Final Policy Report: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Kellen Sanger December 11, 2013 HOD 1800.

03

*Went to writing studio on 12/10/13 at 6:00PM in Commons

Introduction Expanding industrialization and development in the United States during the late 1960s created a strong need to protect and manage the use of land and water resources in coastal regions across the country. The pressing problem of preventing the destruction of coastal resources received considerable national attention and led to discussion regarding the creation of a national policy on the management of coastal zones in the United States. Presidential commissions, legislators, and government agencies began developing a policy designed to appeal to conservationists and advocates of industry. The resulting Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 utilized a strategy of creating federal financial incentives to encourage and assist states in the development of their own coastal management programs that would be consistent with national objectives of preserving coastal resources. While the Act itself would define national goals for protecting coastal resources, states would voluntarily participate in response to federal incentives and each state would implement their own unique coastal management program to solve the diverse problems they faced. However, the implementation was not without issue as the broad nature of the national objectives as well as unmeasurable progress towards achieving diverse state coastal management goals led to the policy receiving inconclusive and sometimes ineffective evaluations. This paper will apply Andersons (2001) policy framework to analyze the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as it progressed through the policy process. Agenda Setting The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 originated as a result of the growing need to protect and prevent the destruction of coastal resources in the United States in response to expanding development and increased demands on coastal regions. The growing condition of industrialization and development in coastal areas during the 1960s and 1970s evolved into a public problem as citizens realized that important ecological, cultural, historical and aesthetic values of the coastal zone were being destroyed by the use of these areas (Chasis, 1985, p. 21). The pertinence of this problem arose from growing public awareness of this destruction occurring. Reports such as Our Nation and the Sea from the mid-1960s highlighted the destruction of one quarter of U.S salt marshes, damage to valuable tourism and recreational areas, endangerment of biological organisms, and dependence of U.S. commercial fisheries on coastal waters as major consequences of deteriorating coastal environments (Beatley, Brower, & Schwab, 2002; Chasis, 1980). These problems resulted from growing demands for commercial, residential, recreational, and other
2

development by people living in coastal regions; 53% of the United States population at the time (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 1972). The causes were clear, the severity was high, and the damage was preventable. Citizens ranging from environmentalists to economists began pleading that a coastal crisis was beginning and that governmental action was necessary (Clark, 1996, p. 604). The problem of coastal resource destruction progressed to a national issue as government officials and policymakers began to consider action on the problem. National governmental action and agenda status not only occurred due to strong public support and demands of constituents, but also due to struggling state and local governments. Public interest from coastal citizens, marine resource supporters, numerous conservation groups, and coastal industry participants all advocated the need to protect coastal regions and furthermore stressed the inadequacies of current on-theground programs in dealing with these issues (Chasis, 1980; Clark, 1996). While the jurisdiction and division of responsibility among levels of government was somewhat unclear in this situation, economic development, recreation, and conservation interests are shared by the Federal Government and the States thus prompting the national government to decide this was a need that needed to be addressed (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 1972). Local and state governments were unable to cope with competing demands for coastal resources, and the national government determined that it was time to address the lack of a national program to tap the wealth of the oceans through publicprivate development initiatives, lack of a national program to prevent the ongoing destruction of ecologically fragile and valuable estuaries, and lack of a national policy for coordinating land use planning by exploring solutions to these issues (Clark, 1996, p. 604). Programs and policies for preventing the destruction of coastal regions emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s due to a complete convergence of problem recognition, a favorable political environment, and policy alternatives that acted as viable solutions to the problem (Kingdon, 2003, p. 152). The information regarding the environmental, economic, and aesthetic consequences of coastal region development from reports including Our Nation and the Sea elevated concern to a pressing problem viewed as a crisis by some citizens. A decade of environmental legislature and the creation of the Commission on Marine Science, the Estuary Protection Act, and the Subcommittee on Oceanography in recent years elevated agenda on protecting coastal regions in the political stream (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 1972). Moreover, the creation of a strong policy alternatives to the problem of coastal zone deterioration and solutions that included federal assistance to state and local governments by policy entrepreneur and Senator Ernest Hollings, the father of coastal zone management, led to viable government action (Durham & Jaffe, 1986). Therefore, ideas on
3

