopardized.

We had some very serious flooding last year and again this summer. Sometimes up to 20.000 people have had to be evacuated.

I think one case illustrates the need more than anything else for a sound coastal zone management program. In two areas in Michigan and one in Ohio we have spent over $50 million in Federal and some State disaster relief funds, which only alleviated or provided temporary solutions to problems created by Great Lakes flooding.

This $50 million is gone and not one cent of it for a permanent solution. The people are still living in their homes. Some have collected three times on flood insurance.

We have a community in Michigan where the assessed evaluation estimate is $1.2 million and $1.5 million has been spent on temporary relief, and during the next period of high water, the cost will be greater.

I think there are many pressures on the Coastal Zone Management Act and the other thing that is very significant in our mind in Michigan is that we have had a somewhat similar history of proposed land use legislation at the congressional level.

In Michigan it got pretty far along, but did not quite make it; so the Coastal Zone Management Act is the Land Management Act left and I think it is critical that we are able to demonstrate that this program can work.

As far as the amendments you are considering here today in H.R. 16215 as indicated in the title of the bill, it is to provide more flexibility which is consistent with our understanding of the nature of the program concept created by the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The events of the 2 years since the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act have greatly accelerated both the need for coastal management as well as additional flexibility and increased fundingʻ in certain areas of program development.

The existing provision in subsection (b) of section 306, limiting administrative grants to 10 percent of the amount appropriated, does not seem realistic in the light of the way that the program is developing.

For a variety of reasons, the States will not move forward at a uniform pace. Recognizing this, along with the fact that some States must speed up their programs to meet previously unforeseen events of the energy situation, the proposed change in allocation of section. 306 grants is sound.

Those States in position to move into management programs should be encouraged to do so.

The proposed amendment to amended section 315 to increase 305 funding from $9 million to $12 million is strongly supported.

It is our understanding that the first requests of the States for 305 grants substantially exceeded the amount available.

As with most new programs, it is difficult to anticipate fully the ramifications of what is necessary to accomplish the goals to which we strive.

Because these goals are shared by a substantial segment of society, and more importantly because a sizable share of society will also be involved in implementing these goals there are no shortcuts, no expedite methods.

Program development is complex-more complex than probably many of us envisioned at the outset. Additional funding is necessary and warranted.

The proposed amendment to extend the funding for estuarine sanctuaries will, we hope, receive the endorsement of this committee as the first step in full congressional approval.

It seems somewhat ironic that a concept which has been operative but for 4 months has, in reality, already been terminated.

It seems that many have been reading section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act without fully realizing the implications of section 315 (a) (3).

The goals of creating estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose of creating "natural field laboratories to gather data and to make studies of the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the Coastal Zone" should be a part of a coastal management heritage.

« PreviousContinue »