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

1

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 Anderson’s (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

2

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

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-the-ground

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

3

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 public-private 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 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

4

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 state’s 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 Nixon’s

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

Act’s formulation (NOAA, 2006).

5

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 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 bill’s

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 nation’s coasts” as

well as the divided governance of these areas amongst state control (Clark,

6

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

7

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 CZMA’s 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

state’s coastal management program in order for the action to be taken

(Duff, 2001, p. 5). These 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

8

inability to produce specific guidelines for protecting coastal resources from

destruction. The decision by the CZMA’s 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 Nation’s 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

9

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 state’s

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

10

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 state’s 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 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

11

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

12

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 program’s 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

13

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 nation’s

coastal resources destruction problem.

A 1978 report by the Coast Zone Management Advisory Committee

evaluated the successes and shortfalls of the Coastal Zone Management

Act’s 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

14

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.

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.

15

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#.U

qhNavRDt0x.

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.

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.

16