preventing coastal destruction achieved agenda status at this time due to the joining of a pressing problem, favorable politics, and strong policy alternatives that led to the opening of a policy window and an opportunity to move these elements to decision agenda. Formulation The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) proposed a strategy to protect the coastal resources of the United States against destruction that relied on the effective cooperation of federal, state, and local agencies. The policy enacted a voluntary program in which coastal states are heavily encouraged to apply to receive federal grants to assist with the implementation of the states coastal zone management program given it is consistent with the program and objectives of the federal government (Clark, 1996, p. 605). This course of action for dealing with the problem of deteriorating coastal resources was formed through the combined efforts of presidential commissions, governmental agencies, and key legislatures. These actors fought an array of unique challenges in the formulation of a policy that was technically sound, politically acceptable, had reasonable costs, and that improved coastal zone management in states facing drastically different problems. The creation of the CZMA can be traced back to President Nixons establishment of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources in 1966 that was appointed to assess the current state of marine science activities in the U.S. and to recommend a national oceanographic program (NOAA, 2006). This Commission, headed by Julius A. Stratton, author of the monumental report Our Nation and the Sea, proposed scientific evidence of increasing coastal zone destruction that would set the stage for national policy on marine resources (Knecht, Cicin-Sain, & Archer, 1988). The Commission addressed the issue in 1970 with the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce as NOAA was designated with the responsibility of environmental issues regarding coastal zone management. NOAA played a major role in the passing of the CZMA in 1972 as this governmental agency used its technical expertise to formulate much of the Act. Specialists that represented Federal and State government, industry, academia, and other institutions with programs or interest in marine science provided the evidential foundations for the CZMA and worked with legislatures in the Acts formulation (NOAA, 2006). A few key legislatures played a key role in formulating a proposed course of action to solve the issue of coastal resource destruction. For instance, South Carolina Senator and member of the
4

Committee of Commerce, Ernest Hollings acted as a major sponsor and the author of the CZMA (Chasis, 1985, p. 22). Hollings was an influential policy supporter during the course of congressional hearings as he pushed for the bills success by repeatedly advocating for the simple goal of saving the waters of our coast (Chasis, 1985, p. 23). Working closely with NOAA as well as presidential advisors on the issue, Hollings cited marine science experts from the Coastal States Organization as wells as individual state governments when emphasizing the importance of effective management in the coastal zones of the U.S. and early legislative action on the issue (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 1972). In a congressional address in April of 1972, Hollings stated the ultimate purpose of the policy as the encouragement and assistance of the states in preparing and implementing management programs to preserve, protect, develop and whenever possible restore the resources of the coastal zone of the United States (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 1972). The formulation of this policy was not achieved without overcoming substantial challenges as the establishment of a national program to address the needs of a diverse, extensive, and fragmented coastline proved to be difficult. The nature of the problem presented the first major challenge to environmentalists and governmental actors as coastal resource destruction could be attributed to several factors that included the direct destruction by development and industrialization of fragile ecosystems and environments, a lack of public access to coastal areas, non-point source pollution, offshore energy development, sea-level rise, wetland loss, marine erosion, and storm hazards (Hershmen et al., 1999; Clark, 1996). A second challenge was the United States 95,000 mile coastline, tremendous physical, economic, political and cultural diversity of the nations coasts as well as the divided governance of these areas amongst state control (Clark, 1996, p. 605). The combination of these two challenges made the design of one simple, top-down program with uniform national coastal regulations nearly impossible (Clark, 1996, p. 606). In order to diverse problems associated with coastal resource in different states, the CZMA established broad core objectives including the protection of coastal areas and wetlands, better public access to the shore, the revitalization of waterfronts, and the accommodation of seaport development which states would use to design their own programs for coastal management, in return for incentives that included financial and legal resources provided by the federal government (Hershmen et al., 1999, p. 114). This solution utilized the cooperation of federal, state, and local government to formulate a dynamic policy that could address varying, specific needs while simultaneously improving the coastal resources of the nation.

