Coastal zone management and the Western States future proceedings, December 3-4, 1973, Newport Beach, Calif

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

_: ~_ ! ~':! 13Lr% I
MAIR TECIJEOLODY S IE'

Coastai Zone
Informatno
Center
--5

:~GC
1 01 0
!;~i~ .C6

1 1973
de=-2zN~r.-
'~~ Z EEIlr5J1

K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- -,g ,S.3--d -fid
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ -J ' .'- ~ 'F I;r

i 01 0

Qi~~~ -- -,'.4A-3 -j33
.,j .i0S.. l r3
: I . .51.; . 1, ;:1E . 1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--''-

MAY 3 1 1974

IL~~~~~~~~
Marine Technology Society%
Los Angeles Region Section

Property of CSC Library

Proceedings

Coastal Zone Management and
The Western States Future.

Editor: William B. Merselis

rg~f\ tl[. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
rv" i COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
co 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
..._ = . . CHARLESTON-, SC 29405-2413

� December 3-4, 1973 0 Newport Beach, Ca.

MTS PUBLICATIONS

SYMPOSIA TRANSACTIONS

Buoy Technology, 1964 $6.00
Buoy Technology, 1967 6.00
Underwater Welding, Cutting and Hand Tools, 1967 8.00
Drugs from the Sea, 1967 12.00
Food-DrugfLrgmjhb Sa&1969 q 12.00
Ocean Sciences and Engineering of the
Atlantic Shelf, 1968 5.00
International Marine Information, 1968 5.00
Applications of Sea Going Computers, 1969 9.00
Marine Temperature Measurements, 1969 5.00
2nd Marine Geodesy, 1969 8.(00
Progress into the Sea, 1969 9.00(
Equipment for the Working Diver, 1970 8.00
Law of the Sea Reports, 1971 10.00
The Working Diver, 1972 8.(00
Tools for Coastal Zone Management, 1972 12.(00
Coastal Zone Management & The Western StatesFuture, '74 10.00

ANNUAL CONFERENCES PREPRINTS

Exploiting the Ocean, 1966 11.00
1967 - The New Thrust Seaward 6.00
A Critical Look at Marine Technology, 1968 7.00
The Depade Ahead, 1970-1980 9.00
Marine Technology, 1970 (2 volumes) 17.00
The Annual Preprints, 1971 15.00
Applications of Marine Technology to Human Needs, '72 15.00
Marine Industires: Problems & Opportunities,
1973 Proceedings 15.00

HANDBOOKS

Safety and Operational Guidelines for Undersea
Vehicles, 1968 7.00
A Critical Review of the Marine Science
Commission Report, 1969 5.50
Research Submersibles in Oceanography, 1970 4.00
The Oceans and You 3.00

These publications may be obtained from the:

Marine Technology Society
1730 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20036

I CAN'T BELIEVE I EDITED THE WHOLE THING!

A great deal was learned from this undertaking:

� I don't plan to do it again for at least six months
* Speed reading does not work for editing
* Slides are hard to describe in writing
� Third-order xerox copies are hard to reproduce
i Volunteer labor is top quality, but not always timely

We had a wonderful conference. All the preparations and work in
advance of December 3rd were rewarded by the excellent presentations and con-
tributions of our speakers and the stimulating audience turnout.

The purpose of this conference was to bring together those who work and
direct activities in coastal zone management, to promote the exchange of
coastal zone management information and concepts, and to present significant
study results in both the technical and management areas particularly relevant
at the regional level in the Western States. The program emphasis was on the
practical, and not the abstract. Sessions followed a single theme and
specific papers were supplemented by exchange between speakers and panel
provocateurs.

Originally, there was no plan for a proceedings; however, because of the
technical excellence of the program, and the scientific and educational inter-
ests of the Bendix Corp plus an anonymous contributor, it was decided that a
great many people unable to attend could benefit from the conference if they
could purchase and read the information presented. Thus, these proceedings
were developed.

Special thanks are expressed to the authors who took the time to prepare
their papers for these proceedings. The other speeches which were taped and
later transcribed, were sent to the author for editing. In some cases, I
edited the material and so any errors you may find are probably mine.

Our especial thanks go to the USC Sea Grant Program Advisory Services
staff for their excellent support and in particular, to the Coordinator,
Byrol Washom, for his efforts while serving as head of the Technical Program
Committee.

The MTS Los Angeles Region Section officers and the Conference Steering
Committee, its Chairman, Eric Nordhausen; Arrangements Chairman, Harold
Stanley; and Publicity Chairman, Mickey Milane (listed in the back of the
proceedings) contributed many talents and a great deal of time to make the
conference a success.

I would like to express my thanks to Kay Dugan, our section Newsletter
editor, who not only used her talents to coordinate conference workers on
December 3rd and 4th, but also transcribed a great number of speeches. Also,
thanks to Ford McFarlane for the cover and for arranging the figures.

Finally, I want to express my sincere gratitude and extra special thanks
to my wife, Judy, for all her work in transcribing and final typing.

These proceedings are my recognition of all these efforts.

Sincerely,

William B. Merselis
Chairman, MIS/LARS

RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION

"Motion made and duly seconded, and by unanimous vote of those present, it
was moved that:

The members and guests of the Marine Teclnology Society in attendance at the
December 3rd and 4th, 1973 conference held in Newport Beach, California and
entitled "COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT and the WESTERN STATES" wish to express
their appreciation to the members of the CONFERENCE COMMITTEE and to the
officers and staff of the MTS-LOS ANGELES REGION SECTION for their efforts
in presenting us with an outstanding program. To each of the participating
chairmen, speakers and panelists, we particularly express our appreciation
for their excellent presentations."

Conference Summation
Byron Washom, Program Chairman

Coordinator
Sea Grant Program
Marine Advisory Services
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California

For those of you who are taking notes, you can put your pads down for

the first time in two days, since my forte is having a grasp for the ob-

vious. I would just like to basically give you my reflections in observing

this conference.

First, I would like to look at the audience. The Audience was totally

unexpected; not only in size and in sophistication, but even more so in its

interest and concern. Two examples. Yesterday in Dr. Stevenson's session

they ran about an hour over time. No one was chained to the chair and no-

body was leaving even though there was also a cocktail party going on out

in the hall. This is the kind of interest that personally surprised me.

I'm somewhat becoming a professional conference-goer and very rarely does

one see an audience so concerned with the subject matter. Furthermore, I

was impressed with how the age groups were so evenly divided. The repre-

sentation of youth at this conference gives credence to the hope that a

continuity of wise use and management of coastal resources will carry well

into the future.

As far as the speakers are concerned, I too was impressed with the

speakers. Many of the speakers came as personal invitations on my behalf

while others were invited by the Chairman, but they all seem to have re-

written their speeches within the past two weeks, because they saw the per-

tinence of this topic, this conversation, and this conference. Many of them

addressed themselves to the energy issue, which I think was most appropriate.

In addition, all of them polished their speeches, for it was not a straight

itii

paper presentation. It was a true presentation of the issues.

Finally, I would like to thank my Sea Grant colleagues for there are

five different universities represented here. I know their travel budgets

are tight and I thank them for using their funds to come to this conference.

There's the output--we have seen the exchange of information and ideas.

We have had a learning process, but I think in the audience we have those

individuals who are working in the real world planning and making the man-

agement decisions. By the nature of the exchange and the learning process

that has occurred, the audience is prepared to go back with these new tools

to their own activities and apply them to their problems, and issues. In

that case, I am very pleased with the conference, Thank you.

vI
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface i
Conference Summation iii

SESSION I

Current Federal Coastal Zone Legislation and Activities
Robert Knecht 1

Shoreline Management: The Washington Experience
D. Rodney Mack 5

Coastal Zone Management, The Oregon Approach
James F. Ross 10

The California Experience
Joseph E. Bodovitz 12

Some Effects of the California Coastal Zone Initiative
On Local and Regional Planning
James Perry 16

Current Local Planning for the Coastal Zone
Calvin Hamilton 20

The County of Los Angeles and the Coastal Commission -
A Case of Challenge and Response
Barna Szabo 24

Coastal Planning for the Irvine Company
Donald C. Cameron 27

Preservation of Archaeological Resources in the
Coastal Zone.
Gordon Mellis 30

Session I - Comments, Discussion, Question, Answer 33

LUNCHEON SPEAKER

The Energy Crisis and the Consequences of Offshore
Oil Drilling
D. J. Everitts 44

Rebuttal
Steven Travis 52

SESSION II

Technological & Management Strategies For Increasing
The Coastal Carrying Capacity
Senator Dennis Carpenter 54

John Craven 60

The Cost Benefit Class Struggle
Claude Gruen 65

The Use of the Computer in Coastal Management
Mickey Milane 70

Session II - Comments, Discussion, Question, Answer 77

SESSION III

Shelf Currents Off Southern California
Alfred J. Carsola 84

Some Features of the Marine Atmosphere
Dale E. Leipper 103

Lead
T. J. Chow 110

Civilization and the Coastal Ocean
Ronald L. Kolpack 114

Inferences on Ocean Environmental Change
Glenn A. Flittner 118

Future Options of Coastal Energy
Jack Green 122

Automated Monitoring Systems
Kenneth Samples 129

Information Requirements of the California Coastal
Zone Commission
Jeffery D. Frautschy 140

SESSION IV

Urban Marine Recreation. Boat Ownership Trends In
The Los Angeles Region
Phil Symonds 146

An Industry View of Future Trends in Marine Recreation
Paul Albrecht 150

Potentials and Problems in Marine Recreation
George W. Weber 154

Marine Recreation and the Planning Process:
Planning Anyone?
Francis H. Dean 159

Session IV - Comments, Discussion, Question, Answer 166

SESSION V

Regulation, Taking and Planning in the California
Coastal Zone
Lindell L. Marsh 231

LUNCHEON SPEAKER

Energy: The Mad Dance of Demand
L. Edwin Coate 172

SESSION VI

Nuclear Power Plant Siting
Frank D. Ducey 178

Coastal Zone Management in California: Three Factors
Influencing Future Direction
Jens C. Sorenson 194

Balancing Equities in the Coastal Zone
Michael Peevey 216

Local Land Use: Management Concepts and Problems
Donald B. Bright 222

Superport Economics: The Need for Deepwater Ports
On the West Coast
Walter Yep 227

CURRENT FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE LEGISLATION AND ACTIVITIES

Robert W. Knecht
Director, Office of Coastal Environment
Department of Commerce
11400 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852

Wat I would like to do this morning is to give you a brief
overview of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the progress we have
made in Implementing that legislation during the last year. I would
also like to mention a few of the problems and issues that I think will
be confronting both the State, local and Federal Governments in the
comig yarsin the area of coastal zone management.
First, I should say that I have by no means all of the answers
regarding this new Federal program or of the various roles that dif-
ferent levels of government will play. No State has an approved
coastal zone management program at the Federal level and no State has
yet received a grant from the Federal Government in coastal zone man-
I ~ ~~agement so that the program is yet to be tested. Unquestionably, much
will be learned in the coming months as the first grants to States are
let and the work under the terms of the new Federal Act begins.
As I mentioned, the Act was passed in October of 1972. It
established a new Federal program to assist States in developing and
adopting rational management programs for their coastal zones. The
program is a voluntary one, no State is obliged to join. However, two
kinds of incentives are provided in order to encourage States to par-
ticipate. The first is financial. Three types of grant-in-aid are
I ~ ~~authorized to be given to State governments and other levels of govern-
ment that participate through the State. Second, States having approved
management programs will have increased leverage in dealing with the
Federal Government concerning Federal activities that could potentially
affect their coastal zones. That is to say if States adopt a management
program that is consistent with the guidelines given in the Act, then
Federal activities affecting that State's coastal zone have to be con-
sistent with the State's approved management program.

Three additional aspects of the program are important, it seems to
me. The first pinpoints the State level of government as the appropriate
I ~ ~~level to take the initiative in the coastal zone management field.
F ~~~~~Second, the legislation indicates that the Federal role is one of
overseeing the adequacy of the process that a State chooses to adopt and
not the substance of individual State land and water use decisions.
Clearly, the program is not one of Federal zoning.

The statute also clearly recognizes a balanced approach toward
coastal zone management. While the Act is aimed at conservation and
enhancement of coastal areas, it recognizes the economic and social
importance and necessity of certain kinds of development in coastal areas.

Knecht

Three types of financial assistance are authorized in the Act. First,
national grants to assist States in the development of management programs.
Second, grants to allow States to implement and operate management programs
once they are approved at the Federal level. And third, grants to assist
States in acquiring estuarine sanctuaries for research and educational
purposes.

The key question, of course, pertains to the content of a management
program. What does a management program have to include if it is to be
approved at the Federal level? The Act contains 18 specific items that
must be included in a Federally approvable program. These are of the
following kinds: the State must identify its coastal zone for management
purposes; it must list permissable uses within the coastal zone; it must
designate geographic areas of particular concern to the State; it must
decide on the type of land and water use controls that it will use to
manage areas of particular concern to the State. One of the other require-
ments is that it must demonstrate that it has an adequate process to take
account of the national interest in the siting of facilities designed to
meet needs which are more than local in nature.

Where do we stand with regard to our progress in implementing this
program?
Originally, the Administration delayed in requesting funding for the
program because of its close relationship to the land use program still
pending in the Congress. However, last August the President submitted an
amended 1974 budget request and included a $5 million appropriation request
for the coastal zone management program. In late December the Congress
acted on the President's request and appropriated a total of $12 million
for the program. It is expected that these funds will he apportioned by
the Office of Management and Budget to our office sometime between now
and December 15.
Guidelines to the States to inform them as to the procedures to be
used in applying for grants were published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
November 29, 1973. We expect to have application forms and grant processing
procedures ready by mid-December. We expect to be in a position to let the
first grant by about February 1.* Between now and June 30, we expect 28
of the 30 coastal States to apply for grants, and to begin developing
management programs.

We have now begun the task of developing the criteria that the
Secretary of Commerce will use as he considers the approval of a State's
management program one, two, or three years from now. We think it very
important that States know the kinds of tests that their management pro-
grams will have to pass to be approved at the Federal level before they
begin the process of developing such programs. Because the development
of these criteria is such a critically important aspect of our program,
we are attempting to obtain as much comment and input into our considera-
tions as possible.

Toward that end, we have scheduled a series of regional discussions
around the country, during the next two months. These are scheduled for
January 8, in San Francisco and January 10, in Seattle. Several of the
meetings are also scheduled for later in the month in Chicago, Boston,
and Atlanta and New Orleans. A copy of a draft working paper describing
the approach we are using in setting these criteria will be available
to the public, State officials, and other interested persons several
weeks prior to the regional discussions.

* The first three grants were let on March 13, 1974.

Knecht

Before closing, I would like to comment on some of the early problems
we anticipate as States and local governments begin to confront the task
of developing coastal zone management programs.

First, problems that will confront State officials working on the
coastal zone management program. Clearly, identification of the coastal
zone for management purposes will be a difficult task. The key question
will be the extent to which the coastal zone extends inland from the
shoreline. It is our intention to give individual States a maximum amount
of flexibility in this regard, recognizing that each must tailor its
coastal zone to its own particular geographic, economic, political, and
social situation.

Designating the areas within the coastal zone of particular concern
to the State will also be a controversial exercise. Equally important will
be the formulation of goals and objectives for the States' coastal zone
management programs. How are these goals and objectives to be reached?
How is the public to be involved in this process? What kinds of goals
should be set -- increased public access',to beaches? -- Reduction of
polluted shellfish beds? -- Additional opportunity for recreational
boating? -- and so on. Deciding on the appropriate balance between
State and local governmental power in coastal land use will be one of the
difficult political problems facing each State. The importance of involv-
ing local government in the formulation of a coastal zone management program
from the earliest possible moment cannot be overly stressed.

We at the Federal level, of course, have our problems too. Acquainting
the large number of Federal agencies with missions and programs in the
coastal areas of the existence and impact of this new program is a large
task. The Act also calls for an increased measure of coordination and
cooperation between the Federal Government and State governments in the
pursuit of more effective coastal zone management. It is the task of our
agency to see to it that this comes about. But the biggest task that lies
ahead deals with the "Federal consistency" requirement that I alluded to
earlier. We must work closely with Federal agencies to ensure that they
understand the implications of this aspect of the program. We must ensure
that both State agencies developing managing programs and Federal agencies
involved in the carrying out of coastal activities have early and effective
dialogues on the consistency (or lack thereof) between Federal and State
coastal plans.

In summary, coastal zone management can only succeed if a very close
partnership develops between the Federal Government and State and local
governments in this field. Without this kind of a three-way partnership,
the large potential of the program will not be achieved.

SESSION I QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD -- John Armstrong (Session Chairman)

Answer: Robert W. Knecht -- I certainly agree that there are a goodly
number of problems at the national, State and local level in the area of
land use and the lack of coordination. Certainly, no single mechanism
is going to solve all of them, including the new coastal zone management
program. The Administration in Washington has put comprehensive land use
legislation as its number one environmental measure. At the present time,
there are three bills pending in the Congress dealing with comprehensive
land use. There is an Administration measure, Senator Jackson's measure
(H.R. 10294). Most observers feel that one or the other of these measures
will be adopted by the Congress in the Spring. Each of the land use mea-
sures calls for the same type of Federal consistency with approved State
land use plans that I referred to earlier. I think the theory behind
these measures is sound. Whether or not they actually work in practice
will depend upon the effectiveness of the administration of these programs,
the extent of State participation, the adequacy of funding, and similar
factors.

Knecht

Answer: Robert W. Knecht-- Absolutely, the Federal Government is bound to
act in a manner consistent with approved State programs. The types of
Federal actions that could potentially be affected are as follows: fin-
ancial grants-in-aid or subsidies to State or local or private activities,
direct Federal action by a Federal agency, or the granting of Federal
licenses or permits. These three classes of action must be consistent
with approved State and land use and coastal zone programs.

There are some strong forces in opposition to national land use
legislation in this country. These tend to be connected with land
development and related real estate interests. Whether there interests
are strong enough to prevent the passage of a land use measure remains
to be seen.

Answer: Robert W. Knecht -- I can only comment from the perspective
of the program I represent. As a part of a comprehensive program, States
will have to demonstrate that they have an adequate process for consider-
ation of the siting of facilities that are designed to meet more than local
needs. The legislative history shows clearly that the facilities referred
to include power generation facilities, refineries, and so on. I would
think that deepwater ports would also fit this criterion.

In the case of deepwater ports, even though they may be located well
beyond the three mile limit, in Federal waters, the Act states that any
Federal action that affects a State coastal program must be consistent
with it. The implication is that Federal actions, even though taken out-
side of a State's coastal zone, must be consistent with that State's
coastal zone program if the Federal action has impact on the State's
coastal zone. The State of Delaware adopted legislation several years
ago that prohibits heavy industry from its coastal zones. As I understand
it, this legislation is an outright ban on this kind of new development.
This would appear inconsistent with the requirement of the Coastal Zbne
Management Act which calls upon the State to have an adequate process
for considering the siting of such facilities. Nevertheless, the State
has indicated its intention to apply for a grant to begin the development
of a coastal zone management program.

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT:
THE WASHINGTON EXPERIENCE

D. Rodney Mack
Shoreline Program Manager
Office of Planning & Program Development
State of Washington
Department of Ecology

Perhaps most of you know that the State of Washington has
had legislation for shoreline management on the books since June
1971. Before describing our program and our current status, I'd
like to read the legislative findings and policy of the shorelire
management act, as I think it conveys the spirit and intent of
the law quite concisely:

The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are
among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and
that there is great concern throughout the state relating to
their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In
addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional
uses are being placed on the shorelines, necessitating increased
coordination in the management and development of the shorelines
of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the
shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in
private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the
privately owned shorelines of the state is not in the best
public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessawy
in order to protect the public interest associated with the
shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and
protecting private property rights consistent with the public
interest. There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a
planned, rational and concerted effort, Jointly performed by
federal, state and local governments, to prevent the inherent
harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's
shorelines.
It is the policy of the state to provide for the manage-
ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fosterix
all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to
insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which,
while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in
the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public inter-
est. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects
to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife,
and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while
protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary
rights incidental thereto.

The legislative/political history leading up to the pass-
age of the state's shoreline management act is rather involved,
but two key events were probably the most instrumental in the
enactment of the law. First, a state supreme court decision in
December 1969 found a landfill into one of the state's major
lakes to be illegal and ordered it to be removed on the basis
that "the public has a right to go where the navigable waters
go." The court also concluded that it was not the appropriate

Mack

forum for decision making on individucal projects, but that the
executive and legislative branches should develop a comprehensive
shoreline planning and use regulation program for the state. TIe
net effect of the decision was to cast a cloud on all shoreline
development in the state.

Secondly, the Washington environmental council, discourage
by the legislator's failure to enact coastal management legisla-
tion in previous sessions, circulated a popular petition to the
legislature in a statewide drive and obtained more than suffi-
cient signatures for validation. Under the Washington State
constitution, the legislature has three alternatives available
to it when presented with an initiative from the people: (1)
they may enact into law during the ensuing session, (2) they may
reject it, in which case it is placed on the ballot at the next
general election, or (3) they may reject the initiative proposed
and propose an alternative, both of which then appear on the
ballot. The legislature chose to pursue the later course and
inacted into law substitute house bill 584 (The Shoreline
Management Act of 1971), subject to ratification by the voters.
The act contained an emergency provision which made it effective
on June 1, 1971 nearly 18 months before its being placed on the
ballot.