Adoption The formal adoption of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 relied on earning the support of two major groups: environmental conservationists and coastal industry developers. In order for the government to accept the policy, the policy inherently had to appeal to conservationists by solving the problem of coastal resource deterioration and satisfying the public voice that initially called for action on the issue. The CZMA met these requirements by defining national objectives that included the protection of natural resources, including wetlands, flood plain, estuaries, beaches, the management of coastal development to improve, safeguard, and restore the quality of coastal water, and the improvement of public access to the coasts, thus appeasing constituents (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972). Additionally, the CZMA met the demands of economists and businesses that were advocates of further industrialization and development of coastal regions. Clauses in the CZMA (1972) focused the bill on more effective development by giving priority consideration to...coastal-dependent uses and orderly processes for siting major facilities related to national defense, energy, fisheries development, recreation, ports and transportation as well as accommodation of new commercial and industrial developments which enthused industry participants due to increased federal financial aid available to maintain the environmental integrity of their projects (Clark, 1996, p. 611). Therefore, the environmental impacts were considered in combination with social and economic impacts to achieve action by these groups to adopt this preferred legislature (Clark, 1996, p. 609). An additional factor that contributed to the adoption of the CZMA was the legislators decision to utilize a balance of state and federal power in order to achieve acceptance by both state and federal governments. Support from both state and federal governments was necessary for the adoption of a solution that was highly debated in terms of whether coastal management fell under state or federal jurisdiction. The bill made certain that there was neither the attempt to diminish state authority through federal preemption nor a reverse preemption system whereby a state can effectively block the federal government (S. Rep. No. 92-753,1972; Duff, 2001). The CZMAs establishment of a national program on the coastal management of the states was by no means an attempt at expanding federalism as the intent of the legislature is to enhance state authority by encouraging and assisting the states to assume planning and regulatory powers over their coastal zones (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 1972). The bill used a federal consistency provision as a bargaining chip in which any action by the federal government was required to be agreeably consistent with a states coastal management program in order for the action to be taken (Duff, 2001, p. 5). These
6

concessions had to occur in order to gain state support and formally adopt a national policy on the protection of the United States fragmented coastal regions. An incremental decision-making process was effectively employed by ameliorating the present system of independent and inept state management of coastal areas, but the process was also ineffective due to its inability to produce specific guidelines for protecting coastal resources from destruction. The decision by the CZMAs key legislators and commissions to set a national policy consisting of broad objectives to prevent the destruction of coastal resources which required state management programs to provide for adequate consideration of national interests represented a remedial solution that improved the current system (Chasis, 1985, p. 26). States could continue to use their preexisting program of coastal zone management as long as it met or they improved it to meet the national requirements. The decision-making process was, at the same time, ineffective for similar reasons as it provided broad objectives but no specific steps or guidelines by which states could achieve them (Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee, 1978). Inefficiencies occurred due to a lack of coastal management understanding by the states as well as a lack of state program specificity (Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee, 1978). While the direction of states to become environmental protectors on behalf of the national government combined projects through incremental and procedural changes, the broad requirements proved to be inefficient as states were not given specific guidelines to act upon. Implementation The implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 began at the federal level as the United States Government made a declaration of policy by establishing that it is the national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nations coastal zone. The U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) within NOAA was the administering agency designated to perform the day to day implementation of the policy (Beately, Brower, & Schwab, 2002). This implementation was achieved through the creation of a voluntary program in which the federal government encouraged states to participate by offering financial and legal assistance to help plan and regulate their coastal zones (Chasis, 1980, p. 145). The OCRM is the administering agent at the national level as it: Interprets the statue through rules and regulations, interacts with oversight and reauthorization committees in congress, approves or rejects state coastal management

programs, awards grants for coastal programs, evaluates progress of the states, and oversees the states implementation. (Hershman et al., 1999, p. 115) The financial incentives in the form of awarded grants to participating states acted as the main control technique that OCRM used to ensure that states implemented the national policy. The OCRM allocated a national budget of around $50 million per year to provide grants that were designed to cover up to 80% of the cost of developing and administering a coast zone management program (Chasis, 1980, p. 117). After declaring national policy and defining coastal zone improvement objectives, the OCRM relied on these financial incentives to encourage the states to directly implement the national policy. The first step of the direct implementation of the CZMA at the state level is the development of a state coastal zone management program. After submitting their plan to the OCRM, states would be approved if their management programs follow CZMA provisions in accordance to national policy. If the state is approved, they are given a high level of control over the implementation of their program and use of federal grants as these states are promised that future federal actions in coastal areas will be consistent with approved state plans (Clark, 1996, p. 605). States therefore become the action arm of the coastal management system and can apply the federal financial assistance to the unique problems that they face in preventing coastal resource destruction (Hershman et al., 1999, p. 116). The states are directed to delegate some of the management responsibilities to local governments in order to maximize the effectiveness of their resources and solve diverse problems (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 1972). The state and local governments utilized traditional land powers and infrastructure improvements as their control techniques to achieve coastal policy (Hershman et al., 1999, p. 118). The implementation of the national policy established by the CZMA is heavily reliant of the cooperation of these various levels of government. The OCRM also employs a review process in which states are held accountable for the effective use of federal funds and the implementation of coastal zone management in accordance with national policy. States are subject to a continuing federal review of state management programs and performance in which a reduction or withdrawal of funding for unjustified deviations from state can be enforced (Chasis, 1980, p.121). The OCRM assesses state action directly affecting the coastal zone or any development in a states coastal zone and ensured that the activity complies with the state approved program (Schaffer, 1977, p. 604). During circumstances in which state and federal governments disagree on the consistency between established state programs and national policy on coastal zone management, the court system may be employed in order to
8