While there were numerous differencesbetween the initiatie
and the shoreline act, the primary distinction between the two
dealt with the balance of responsibility at the state and local
levels of government. The Washington Environmental Council's
initiative placed the primary responsibility for planning and
regulation at the state level, while the Shoreline Act places
that responsibility largely at the local level with the state
(Department of Ecology) acting primarily in a supportive and
review capacity. As you know, the Shoreline Management Act was
subsequently ratified by the voters in the November, 1972, gener-
al election.

FEATURES OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT

In geographical scope, the shoreline act applies to all
marine water areas of the state, streams with a mean annual flow
of 20 cubic feet per second or more, and to lakes larger than 20
acres. It applies to shorelands extending landward 200 feet
from the ordinary high water mark and to all marshes, bogs,
swamps, floodways, river deltas and floodplains associated with
water bodies subject to the act. In all, there are 791 lakes and
965 rivers and streams subject to the act.

Basically, the act requires and defines a planning program
and a regulatory permit system, both of which are initiated at
the local level. The planning program for each local government
consists of a comprehensive shoreline inventory and a master pro-
gram for the regulation of shoreline uses. The inventory con-
sists of existing land and water uses, generalized ownership
patterns, and natural shoreline characteristics. The master
program utilizes the inventory information and is essentially a
comprehensive land use plan with a strong environmental orienta-
tion and includes basic goals and objectives, the designation of
all shoreline areas into a categorization system and specific
regulatory language. The entire planning function is conducted
in conformance with guidelines prepared and adopted by the
Department of Ecology and local master programs and are subject
to state review and approval before they become effective.

The regulatory phase of the shoreline management program
consists of a permit system for all substantial developments and
shoreline modification having a fair market value of $1000 or
more. There are certain exemptions from the permit system
specified in the act. The system is administered locally, again

Mack

subject to state guidelines and review. Once a permit applica-
tion Is acted upon by local government and prior to the commence-
ment of development, that decision and the application Is
required to be forwarded to the Department for review. The de-
partment does not have veto power over the local decision, but
does have a specified period of time in which to appeal the
decision. I might note that any individual or agency who feels
aggreived by the granting or dental of a permit also has the
opportunity to appeal to the hearings board.

CURRENT STATUS OF' THE SHORELINE PROGRAM

Permits were required for all substantial developments
from the. effective date of the act and the system has therefore
been In effect for nearly 4J years. In that time, the flepartmert
has received and reviewed approximately 1800 permits, for pro-
jects ranging from residential piers and docks to multi-million
dollar highway projects and Industrial plants. There are pres-
ently 109 permit applications In soae stage of appeal, 57 of
which have been initiated by the department. Private groups and
individuals have initiated 52 of the appeals, with the Departmert
intervening in 20 of those appeals.

While there Is no definite pattern to Department-initiated
appeals with regard to type, there has been a general tendency
to concentrate on fills and over-water construction. In additici
preference Is usually given to structures set back from the
water and to development proposals within currently developed
areas.

The planning program is presently underway, with inven-
tories having been completed and master programs scheduled for
completion by the end of this year. While the shoreline act
stipulates that each city and county Is ultimately responsible
for adopting a program for that jurisdiction, the actual prepar-
ation of the program Is being done In various ways: Where
regional planning bodies exist, they generally are doing the
planning for their member agencies; many of the counties are
doing their own program and furnishing some technical assistance
to the smaller cities within the county; and several jurisdic-
tions are having their plans done by private consultants. In
all, approximately 90 jurisdictions have assumed direct respons-
ibility for their programs, while the county or regional plannirg
agency Is doing the plans for the remaining 180 incorporated
towns having shorelines.

Upon completion, the master programs are required to be
submitted to the Department of Ecology for review and approval.
If the Department determines that the program is not consistent
with the policy of the act or the guidelines, it must respond
back to the local government within 90 days with suggested
modifications. That local government then has an additional 90
days to make those modifications and to resubmit the program for
approval. On the major shorelines of the state, the so-called
"tShorelines of statewide significance," the Department has the
responsibility for developing and adopting an alternative pro-
gram for a local jurisdiction if it determines that the resubmit-
ted master program is Inadequate.

STRENGTHS OF THE WASHINGTON PROGRAM

1. Planning and implementation system in one package -
The act provides the criteria for shoreline planning
as well as the means for effectuating those plans - the substan-
tial development permit system.
2. The act is geographically comprehensive - by including
fresh water streams and lakes, the mechanism Is
provided for managing the use and development of those water -

Mack

bodies which have such a direct and significant impact on the
coastal zone.

3. State/local relationship - an equitable and workable
balance seems to have been acheived in placing the
primary responsibility for planning and regulation at the local
level, but subject to state overview.

4. State responsibility in the event of local default -
a provision of the shoreline act requires that if a
local government fails to comply with the planning requirements,
the state is responsible for preparing and adopting a program
for that government. This provision has proved to be effective
inducement for many counties to undertake a planning program,
several of which had no prior experience or inclination to plan
for and regulate development within their Jurisdiction.

5. Citizen participation - while the act places some
emphasis on citizen participation, we felt that it was
essential to the success of the program and placed a high pri-
ority on it in our guidelines. As a result, all jurisdictions
within the state have appointed committees to work with local
planners (and in some cases have undertaken the program them-
selves). The state committees range in size from 6 to 60 and
statewide there are well over 1,000 individuals actively invol-
ved in the shoreline planning program for their city or county.

6. Explicit definitions - the act is relatively defini-
tive in setting deadlines, time requirements, and
geographical scope. In some ways this is beneficial, but in
others it impairs program administration. For example, a permit
for development is generally required to follow-the same pro-
cedures and processing time whether it is for a single family
residential bulkhead or for a pulp mill. There is no opportunity
for administrative discretion to expedite the more inconsequen-
tial projects. With regard to the 200 foot area subject to the
act, such definition has the advantage that it can readily be
defined on the ground, shoreline property owners can generally
determine when a proposed action is subject to the act, if
consistent and each case does not have to be argued on an
individual basis. The problem, of course, is that a designation
based solely on distance can be environmentally arbitrary,
administratively inflexible and wholly inadequate to manage
certain shorelines.

WEAKNESS OF THE WASHINGTON PROGRAM

1. Permit system - I have mentioned the problems we've
encountered in not having discretion to vary the time
requirements on permits. Also single family residences are
exempt from the permit system which weakens the program, partic-
ularly in those areas where second home development is prevalent.
Furthermore, there is no adequate means for monitoring illegal
activity on the shorelines to ensure complicance with the law.

2. Appeal Backlog - Because of the time involved in
preparing and presenting cases to the shoreline
hearing board, and frequently the length of time in reaching a
decision, there as developed a considerable backlog of pending
appeals. As a result, most developers have not been able to
obtain a final decision for at least 90 days and sometimes for
up to one year.

3. Staff and funding - The shoreline program is being
administered at the state level with a staff of 14,
roughly equally divided between the planning and the permit funo-
tions. We have a serious need for additional staff, particularl
in the specialized scientific fields. An additional shortcoming

Mack

is the availability of grant funding f or local governments. To
date over $500,000 has been provided through our department for
planning purposes, matched equally by local government, for a
total committment of over $1 million. With the large number of
jurisdictions involved, however, the funding has been largely
inadequate to meet the cost of the program.

4. Area-wide planning - while the shoreline act does
define a state master program as the cumulative total
of all local master programs, It does not provide explicit
authority for the Department to undertake shoreline planning on
a statewide basis to provide a framework within which local
programs would be encompassed. It is for this reason that we
consider the coastal zone management act to be a vital element
in our planning efforts.

FUTURE DIRECTION UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

We view the federal act and our state as being highly comple-
mentry, we look toward supplementing our existing shoreline data
base with surveys and selected studies in the marine environment.
Specifically, we are interested In such endeavors' as developing
the capability to utilize satellite imagery, conducting baseline
studies of water quality and biological productivity, studying
currents and patterns of accretion and erosion, detailed studies
of selected salt marshes and estuaries, management programs for
enhancing the potential for aquaculture, and expanding and
iniproving citizen access and input.

I think, in Washington, that we have a good start In
developing an effective coastal management program. We have a
management mechanism that was enacted into law, was ratified by
a majority of the voters of the state, and is working. We have
a great deal of work remaining, however. Administrative proced-
ures need to be Improved and streamlined; we need to improve our
data base and Increasingly cause decisions to be made in light
of that information; and we need to ensure that the coastal
program is thoroughly coordinated with the plans and programs of
other public agencies and private enterprises. Through the
Coastal Zone Management Act we have an excellent opportunity.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT: THE OREGON APPROACH

James F. Ross, Executive Director
Oregon Coastal Conservation & Development Commission
P. 0. Box N
Florence, Oregon 97439

Coastal Zone Management in the Western States Future -- the Oregon
Approach. Translated, the title of my talk is "What is the future for coastal
zone management in Oregon."

I'm glad to share with you the fact that I studied for the ministry and
of all the things I've done, which, of course, have been somewhat limited, I
thinkperhaps that that has been the best background I've had for coastal zone
management because you need all the help you can get.

Coastal zone management programs in Oregon have a "good" future because
of a "good" past. In the early 1900's Oswald West set aside the wet sand
,areas of Oregon's coastal beaches as a public highway. In the 1960's, the
State Legislature expanded public ownership of the beaches to the sixteen-
foot elevation level (vegetation level). The tidelands of the State of
Oregon are in public ownership and there is a fill and removal permit system
in operation for any developmental activity up to the mean higher high-tide
line.

Governor Tom McCall, in 1970, saw the need for a total coastal zone
management program beyond the steps that have already been taken. Local
officials met the need and created a coastal zone planning committee which
was legitimized by the State Legislature in 1971, giving birth to the
Oregon Coastal Conservation & Development Commission (OCC&DC).

An important point to recognize is that the State of Oregon has been
very fortunate; in Oregon there has been no need for an initiative petition
to initiate coastal zone management efforts.

With that history, the OCC&DC was created in 1971 and charged to develop
a coastal zone management plan based on the carrying capacities of the
natural resources in the coastal zone which would strike a balance between
the conservation and development of those resources. The Commission was
charged by the Legislature to report back with the management plan on January
17th of 1975.

The makeup of the Commission is bulky, similar to the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission. There are 30 Commission members,
24 being locally elected officials from cities, counties and port districts.
The remaining six are appointed by the Governor at-large from the entire
state. There is a clear rationale behind the makeup, however. Those people,
or units of government, that will be called upon to implement a coastal zone
management program must be involved, have a part in its development. Involve-
ment leads to commitment. It is only through commitment, commitment by local
officials, that a comprehensive natural resource management program for the
coast will ever be implemented. The bulk of the planning program of the
OCC&DC calls for implementation at the local level, and, therefore, officials
at the local level must be involved in the development of the plan in order
to have the commitment that will lead to implementation.