produce rulings of constitutionality (Chasis, 1985, p. 117). The review process for the state and local implementation of the CZMA is a critical as the federal government shapes the way in which states implement the policy. Evaluation Evaluations and studies regarding the effectiveness of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 are overwhelming inconclusive due to the diverse nature of the problems being addressed. Varying circumstances across an extensive shoreline call for many unique problems associated with deteriorating coastal resources to be solved. The measurement of the success of the CZMA is difficult to determine as the establishment of an evaluation system applicable to coastal management across the entire nation is impossible. This has resulted in failed attempts by Congress to evaluate the CZMA as the findings are commonly inconclusive. Moreover, some studies and evaluations have deemed the policy ineffective as broad objectives failed to create specified goals or guidelines for state coastal management programs. Based on the several studies available, the CZMA cannot be determined to be successful. A systematic evaluation of The Effectiveness of Coastal Zone Management in the United States (1999) was performed by the University of Rhode Island in order to assess the national on the ground outcomes of CZMA programs, the processes used to achieve the outcomes, and the importance given to the issues that are being solved (p. 115). The study evaluated the 32 states that chose to participate in the CZMA program and receive federal financial aid. The evaluation gaged the effectiveness of these programs by their ability to meet the national objectives set forth by the national policy (Hershman et al., 1999, p. 116). The study found that based on 12 of the 35 states that were assessable: 80% of states performed at or above expected levels in the protection of estuaries and wetlands, the protection of beaches and dunes could not be determined, CZMA programs were national leaders in improving public access to the coast, waterfront revitalization was occurring at unknown levels, and the capacity for state coastal management programs was improving (Hershman et al., 1999, p.121-127). While these results yielded some positive aspects of the CZMA, the study repetitively noted that the conclusions were based on a small number of states and inconsistent outcome data due to the lack of a common set of outcome indicators to assess progress on national objectives (Hershman et al., 1999, p. 128). The inability to measure the specific achievement of goals amongst state programs inhibited the study to achieve conclusive results.

A 2006 Coastal Zone Management Act Evaluation sponsored by NOAA and the U.S. Department of Commerce analyzed coastal management programs to determine the accomplishments of the policy based on the goals of the CZMA program that included: operations and management, public access, water quality, research and monitoring, education and outreach, coastal hazards, coastal dependent uses and community development, coastal habitat, and government coordination and decision-making (Department of Commerce, 2007). While the evaluation presents common themes found by several personnel members, the report cites that it is based off the assessment of 19 of the 62 coastal management programs and is not supported by statistical analysis due to the nature of the problem and an inability to measure the achievements of these programs using on an all-inclusive methodology (Department of Commerce, 2007, p. 2). The evaluation found that operations and management were inhibited by a need for increased staffing, relatively few evaluations were specific to improving the public access to coastal areas, successful development of outreach programs was beginning, relatively few findings were specific to coastal hazards, inconclusive evidence on coastal development and the recent impact on coastal areas, and new policy was needed in regards to protecting coastal habitats (Department of Commerce, 2007, p. 2-10). The trend of these findings is that there is inconclusive evidence available to assess the effectiveness of the CZMA. Neither consistent statistical measures nor effective methodology can be applied to the diverse and varying nature of the problem thus inhibiting NOAA in evaluating the success of the program. A third study based off of review of the development of every state coastal management program on the East Coast as of April 1980 concluded that CMZA was failing due to an unclear and unspecified national coastal policy, a lack of substantive federal standards, and an inability to remove federal funding from underperforming programs. Sarah Chasis (1980), the author of the review, participated in the implementation of the CZMA in several states and provided analysis of the programs effectiveness (p. 145). Chasis (1980) presented facts regarding the implementation of state programs to identify weaknesses in the policy such as the inability of some coastal states to develope a coastal program, the absence of mechanisms to assess and control, and lacking authority due to controversies amongst other legislature (p. 148). The causes of the overall ineffectiveness of the policy can be attributed to an extremely broad statute, weak federal implementation by the OCZM, and uncertainty of program benefits from year to year (Chasis, 1980, p. 149-152). Chasis argued that these weaknesses in the CZMA result in an ineffective solution to the nations coastal resources destruction problem.
10