ROSS

The jurisdiction of the OCC&DC which, incidentally, has no regulatory or
police powers -- it is primarily advisory to the Legislature, covers the water-
sheds of all coastal rivers and streams out to the three-mile limit. Of
course, the Columbia, Umpqua and Rogue Rivers which transcend the Coast Range
are only partially included within the OCC&DC area. The product that the
OCC&DC is to recommend to the 1975 session of the Oregon Legislature will be
a management plan consisting of the following elements:

1. A series of natural resource management policies which can be
used to evaluate activities relating to the natural resources
in the coastal zone.

2. A series of natural resource inventories identifying the
carrying capacities of the resources, their values and
characteristics.

3. A management program which extrapolates the policies, relates
them to the inventories and relates them to the physical and
social economic characteristics of the coastal zone.

4. An implementation program which outlines how the management
program is to be implemented.

The basis for the entire program of the OCC&DC has been "public involve-
ment". The rationale behind the extensive public involvement program of the
OCC&DC is the attitude that "those affected by a plan must have had an oppor-
tunity to participate in its development." If an individual, agency or unit
of government has participated, invested a part of themselves, in a planning
program, then the planning programs becomes, in part, theirs. And one is not
inclined to want to see a part of themselves fail. Therefore, extensive
public input is being derived at the beginning stages of the OCC&DC work
program -- not after the program has been completed at the public hearing
stage. This is not to say that public hearings are not important -- they are.
But more importantly, people should have an opportunity to voice their
concerns, indicate how they feel the coast should be managed, express their
ideas, discuss their problems, and have this as a major basis for the manage-
ment program. By gaining extensive public input, it is anticipated that there
will be considerable public support for the planning program when it reaches
the State Legislature. Without this support, special interest groups may
carve the program beyond recognition.

It has been my experience that there are three key elements to any
public involvement program. First, an opportunity must be provided for any
individual who will be affected by the plan to provide input. This does not
mean that one has to talk to every individual residing in the coastal zone,
owning property in the coastal zone, or who visits the coastal zone. It
merely means that any and all of those people must be provided some opportunity
by holding a series of approximately 30 workshops in the coastal zone and
adjacent portions of the state, open to the general public with an atmosphere
that allows a free exchange of ideas, thoughts and concerns. The workshops
have proven to be quite successful.

Secondly, the decision-making body -- in this case, the OCC&DC -- must
have a commitment to using the public involvement. There is nothing more
disastrous than asking the general public for their thoughts and ideas, and
then turning up one's nose at the response. The public is not naive. They
will "smell out" insincerity and the result will be worse than if no oppor-
tunity for public involvement had been provided in the first place.

Thirdly, the public must have, generally speaking, access to the same
information used by decision-makers -- just as Commission members must have
access to the same information used by planners to arrive at recommendations.

Coastal zone management in the State of Oregon has a "good" future be-
cause it has had a "good" past. More importantly, however, it will have a
"good" future because it is being based on the general participation of the
people in the planning process who will be affected by the plan.

THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE

Joseph E. Bodovitz
Executive Director
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission

The main thing that I want to demonstrate with some slides
is that the coastline of California, some 1,100 miles long, has
almost any problem of modern urban civilization, wet or dry. It
is important to keep in mind that what we are all talking about
is to resolve some exceedingly difficult and complicated ques-
tions of conflicts over the use of very limited coastline
resource.

(EDITORS NOTE: The slides shown by Mr. Bodovitz indicated the
variety and diversity of problems and interests in the coastal
areas of California and the great amoanat of effort that is
going to be needed to resolve some of the issues that were pre-
sented).

I don't think that anybody who reads the daily newspaper
could be unaware of the energy situation and what that is going
to mean in terms of planning for any coastal area. For example,
it was directed by law to prepare an energy element and only a
year ago it seemed that this was something that could be done in
a relatively leisure way during the planning period. What has
happened instead, is that through the permit process concern
about energy, development in the coastal zone will have to be
made very, very soon.

As you know there is on appeal now proposed planned nuclea
expansion at San Onofre in northern San Diego County that will
soon be before the commission. There is also pending now the
first of the so called superports at Moss Landing in Monterey
County which is to bring the very large tankers in to load and
unload and to bring more oil to the utilities. So many things
are changing very rapidly that I've been saying to people who
ask that the two best books to read about coastal zone manage-
ment are "The Future Shocks" and "The Quiet Revolution In Land
Use Control."

What all of us involved in coastal zone planning are doing
in short, is shooting at a moving target. We are trying to
plan for something in a time of rapid change. I think one of tkv
greatest dangers that all of us must be aware of is the kind of
marginal line plan--which is to plan for what was. It is ex-
tremely difficult to look ahead. But the logic of this is to
emphasis the need to avoid irretreivable convictions, to leave
options open as much as possible and to try and manage coastal
zone resources so you can use as many different things as pos-
sible in a limited area.

Bodovitz

It seems to us that the problem you always face is the
people who want to have their use go through, whether its a
freeway, a power plant or whatever it may be, in a way that
prempts other uses. There are many ways when a little ingenuity
is used, that many kinds of development can go forward and where
the public amenities in the area can be very well protected.

EDITORS NOTEs The following is a condensation of additional
remarks by Mr. Bodovitz before the general luncheon, Town Hall
West Forum in Los Angeles as edited by Town Hall.

Let me point out that I speak in my capacity as Executive
Director of the Commission and that my remarks do not necessarily
represent the views of either the Commission or those who com-
prise it.

While most of the Commissionrs work to date has been devotE
to the granting of permits to those desiring to develop areas
within the coastal zone, the planning work is well under way.
We are about one year into a three year project, having finished
most of the organizational work. The general focus on policy
decisions that we have adopted differs from traditional approach-
es to land use planning. Our feeling is that we are faced with
a number of very complex conflicts, involving value Judgments as
much as anything else, and that until these conflicts are re-
solved not much can be accomplished. The controversy surrounding
superports is typical--should we construct them or not? If so,
where? Subject to what safeguards?

The Nature of the Plan

My own view is that, in an area as complex and changing as
the California coast, a "plan" cannot be created and then set
aside, never to be amended. Indeed, one basic problem with tra-
ditional approaches to land use planning is that it tries to
deal in a static way with areas that are continually changing in
far-reaching ways. Aryproposed plan will not be able to provide
solutions to the myriad of future problems that the California
coastline will face. We face a situation containing a large
element of "future shock"--a constantly changing very disorient-
ed situation.

What we are attempting to do to counter this situation is
to formulate general policies of statewide importance that will
be binding on everyone, based on the recommendations and active
participation of the six Regional Coastal Zone Commissions. Thus
we've begun a cooperative effort among the six Regional and the
State Commissions to arrive at both a statewide policy and reg-
ional differences within this policy. It would defeat the plan-
ning function if we adopted a statewide policy that was inimical
to the interests of one or more of the particular regions.

For example, assume that statewide policy assigned the
highest priority to public recreation. Such a policy would be
binding statewide; however, within the different regions there
would be some autonomy concerning how that policy should be car-
ried out. Should the area be devoted to beaches, or parks, or
amusement facilities. In short, we desire to create a general
framework for development and then allow for as much local flex-
ibility and diversity as possible. Hopefully there will be
provisions for flexibility for city and county planning within
a region.

Bodovitz

Problem Areas

In planning for future development of the approximately
1,100 miles of state mainland coastline (there is about 300
miles of Channel Island coastline), we face nearly every kind of
land use problem imaginable. How can we plan so as to protect
the redwood forests in the north and the beaches in the south?
Apparently we are successful! We have recently come under
attack from developers (for things we have done) and conserva-
tionists (for things we haven't done). Indeed, controversy is
endemic to our enterprise as we try to weigh and balance compet-
ing demands and objectives. Let me restrict my attention to 3
problem areas which seem to be most salient.

Traditionally, property owners felt that they ought to be
able to do just about anything with their own property. Recent-
ly, however, the concept has arisen that not only is real estate
a commodity but it is a scarce and valuable resource which we
hold as trustees for future generations. While I'm sure there's
a balance between these two views, I know it is a very delicate
one and difficult to achieve. While clearly both the private
and public interest will have to be assured (both to encourage
development and to protect valuable public areas), our goal
ought to be the reassertion of a public corern about the coast,
and a guiding of private development because of this concern.
In brief, we must try to design and encourage private develop-
ment in ways that protect the public amenities, especially
those relating to view corridors and beach access. Simultaneous-
ly we must be flexible and avoid any absolute, rigid solutions
to complex problems.

The Energy Situation

When Proposition 20 was passed in 1972, it included energy
as one of the many elements that the Commission was to consider
in its planning. How different the energy situation looks today
when compared with 1972? The net result of the energy crisis, I
feel, has been to further complicate planning in an already com-
plex area. The obvious manifestations precipitated by the crisis
that affect coastal development include superports, offshore oil
drilling, and power plants. However, there are some less obvious
manifestations as well. What is the likelihood of fairly abun-
dant supplies of energy in the future? Will second-home sub-
divisions continue their recent popularity in the face of de-
creasing gasoline supplies?

I'm certain of the importance of these questions, but I'm
not so sure of their answers. In fact, I doubt that anyone
knows how to answer them now. I believe there will be a great
increase in demand for close-in recreation resources, which will
exert greater pressure on local public beaches and parks while
reducing demand for beach acquisition in more remote areas.

Perhaps the importance of the energy crisis in planning
lies in its further emphasis on flexibility. Perhaps we'll need
to establish varying policies that conform to energy availability.

In light of the above, let me mention the Commission's
recent denial of a permit for the construction of an atomic
power generating plant at San Onofre. In the heated debates
fanned by the energy crisis, we all seem to have lost sight of
the fact that the Commissioners do not vote their own consciences
on matters. They simply interpret the law. Consequently a
majority of them felt that the proposal before them, resulting
in destruction of a large bluff and disruption of marine life
due to utilization of large amounts of water to cool the plant,
forced them to deny the requested permit. Subsequent discussion
with the Southern California Edison Company and the San Diego

Bodovitz

Gas and Electric Company has resulted in plan modifications and
a rescheduling of their new proposal for February 20. (EDITORS
NOTE Town Hall: the modified plan was accepted by the Commis-
sion at the February 20 meeting).

The Future

How shall we use the coastal zone In the future? Clearly
we can't open all coastal land for beaches, for if we do there
will be congestion and environmental disaster, Just as certain-
ly, however, we do not want to devote all the land to housing.
There is no easy answer, I simply wish to point out the complex-
ities of the conflict.

We are attempting to lay down some very broad principles
reflecting the developmental goals, and ways of obtaining them,
that we have for the coastline. In a sense, we view this as a
broad 'constitution" for the coastal area, which will contin-
uously guide subsequent development but, as with the U. S. Con-
stitution, will mature and grow over time. The plan should not
commit future generations to irreversible allocations of coast-
line resources. In keeping with this spirit, we view our role
as being advisors, as opposed to being experts who should tell
you what to do In a specific problem area. In order to serve
that function best, of advising you of the many options avail-
able and of their costs and benefits, we must have your partici-
pation. I actively seek and encourage you to take part in
planning your future.

SOME EFFECTS OF THE COASTAL INITIATIVE ON
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Jim Perry
Environmental Planning Coordinator
City of Redondo Beach

The initial effect which the Coastal Initiative (proposi-
tion 20) had on local planning was a shook! This Is not to say
that many local planners didn't support the Initiative, or that
they didn't believe it would pass, only that they weren't really
prepared to respond to its requirements due to the fact that thEy
were still recovering from another shook.

Just two months prior to the passage of Proposition 20,
the California Supreme Court In the Friends of Mammoth decision,
ruled that the State's Environmental Quality Act applied to
private projects as well as public projects. In effect, this
meant that environmental impact reports had to be prepared for
thousands of private projects.

At the same time. local planners were under heavy pressure
to complete, or get started an the Conservation and Open Space
elements of their General Plans, which had to be adopted by June
31, 1973. Additionaly, planners were also attempting to comply
with a new statute which required zoning ordinances to be con-
sistant with general plans.

In light of these other pressures and demands on their
time, it might be accurate to describe the state of local plan-
ning after the passage of Proposition 20 as Future Shock, which
Alvin Toffler defined as "The shattering stress and disorienta-
tion induced in individuals by subjecting them to too much
change In too short a time."

In addition to these pressures, there were several unans-
wered questions regarding Proposition 20 which had the effect
of lengthening the initial period of confusion.

First, very little was known about the background and
philosophy of many of the persons who were appointed to serve
on the commissions. Consequently, no one was able to predict
what direction the commissions would take in approving and
denying permits.

Second, there was considerable uncertainty as to how far
inland the permit line-extended. Although the act specified
1,000 yards, there were various contentions that the wording In
the act might have the effect of bringing the line far inland
up rivers and flood control channels. At one time, someone
claimed that the City of Sacramento, which was over 100 miles
Inland, might be included in the permit zone.

Perry

Third, no one knew or understood how provisions made for
exemptions and exclusions from the act would be administered.

It was not until approximately two months after the act
went into effect that the answers to these types of questions
became known. At this point, local planning shifted from the
confusion mode, into a phase which might be called adaptation or
awareness.

Once it was discovered that all building along the coast-
line wasn't going to be halted, that local planning was not
being totally usurped, and that the commissions were doing their
best to make equitable and compassionate decisions; local plant
ners began to focus on the opportunities presented by the act
rather than the problems.

For example, a number of planning departments along the
coast saw in the initiative the opportunity to improve their
city's development standards. Prior to the passage of the act
by the people, many attempts to upgrade local development stan-
dards quickly became bogged down in local politics. The margin
by which the act passed gave local planners along the coast the
leverage to move forward with major changes in their standards.
These changes took the form of increased requirements for parking
open space, and landscaping, and decreases in density.

At the same time, planners realized that the same type of
leverage could be used to improve the quality of proposals which
were submitted by developers, even when such proposals met all
local requirements. This was done in some cases by telling the
developers, "It may get by us because we don't have the discre-
tion to turn it down, but unless you do make changes, it will
never get by the coastal commission."

A variation on this theme was used a few months ago in
Redondo Beach. A gentleman came in with a proposal to construct
a huge aqua dome just inside the breakwater and adjacent to the
pier. His thought was to build an underwater restaurant where
people could eat and watch the fish swim by. Needless to say,
he was disuaded from pusuing this idea in our city. While it is
true that he would have had a very rough time getting this pro-
ject approved in any event, without the leverage gained by Prop-
osition 20, the project might not have been dismissed so lightly
and so quickly.

Despite these opportunities for improved development
standards at the local level, there are still several problems
from the local standpoint that need to be addressed. These
problems center mainly in the area of coordination and communica-
tion between the commission and the local planners and elected
officials.

At the present time, the coastal cities don't have a clear
idea of what types of major projects the commissions will approve
and what types they will deny. Decisions on major projects
haven't really been consistent enough. In some cases, general
guidelines have not been adopted. Without a feeling for what
the parameters are, and for what issues and problems the commis-
sion will consider regional and what it will consider local, it
is impossible for local planners to evaluate the degree to which
they should be revising their plans.

Additionaly, there hasn't been enough dialog between the
coastal commission planners and the planners from the coastal
cities. In effect, neither knows what the other is doing. It
is true that the coastal commissions are understaffed and are
under tight time constraints. But, nevertheless, I would hope
that each regional commission would recognize the value of local

Perry

input and make every attempt to take advantage of it. Without
the concensus achieved by this type of input at the early stages
of planning, the chances for disagreement when the plan is set
for hearing will be greatly increased.

I believe that the type of information exchange required
can only be achieved through regularly held joint staff meetings
between coastal commission planners and local planners.

Turning now from the effects of the Coastal Initiative on
local planning, it is also relevant to examine the impact of the
act on planning done by regional agencies. These effects appear
to have the potential for considerable conflict and duplication.

Perhaps the best example of this potential for conflict
may be seen through looking at the functions of the regional
water quality control boards. In California we have a number of
these boards which are specifically charged with establishing
and enforcing standards to protect the quality of water; this
responsibility includes regulation of ocean discharges.

Last month at a hearing of the South Coast Commission; Mr.
John Parkhurst, General Manager of the Los Angeles County Sani-
tation Districts, testified that he would like to rely on the
judgement of the Regional Water Quality Control Board in setting
appropriate ocean discharge standards. This statement was some-
what remarkable coming from Mr. Parkhurst, since he has on many
occasions opposed the Regional Water Quality Board on this same
issue. The reason for his support in this case was that the
Coastal Commission's proposed guidelines included a statement
that would require stiffer ocean discharge standards than those
required by the Water Quality Board.

Mr. Parkhurst said, and I quote, "It is an obvious waste
of the taxpayers money for another public agency to compete with
or replace the standard setting functions of an already estab-
lished public agency."

I take no position on the Issue of what the standards
should be, as I am sure there are many persons he-re today far
more qualified than myself to make this judgement. However, I
do wonder, as Mr. Parkhurst does, if we need two different reg-
ional agencies setting conflicting standards for water quality.

Another example can be seen in the area of Transportation
Planning. Assembly Bill 69 requires that a State Transportation
Plan be adopted and based on adopted Regional Transportation
Plans prepared by officially recognized regional agencies. In
this region, the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) is preparing such a plan.

Proposition 20 also requires that the Coastal Commission
adopt a Transportation Element as part of its Coastal Plan.
However, there is no requiremnent that the SCAG plan and the
Coastal Commission transportation plan element be consistent. In
this case there is no reascn to believe that the plans won't be
consistant, but nevertheless, the possibility still exists for
duplication or conflict if extensive coordination Is not accomp-
lished and specific areas of responsibility defined.

In summary, the passage of the Coastal Initiative has had
an impact on other regional planning agencies. The magnitude of
this affect will depend on how each agency chooses to define its
area of responsibility.

There is no doubt that the functions which are now being
performed by regional agencies need to be performed by someone.
But the passage of Proposition 20 should cause us to re-examine

Perry

whether planning for each functional area should be assigned to
a special agency or whether one umbrella agency should be desig-
nated to do the planning for all of the various function areas.

This is an issue which hopefully will be debated next year
when the California Legislature considers legislation to estab-
lish state and regional agencies with planning and regulatory
powers over land use.

In conclusion, the passage of the Coastal Initiative has
been good for planning; not only because is has improved the
quaility of planning along the coastline--but because it has
served as a catalyst for re-examination of the existing agenciess
and insititutions which currently have planning responsibilities.

"CURRENT LOCAL PLANNING FOR THE COASTAL ZONE"

Calvin S. Hamilton
Director
Los Angeles City Planning Department

We are in a new era. There is a strong public concern
for coastline protection. Plans for coastal communities are
being adopted and implemented. Land use and environmental
regulatory bodies are proliferating. What have we done as
planners? What are we doing in Los Angeles? What problems
do we face? What should the organizational strategy be for
protection of the California coastline?

Viewed on the whole, local government has done a lousy
job in protecting the coastline. Why is that? I think the
principal reason is that it is much more difficult for an
elected official in a city to make a decision to deny some-
thing because his constituents are close at hand. It's
much easier for a Congressman to make a tough law because
he's a long way away from his local constituents. That's
why, on the whole, we've not had the kind of rigid enforce-
ment and the kind of concern that most environmentalists
desire along the coastline. In addition, until a few years
ago citizens were just not that concerned. Things are dif-
ferent now.

At the local level the eniomnait are makinr.
themselves felt, and are supporting needed changes in local
shoreline policies. They are supporting the neea to plan
for change. I've never seen things happen so fast in city
planning as during the last couple of years. It is fantas-
tic! Now citizen interest and support has turned things
around from a developer-orientated situation to a public-
oriented situation.

What about the Los Angeles City's situation? Actually,
we don't have much shoreline. Nothing like many counties in
California. We have some. Most of the beach area within
the city is owned by the public. However, there Is a great
deal of the property just behind the beach that's privately
owned. We do have very difficult problems of access and in
some areas the public can't see the beach at all, even though
they live adjacent to it.

We have been developing as a part of our General Plan,
community plans and technical plans applying to portions of
the coastline such as Venice and San Pedro.

HAMILTON

Planning for and with people is not easy. The Venice
Community Plan was developed five years ago. We have tried
to implement part of it through rollback of existing zoning.
The difficulty in relating to Venice, and one of the greatest
assets in Venice, is its variety. There probably is nowhere
in Los Angeles with such variety. There are hippies and
ultra conservatives; shopkeepers, artists and artisans and
businessmen; blacks, orientals, anglos, Hispanic peoples and
elderly Jewish people; poor people trying to eke out a living
and people out to make a fast buck. You get everybody in
Venice. It's a great area, but as the Coastal Commission has
found, its not so simple to plan for such an area because
everyone has their own idea about how to plan the community;
everyone has their own priorities.

In and around San Pedro you have tremendous interests
and problems. There is a very high unemployment rate in the
Wilmington, Harbor City, San Pedro area. This unemployment
may be further aggravated if we lose the large cannery which
is making plans to depart from the San Pedro-Harbor area.
That would put 3,00 (mostly Spanish-speaking people) out of
work just like that.

There are all sorts of problems in dealing with dif-
ferent kinds of people in Coastal Zone areas.

Los Angeles City has adopted several community plans
relating to the coastal zone area. I've already mentioned
the San Pedro and Venice Plans. These need to be revised.
The Wilmington-Harbor City Plan implementation includes
proposed redevelopment of an older area that has a few new
houses, but mostly older and where housing and other uses are
mixed in with oil wells. The Westchester-Playa del Rey Plan
still is pending final adoption after 3 1/2 years of strug-
gling and a tremendous amount of energy and input from the
public and the Councilwoman of the district. There has been
an enormous amount of conflict between this community and the
adjacent Los Angeles International Airport. Now the City's
new Department of Environmental Quality wants to start all
over again with a whole new round of hearings and a new plan.
This after, I suppose, 200 or 300 public meetings and discus-
sions and all sorts of changes. So it is and has been some-
what frustrating. Now we have the new Coastal Commission
getting involved. The Pacific Palisades-Brentwood Plan is
due for completion in the summer of next year and we are
working very hard to coordinate with all the numerous agen-
cies and governmental jurisdictions relating to that area.