A 1978 report by the Coast Zone Management Advisory Committee evaluated the successes and shortfalls of the Coastal Zone Management Acts implementation by State and Federal agencies. The study assessed the policy through case studies of four states using statistical findings, original data, and personal interviews on the effectiveness of implementing coastal zone management. The study found that serious constituency problems for coastal zone management have developed as limited public participation, the lack of State program specificity... and future funding issues in coastal management existed for the program (Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee, 1978, p. 26). These issues derive from a general lack of understanding of coastal management as well as missing performance standards, monitoring, and reviews for states by Federal agencies (CZM Advisory Committee, 1978, p. 9-10). Research found that at the state level, public support was lacking and incentives to develop a management program were insufficient (CZM Advisory Committee, 1978, p. 17). Ultimately, the Commission ruled the CZMA of 1972 to be ineffective in its current state and recommended revisions to improve public awareness, add specificity to the objectives, drop states not making meaningful progress, and gradually phase-down federal incentives for the program as a whole (p. 6-7). These recommendations highlight the faulty nature of the Act and provide insight into the ineffectiveness of states in implementing their own coastal management programs. Conclusion While debatably effective, The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 defined United States policy on the management and protection of coastal resources. The serious problem of expanding development and its destructive effects on land and water in the coastal regions of the Nation arose as an issue requiring governmental action. This action occurred due to the combined efforts of legislators, presidential commissions, and agencies to propose a policy that appealed to conservationists and industry participants. The policy that emerged depended on the cooperation of federal, state, and local governments to achieve national objectives of protecting coastal resources through the implementation of unique coastal management programs from state to state as long as they maintained consistency with national policy. These programs were encouraged and assisted by the federal government through the use of financial incentives. Ultimately, the successes of The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 were hard to analyze due to the diverse problems the policy addressed, and evaluations of the policy were commonly inconclusive.

11

References Beatley, T., Brower, D. J., & Schwab, A. K. (2002). An introduction to coastal zone management. Island Press. Chasis, S. (1980). The coastal zone management act. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(2), 145-153. Chasis, S. (1985). Coastal Zone Management Act: A Protective Mandate, The.Nat. Resources J., 25, 21. Coastal Management Zone Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 113-152, 1451-1466. (1972). Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee. (1978). Public support for coastal zone management programs: The implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972: A report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Duff, J. A. (2001). Coastal Zone Management Act: Reverse Pre-Emption or Contractual Federalism, The. Ocean & Coastal LJ, 6, 109. Durham, D. L., & Jaffe, L. (1986). Coastal Award To Hollings. Eos, 67(32). Hershman, M. J., Good, J. W., Bernd-Cohen, T., Goodwin, R. F., Lee, V., & Pogue, P. (1999). The effectiveness of coastal zone management in the United States. Coastal Management, 27(2-3), 113-138. JR Clark (Ed.). (1996). Coastal zone management: handbook. CRC Press. Knecht, R. W., Cicin-Sain, B., & Archer, J. H. (1988). National ocean policy: A window of opportunity. Ocean Development and International Law, 19 (2). Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00908328809545852#.UqhNavRDt0x. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. (2006). A History of NOAA. Retrieved from http://www.history.noaa.gov/legacy/noaahistory_3.html. Shaffer, K. A. (1977). OCS Development and the Consistency Provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act-A Legal and Policy Analysis. Ohio NUL Rev.,4, 595.

12

United States. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2007, August). CZMA Section 312 Evaluation Summary Report 2006.Retrieved December 11, 2013 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web Site: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/resources/publications.html. United States. Senate. Committee on Commerce. National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972: Report Together with Individual Views. (S.Rpt. 92-753). Washington. Government Printing Office, 1972.

13