Well, not only do we have the Coastal Commission at
the local planning level, but in addition, we have SCAG (The
Southern California Association of Governments) which wants
to take over part of the City's traditional responsibilities
for planning and coordination relating to the coastal area.
And there is the County Air Pollution Control District Board
which says "We're going to control what you're permitted to
do in Los Angeles." And the California Water Quality Control
Board which says that, "We are going to attempt to get to-
gether with the Air Pollution Control Board and agree on what
we're going to require you in Los Angeles to do." And the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that comes out
with edicts and says, in addition to all these other state
agencies, we are also going to control what you are going to
do. And the U. S. Department of Transportation and so on.

Well, a local planner really scratches his head and
says, "What the heck do we do?" "What really is happening?"
"How do we analyze it?" "How do we respond?" "How do we
exercise leadership?"

HAMILTON

We made a chart to see where we stood. There were so
many different conflicts and different agencies telling us
what to do that on the local level many were in conflict -
one with the other.

Now, in addition to State and Federal jurisdictional
considerations, a City like ours must relate to its neighbors
within the Coastal Zone. The City of El Segundo, just south
of the Airport, is building an enormous office complex and
we wonder what will be the need for accessibility to that
particular area through Los Angeles. Culver City's boundaries
run in and out of the City of Los Angeles in the Venice, West-
chester, and Playa del Rey area. The City of Santa Monica,
whose airport has a lot of employment around it, or used to
when Douglas was going full rate. Now the airport is going
to shut it down. Their proposal is to build a shopping cen-
ter and office complex on the property. Most of the potential
shoppers will have to travel through the City of Los Angeles.

Then you have county islands - like Marina del Rey.
They have been building like mad with all those apartments.
In my opinion, they have over-built terribly; with just a
4-lane road giving all the access, and no original provision
for public transportation whatsoever. And again, all the
access is through the City of Los Angeles. Growth pressures
from the Marina are having a tremendous impact, particularly
on the community of Venice, but the City of Los Angeles has
no authority over the Marina its impact on neighboring land
values. And what about Howard Hughes, who owns a lot of
land and an airport south of the Marina? We wonder what he
is going to do with all that land; when and if he decides to
do something.

Well, these are just some of our considerations. We
must consider how our actions in Los Angeles will affect our
neighbors and how their actions will affect us. None of us
can plan in a vacuum.

Another of the diff'iculties faced by the local planner
is just how are we going to rationalize the relationship bet-
ween actions so the private landowner or developer can have
some guidelines? Take the local zoning requirements and
Environmental Impact Report requirements, add to that Propo-
sition 20, and add to that the other state agencies and their
requirements and interpretations, and add to that the EPA
edicts. If you are a developer who wants to develop property
legitimately and in a logical way, where do you look for
direction? You can't imagine how frustrating it is to the
developer who wants to do a good job but comes up against
such a multiplicity of different governmental agencies and
actions which result in delays and financial losses.

To give you an example, some of our plans for the Santa
Monica Mountains running inland from Pacific Palisades to the
UCLA Campus will be subject to the review of the Coastal Com-
mission. But the mountains also are within the jurisdiction
of a new State Recreation and Parks Commission bn the Santa
Monica Mountains which has been given prime responsibility
for that area. For years we worked hard with existing
agencies and property owners to come up with good plans.
Now the new State Commission is telling us to scrap our plans
because they feel the mountains are their responsibility. All
those years of effort and public funds to say nothing of the
hours and hours of time on the part of private citizens and
developers and the Councilmen of the District. Well, you can
imagine the difficulty in trying to convince the state people
that you can't start from zero - you have to start from some
point.

HIAMILTONI

It would be too easy to say let the state do it and let
them take all the flak. But I don't believe in using any
other agency as a scapegoat any more than I believe that local
jurisdictions should give up local controls. However, we at
the local level have not been doing the job we should have
been doing. We have had an opportunity to do a better job
and we haven't done that job. This is how, in my opinion,
we should do it.

First, we should continue to inform and assist the
Coastal Commission in any way we can by giving them our plans
and giving them access to our data, knowledge, experience and
viewpoint. We've got to determine jointly just what kind of
goals in a decade we're going to have for the coastal area.
You can't deal with Venice or with Pacific Palisades the same
as you do with Mendicino County. They're two very different
areas and that has to be recognized.

Second, it seems to me we have got to have a compre-
hensive approach. The whole problem with these,.ad hoc groups
is they tend not to look at things in a coordinated overall
fashion. That was my biggest argument against Proposition
20; besides having it locked into the constitutibn. I would
be the first to agree that local planners have not looked at
the coast comprehensively. But I believe it is our responsi-
bility as local planners to bring the best of our thinking
on coastal matters within the Los Angeles area, Including
the SCAG area, to the Coastal Commission. There ought to be
regular meetings with the Coastal Commission staff and local
people. Up to now there have been no such meetings. I have
assigned people from my staff to attend the meetings of the
Coastal Commission but many cities do not have sufficient
staff to assign for such a commitment of time. Furthermore,
attending meetings is not sufficient for getting down to the
discussions necessary to get at the problems and solutions
relative to the coastal area.

There will be a continued proliferation of entities
with responsibilities relating to the coastal zone. It is
really going to get horrendous. I don't know how its going
to be resolved except by cooperation which results in con-
vincing and meaningful actions to protect the coast and
enable good development. It will continue to be frustrating
Fto cities, labdowners, developers, public bodies, and others,
due to the delays caused by inter-jurisdictional confusion.
We must recognize what has gone on in the past and get caught
up, so to speak. Then we must determine quickly our future
goals and objectives and begin taking decisive cooperative
regional and local action.

This is my responsibility as a local planner, to make
Proposition 20 work, at least in Los Angeles, and do every-
thing I can to help with the rest of Southern California and
the state as a whole. Locking Proposition 20 into the State
Constitution may not have been the best way to go, but I, and
a lot of other people, voted for it because the political
entities responsible had not done what they could and should
have done to protect the California Coastline..-

Now we've got to make it work. We have to make it
work in a way that's not going to completely frustrate every-
body by being eratic and imposing yet another layer of govern-
ment on an already complex situation. We have to make Propo-
sition 20 work by getting all the entities responsible to
work together for the benefit of all California's citizens,
future citizens and visitors.

THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE COASTAL COMMISSIONS -
A CASE OF CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE

Barna S. Szabo
Chief Deputy to
Supervisor James A. Hayes

I would like to thank you for the opportunity of being
able to speak. I was assigned this particular task Just about
an hour ago, and I am not very well prepared. The Supervisor,
by the way, is doing his duty; he is over at the Coastal Com-
mission voting on several items which are of major consideration
for this area.

One of the things that I was glad to find out about this
morning is that, perhaps for the first time in recent history,
the County and the City of Los Angeles found a community of in-
terest in several areas of mutual concern due to Proposition 20.
(They say misery loves company) That doesn't mean that the
County, especially Supervisor Hayes, whose views I represent,
feel that Proposition 20 is something of a problem. By saying
that, now I would like to address my comments to areas of prob-
able concern that a number of people here are perhaps negative
on Proposition 20 and its impact on local government.

I think there is no doubt that Proposition 20 is here with
us and it is a reality. The problem here is that we are all con-
cerned about how to make it more effective in terms of its
implementation and, if necessary, to bring about some structural
changes in the Proposition which could improve its operation all
across the State.

In line with that argument, I feel that I could point
out some of the concerns that we have had in our office at the
County level. The first one deals, to some extent, with the
structural problems that we encounter with Proposition 20 becaut
of the way it was designed. Unfortunately, I think it was set
up in such a way that the cart was put before the horse and pos-
sibly the problem arises from that particular situation. We are
now going through a permit phase, as you know, and then later
the disposition of permits will be shifted into a lower gear.
Finally, the whole operation will go forward to the planning
stage. Perhaps, the whole situation should have been reversed
and the Proposition should have called for some sort of resource
inventory of the coastal areas.

Then some way, priorities should have been established by
the commission as to how those resources should be developed or
not developed. In light of those priorities and in light of
those available resources, definitions could have been outlined
and the permit process could have taken a more clear-cut, more
comprehensive, and more understandable role. I think this is a
problem which confronts local government, and its citizens. When
people deal with the Regional or the State Commission, quite

SzabO

often they can't understand, can't make rhyme or reason out of
why certain permits are or are not approved. The guidelines ham
not been given to them and no apparent guidelines are followed
by the Commission members themselves. Obviously, here an improv-
ment can be made soon, so individuals or corporations or whoever
needs to come before the Coastal Commission will be provided
with some predictability by knowing what the probable chances of
approval or denial might be.

Now, regarding the previous cases that Mr. Hamilton and
Mr. Perry talked about of particular frustrations in terms of
planning with the Coastal Commission and clarifying some sort of
a rational method of cooperation, perhaps I can turn to the ex-
ample provided by the County in this area. This is something of
a recent development. A few days ago the County had set up a
task force. What we have done is assigned about 22 individuals
who have expertise in all facets of planning to go right down
the alley and follow exactly the same plan elements that Coastal
Commissions are required to plan. There are 13 planning elements
that the Coastal Commissions have to go through and they have to
follow a time table which is a strict element per month and done
in conjunction with particular public hearings and gatherings of
data, etc. Obviously, this is a very difficult job for the
Commission and what we want to do on a County level is to give
our expertise and our data and plan right along with the South
Coast Regional Commission. Some of these people have been as-
signed full time to this task.

One resistance to this idea was, of course, the matter of
cost. The County has no off-setting revenues. We have to pro-
vide this from our own resources and perhaps smaller cities and
counties might not have the resources to assign such a large
number of people to a Coastal Commission. I believe our task
force is larger than the staff at the Regional Commission level.

We have suggested to some of the cities in our County that
perhaps they could coordinate their efforts in the same way.
They could put together their task forces and then meet with
their Coastal Commission on a regular basis. We do that every
month. We establish a date as to when the meeting will take
place, what the addenda will be, what the Commission's needs are
then examine how we can help them in terms of expertise and in
terms of cutting down on their heavy work schedule.

A third problem that is encountered is the sheer volume of
material that comes up at the Coastal Commissions on a weekly
basis. This creates a tremendous physical problem to the public
participants, and the Commissioners. For example, Supervisor
Hayes has the full time job as County Supervisor and is also a
member of both Commissions--Regional and State. He spends all
day Monday at the Regional Commission; he spends all day Tuesday
at the Board of Supervisors' meeting; then spends every other
Wednesday at the State Coastal Commission. So in terms of the
physical impact, the Coastal Commission task is a major and very
dramatic one. The Supervisor has suggested to individuals and
Legislators that at least one alteration could take place in
the Initiative and that is to provide for an alternate who could
attend the Commission meetings and in some cases vote on certain
matters. Unfortunately, to adjust the Initiative in such a
manner is a complicated problem that would take a two thirds
vote in both houses of the State. I think that there is defin-
itly a need, especially in this area, since the work load is so
extremely heavy.

Finally, I think one point that has not been emphasized
here and should be looked at. is that many of the major and
most controversial decisions of the Regional Commissions will
most likely be appealed. They have been appealed in several

25'

Szabo

cases, and there are appeals pending before the courts. Perhaps
what is important here is to establish some sort of coordinating
mechanism or some sort of information system whereby the courts
could also understand what is going on in the coastal zone area;
what the Regional and State Commissions are doing so they could
have a better understanding of the situation when they make their
findings within the legal framework. The cooperation with these
two entities--the County and the Commission--is very important,
otherwise they may be going off into entirely different direc-
tions and further increase the public frustration that has
emerged over some of the decisions of the courts on the Commis-
sions during the last year.

Coastal Planning for The Irvine Company

Donald C. Cameron
Director of Urban Design
The Irvine Company

Good morning, and thank you for asking me here today to partici-
pate in this very worthwhile conference.

I come before you for two rather different reasons. The first
is to welcome you as a representative of The Irvine Company, the
historic landowner of the site of these proceedings and an adja-
cent 83,000 acres. These lands extend from the ocean to River-
side County, 22 miles inland, and cover the coastal hills, a
central valley which is the site of the new City of Irvine, and
a portion of the rugged Santa Ana mountains to the north. For
the past 13 years the Company, through its own planning staff
and consultants, has been developing extensive, detailed, long-
range physical, fiscal, social, and political plans to bring
about the orderly and meaningful transition of this vast, pro-
ductive resource from agricultural to urban use. It has been,
and continues to be, a fascinating task. I hope that many of
you will have an opportunity to see some of the areas developed
to date before you leave Orange County.

The second and more pertinent reason for my being here is to ex-
plain to you one of our current projects: an important, compli-
cated effort which relates directly to all of your interests and
concerns. One of our most valuable, and as yet undeveloped,
assets is what we identify as our "Coastal Community", a 10,000-
acre area extending from the urban edge of Newport Beach to the
urban edge of Laguna Beach, and from the ocean to the ridge line
of the San Joaquin (coastal) hills. This site is approximately
5 miles long with 3.5 miles of undeveloped beach frontage, and
approximately 3.5 to 4 miles wide from ocean to ridge. The en-
tire site falls within the planning area mandated to the Cali-
fornia Coastal Zone Conservation Commission created by the pass-
ing of Proposition 20 (Coastal Initiative) in November 1972.

This site is part of the 35,000-acre Southern Sector of the
Irvine Ranch, which extends from the San Diego Freeway to the
coast. A plan was developed for this sector by the Company and
adopted by the County as the official General Plan for the area
in 1964. This plan was indeed "general" and was intended as a
broad guide to more detailed future planning of smaller portions
as they were ready for development.

Beginning in 1969 and continuing into 1971, a much more complete.
study was undertaken by the Company for the Coastal Community
dealing with environmental issues, public policy issues, social
and economic issues, and resulting in a much more detailed land

Cameron

use and circulation plan than had been included in the 1964
County plan.

In 1973, in keeping with State law, the County of Orange began
updating previously adopted plans for undeveloped areas which
were anticipated to be developed by 1983. As a part of this up-
dating process, the Company was prepared to file its Coastal
Community Plan as a General Plan amendment.

Before the presentation material was completed, however, it was
reviewed by the Company's Political Strategy Committee. In
light of the passage of Proposition 20 and the subsequent crea-
tion of the State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and the
South Coast Regional Commission, new requirements for Environ-
mental Impact Reports, changes inboth public and governmental
attitudes toward environmental matters, the deletion of the
coastal freeway on which the plan was in part based, the fact
that the new City of Irvine is studying this area as a part of
its General Plan, and other related matters, the Company decided
not to present its plan to the County, but to restudy the entire
10,000-acre area.

Following in-house discussions, discussions with the Chairman
and Executive Director of the State Commission, and discussions
with the Chairman and Director of the Regional Commission, the
decision was reached to create a multi-agency study committee to
address questions relating to land use policy for this area and
public interest in acquisition of land for park use.

This committee will have its first meeting in December 1973 and
comprises representatives of the following agencies or organiza-
tions:

- The Irvine Company
- California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
- South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
- State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
- State of California Department of Transportation
- County of Orange
- City of Irvine
- City of Laguna Beach
- City of Newport Beach
- Orange County Environmental Coalition
-Planning and Conservation League
- Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter

The present schedule calls for a meeting every three weeks,-with
one or more meetings required to deal with several major tasks
or topics. The Irvine Company and its consultants are responsi-
ble for producing the needed technical data for each meeting in
consultation, at least, with agency staff representatives. Out-
side expert witnesses will be called in to make presentations
on specific subjects as required.

The first major target date is in June when, hopefully, a con-
sensus opinion regarding land use policy can be made to the
Regional Commission. The complete program is expected to last
most of 1974. It is not anticipated that enough information
will be generated on which to base a new General Plan study for
this property until early 1975.

The process we are outlining is purely voluntary, but, in all
candor, totally necessary. We do not want to go through the
complete planning process three times: once for the County,
once for the Regional Commission, and once for the State, each
time using different criteria. We want to work with all the
agencies in our study group to establish mutually acceptable

Cameron

criteria on which our final plan can be based.

This may be a naive approach, to expect that we can obtain the
kind of concensus we require, but we are hoping that the impor-
tance of the project and the excitment of the process might help
us to reach our goal.

With the cooperation of people present like Mr. Bodovitz, we may
succeed. It is a big undertaking and I am going to ask you all
to wish us well.

Thank you.

PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Gordon Mellis
Public Antiquities Salvage Team
California State University, Fullerton

The prehistory of California, as exhibited in Archaeolog-
ical sites, is a valuable natural resource. It is as important a
resource as water, minerals, and plant and animal life. Archae-
ologists are vitally concerned with the preservation of this
natural resource, but archaeological resources continue to be
destroyed at an ever-increasing rate. This crisis will not last
long however, for once these remains are destroyed they are gone
forever and will never be replaced.

In California, a large percentage of the known sites
(40-50%) is located along the coast. These coastal sites are
extremely important to the cultural history of California, be-
cause they represent a distinct cultural tradition which was
based upon the exploitation of coastal resources by the prehis-
toric residents of the coastal zone. One of the ways in which
this distinct cultural tradition manifested itself; a unique
social structure based on a stable food economy. This was quite
differentfrom the varying economical adaptations of interior
settlements. Thus, to lose coastal sites through destruction
would not only deprive archaeologists of much of the available
prehistoric record, but it would also mean the obliteration of
information about a unique lifeway.

Those sites that are located along California's coast have
been the hardest hit by rapid development. Proportionately more
sites are being destroyed along the coast than in the interior,
because the vast majority of construction goes on near the coast
(for example, it is estimated that approximately 75% of the sites
in Orange County have already been destroyed, while in parts of
Los Angeles County the destruction rate has run as high as 95%).
Another factor in the large-scale destruction of coastal sites:
inhabitable locations are being exploited today the same as in
prehistoric times and in many cases these locations are coinci-
dent.

Because archaeological resources are non-renewable, and
because there has already been widespread destruction of archae-
ological sites, it is critical that steps be taken to protect
the remaining sites. This is, however, a very serious and dif-
ficult problem. The major problem confronted when seeking to
protect those sites which still remain is that archaeologists
do not know where all of the sites are. There has never been a
systematic survey of the coastal zone for archaeological
resources, nor has this ever been done for the rest of the state.
We feel that there is a crucial need for regional and/or county
programs for the investigation and preservation of archaeological
resources. We feel that the following proposals, if implemented

would go a long way toward solving some basic problems which
are currently being encountered in environmental impact studies
and which we feel are being handled in a less-than-adequate
fashion.

A) We feel that there is a need for a regional or county
archaeological agency which would be able to develop
an overall plan for archaeological investigation for that area.
Such an agency would also be able to over-see and coordinate the
work of the various archaeological groups in the area so as to
insure maximum cooperation. This agency would also be apprised
of all development plans in their earliest stages and would be
able to act quickly in evaluating the area for possible archae-
olocial investigation (see paragraph F below).

B) A systematic survey for archaeological resources done
at the regional or county level, is of the utmost importance. It
is currently impossible to make an intelligent, scientific eval-
uation of the importance of certain archaeological resources,
because the known sites in California, particularly along the
coast, represent a biased sampling of sites. Known sites repre-
sent, almost exclusively, areas in which construction has
already taken place or is taking place; while there is no
archaeological information for other vast areas of the coastal
zone. The present system for site location is hopelessly inad-
equate. In many cases sites are located during an on-the-ground
survey of the property which is carried out as a part of the
developer's required Environmental Impact Report. If a site is
discovered, however, there are usually only a few weeks available
during which the archaeologist must determine the importance of
the site by testing, must negotiate with the developer for funds
for excavation if that is deemed necessary or desirable, and
must carry out the actual excavation work, which is itself a
time-consuming procedure. This process nearly always succeeds
in delaying the work of the developer (during which time the
developer is, naturally, losing money), but very seldom succeeds
in providing the archaeologist with enough time to carry out
anything but the most hasty of salvage programs, let alone a
meaningful scientific research design.

C) In addition to the above proposal we would like to see
the development of a comprehensive archaeological
resource map which would rank areas of critical conern with res-
pect to planned development. We at California State University,
Fullerton have already completed a map of Orange County showing
known archaeological resources and soon hope to complete similar
maps for Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. We have found
these maps very useful in our research in locating areas of
archaeological importance in the southland area. Since the
coastal zone in the south comprises portions of San Diego,
Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, it would be fairly easy to
supplement these maps with further data gained from the systema-
tic county-wide surveys proposed in paragraph B.

D) Once an agency is established to coordinate archaeo-
logical work, then those archaeologists who are inter-
ested in a particular area could get together to work out a
means of systematic investigation based upon critical construc-
tion areas. These critical construction areas could be assigned
to various investigators whose specific research interests or
expertise might be suited by lnstigation of such a site. Thus,
each archaeological group could pursue its own specific areas of
archaeological research interests.

E) There should be developed and initiated a plan for
alternative measures to site destruction as a standard
procedure in initial stages of development planning. As with
historical landmarks, there are certain prehistoric sites which

mellis

may be of sufficient importance that they should be preserved
intact. If this is the case, then planning for such preservaticn
must occur early in the development plans so that the developer
has adequate time to work around the site and so that adequate
protective measures may be taken to protect the site from indir-
ect impacts such as vandalism and theft. Another example of an
alternative to site destruction: It may be possible to arrange
for the preservation of the site for future generations by
burying it. After carefully recording exact information on the
location of the site, an archaeologist could supervise the
burying of a site under a layer of sterile fill of a specified
depth. Such a measure would allow the developer to proceed with
his project, but would insure protection of the site until such
time as the land is again available for further archaeological
research. If measures such as these were part of a standprized
procedure for evaluation of a site during the initial develop-
ment stages, then a standard course of action could be taken
from the very beginning of the project.

F) If an alternative to site destruction is not possible,
then archaeologists must be given sufficient time to
salvage as much scientific information as possible prior to
destruction. If all of the above proposals were in effect, the
archaeologist could evaluate the direct and/or indirect implica-
tion of the development upon archaeological resources while at
the same time enabling a sufficient degree of sophistication to
be utilized in preparing and carrying out possible research
proposals. The advantages of this are obvious: If the archae-
ological research were begun early, the archaeologists would
have enough time to gather the maximum amount of information
from the site as well as be able to finish their work well ahead
of the bulldozers. Thus, archaeologists would no longer have to
struggle with a developer's timetable (to the dissatisfaction of
both parties).

G) There must also be a set of guidelines established by
which all archaeological work would have to be done,
for several reasons. First, it would help to prevent the exploi-
tation of archaeological resources by inadequately trained, non
professional archaeologists under the guise of environmental
impact reporting. Second, it would facilitate the scientific
comparison of data due to the standardization of guidelines used
in obtaining that data. Third, the guidelines would give
counties and contractors a yardstick with which to measure the
effectiveness of any archaeological work done with respect to
the preparation of a Environmental Impact Report. Fourth, it
would eliminate time consuming and costly resurveys of areas
due to inadequate original reports. The Society for California
Archaeology is presently working on a standardized contract for
Environmental Impact Reports which may be useful in the coastal
none.

H) Generally, archaeological institutions are not finan-
cially equipped to undertake archaeological planning
on their own. The financial responsibility for archaeological
planning rightly belongs to those who benefit from use and
development of the coastal area. But professional consultation
by universities, colleges, and museums is necessary for effect-
ive archaeological planning.

We at California State University, Fullerton, having an
interest in public archaeology and wishing to preserve this part
of our cultural heritage, are willing to assist in any way we
can in the development and adoption of an overall plan for the
investigation and preservation of archaeological resources in
both the coastal zone and the rest of the state.

SESSION Is COMMENTS-DISCUSSION
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

MR. BODOVITZ - Comments

I want to respond to a couple of things that were said
earlier. For those of you who are from outside California you
must wonder if you have wandered into a family fight and I hope
that what is going on is clear enough. A couple of things that
Mr. Hamilton said seems to me has broad applications and to any-
one involved in cloastal planning anywhere would be worth dwell-
ing on for a moment.

First the need for people involved in coastal zone plannirg
to begin to work very closely with local planners and local
people who have experience in an area. He pointed out that much
of what his staff has been doing is working with the staffs of
the new coastal commissions trying to acquaint them with the
history of planning in these areas. Mr. Hamilton also made the
point of which I agree with enthusiastically, that even though
one is involved only in the coastal areas it is extremely im-
portant that they have as comprehensive a view as possible.

My own experience is that it is very hard to do anything
else. It is not a solution to the problem Just to keep some-
thing out of the coastal zone and shove it somewhere else.

The point is that some of these things go a couple of
notches more subtle than that. The Venice area was mentioned by
Mr. Hamilton and perhaps that is a good example of the kind of
problem that we are struggling with. We would very much like to
know what the local position is and what the people in the Venice
area want.

As Mr. Cameron pointed out they have meetings and meetings
and meetings and it is an extremely difficult job. I would say
that the coastal commissions have been able to help the city
carry out its agreed upon policy. For example there has been
proposed down zoning in certain areas and that its possible
and indeed on appeal the state commission has insisted that
things not be permited to get in under the wire, but to try and
cooperate with cities position in this down zoning.

There is another proposal in Venice though that illustra-
tes some of the difficult problems for all of us involved. Its
a proposal by the City Parks and Recreation Department for a
bike path on part of the beach that would involve paving a part
of what is presently unpaved beach for the bike path. The city
councilman in whose district this would be, does not want it and
another very distinguished member of the city council does want
it and the City Parks and Recreation Department changed after the
election. It is not at all clear to us whether they do or do not
now want it. Hearings were scheduled by the City Parks Dept. to
help decide whether or not it does or doesn't want it. The

SessionI

hearings have been scheduled and then cancelled. Now the
commission would only like to do the right thing, whatever that
may be.

The point here is that often the coastal commission or
whoever is sitting there gets to be in a position to take the
heat for whats a very difficult decision which amounts to sup-
ervision at the local level. I think the instances in which
the coastal commission has been at odds with what a local govern-
ment wants have really been very few. Thats not to say they are
not there. One of the biggest discussions that the regional
commission in Los Angeles and Orange Counties just had was with
the City of Newport Beach over the question of parking. The
local commission has been generally requiring two off-street
parking spaces for each new residential unit in Newport Beach on
the belief that unless there is adequate parking in new build-
ings there will be that much more parking on the streets and it
will then be that much more difficult for the public to get to
the beach. But after considerable debate the City of Newport
Beach ended up not agreeing with that point.

This brings up another point that fits into the area of
federal, state and local regulations. Very often the municipal-
ities in planning for beach front access is planning for the
access of the people in that municipality and will provide that
everyone in that city be able to get to the beach. But the
problem has been, where do the people from the inland areas go
when they want to go to the beach. That city figures it is
somebody elses responsibility, I'm stating this perhaps unfairly
to the local people because from their point of view they are
doing what they said. But again this is one of the difficulties
if the features of the ecean really belong to everyone, how does
everybody get there without going through somebodys city or
county. Who provides the roads and who worries about all those
other kinds of things.

Finally, one thing with regard to Proposition 20. Because
many of the initiatives in California do wind up in the consti-
tution, there are many people who think Proposition 20 will
likewise. But, it is only a statuate, it is not in the Consti-
tution and the commission must submit thier plans to the
Governor and legislature by a particular date and the commission
goes out of existence on a particular day unless there is action
to the contrary. I think this means a very healthy pressure on
everybody. Recommendations do have to be prepared and deadlines
to have to meet and 1976 will be the year of decisions.

MR. ROBERT KNECHT - Comments

I would like to comment Just briefly on the state reports
we have heard this morning. We have heard something of the work
in Oregon, the State of Washington and California. I found them
from my point of view to be very encouraging. I think it is
clear that these three states here represented are in advance of
most of the efforts going on in the rest of the country. Many
of the other coastal states are watching what is happening here
with interest. I think it is going to be instructive to see how
these three programs fare with time. Yet they are all a little
different.

California's program is basically a permit system that
holds the line of development while a plan is being developed.
I think one of the key questions is will all of this activity
and energy that has to go into the permit process detract from a
rational planning program or can what it has learned in the

Session I

permitting process be coupled into the planning process in a
some almost real time basis.

In Oregon, as we heard, the test Is a little different.
There is no permit system other than the one that the state has
in being anyway so the plan is being developed on a time scale.
Hopefully, In time before irreversible development takes place.

The State of Washington is sort of a combination or a
high grade between these two as I see It. A lost of valuable
experience will be obtained here on the est coast, Including
Hawaii for the other coastal states of this country. Hawaii Is
really advanced in terms of land use and coastal planning. They
are often sited as the state with the most comprehensive land use
approach already In existence. Of course, they have had it some-
what easier because they were formed as a state more recently
than any of the other coastal states except Alaska.

Jim Ross emplasized the extent to which local officials
are developing a plan, though local elected officials for the
most part are pulling that together, one would have to ask
whether or not the Oregon state officials will then accept It as
their plan. A plan that they can support for the entire state
and get behind it when the time comes. Clearly, I think, the
essential ingredient, as have come up time and time again this
morning, Is to have the local officials, regional officials and
the state officials, public interest groups and public groups
all working together from the beginning so that the plan that Is
finally put before the people can be considered our plan in the
broadest possible sense.

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD -SESSION I

Questioni Mr. Cal Hamilton asked Mr. Knecht: On the Federal
level, what do you see as a federal rationalization of the con-
flicting approaches to land use? Do you honestly believe that
the Nixon adminstration is going to anything about It? I beliew
there are very severe restrictions on major development. Local
Proposition 20 has severe restrictions, then they put on sur-
charges like on parking. There a number of federal agencies
giving advice to many local agencies often in conflict with
state agencies.

Answer: By Mr. Knecht - I certainly agree that there are a
goodly number of problems at the national, State and local level
In the area of land use and the lack of coordination. Certainly
no single mechanism is going to solve all of them, Including the
new coastal zone management program. The Administration in
Washington has put comprehensive land use legislation as its
number one environmental measure. At the present time, there aim
three bills pending in the Congress dealing with comprehensive
land use. There Is an Administration measure, Senator Jackson's
measure (H.R. 10294). Most observers feel that one or the other
of these measures will be adopted by the Congress in the Spring.
Each of the land use measures calls for the same type of Federal
consistency with the approved State land use plans that I refer-
red to earlier. I think the theory behind these measures is
sound. Whether or not they actually work in practice will de-
pend upon the effectiveness of the administration of these'
programs, the extent of State participation, the adequacy of
funding, and similar factors.

Session I

Question: From Mr. Hamilton - including existing funding
guidelines?

Answers By Mr. Knecht - Absolutely, the Federal Government is
bound to act in a manner consistent with approved State programs.
The types of Federal actions that could potentially be affected
are as follows: financial grants-in-aid or subsidies to State
or local or private activities, direct federal action by a
Federal agency, or the granting of Federal licenses or permits.
These three classes of action must be consistent with approved
state and land use and coastal zone programs.

There are some strong forces in opposition to national land
use legislation in this country. These tend to be connected with
land development and related real estate interests. Whether
there interests are strong enough to prevent the passage of a
land use measure remains to be seen.

*
Questions How can national and state goals be reconciled with
the pressures of the energy crisis?

Answers By Mr. Robert Knecht - I can only comment from the per-
spective of the Program I represent. As a part of a comprehen-
sive program, states will have to demonstrate that they have an
adequate process for consideration of the siting of facilities
that are designed to meet more than local needs. The legisla-
tive history shows clearly that the facilities referred to
include power generation facilities, refineries, and so on. I
would think that deepwater ports would also fit this criterion.

In the case of deepwater ports, even though they may be
located well beyond the three mile limit, in Federal waters, the
Act states that any Federal action that affects a state coastal
program must be consistent with it. The implication is that
Federal actions, even though taken outside of a state's coastal
zone, must be consistent with that state's coastal zone program
if the federal action has impact on the state's coastal zone.
The State of Delwaware adopted legislation several years ago that
prohibits heavy industry from its coastal zones. As I under-
stand it, this legislation is an outright ban on this kind of
new development. This would appear inconsistent with the requi-
rement of the Coastal Zone Management Act which calls upon the
state to have an adequate process for considering the siting of
such facilities. Nevertheless, the state has indicated its in-
tention to apply for a grant to begin the development of a
coastal zone management program.

*
Question: What proportion of the time and staff is spent on
day to day permits and what re the long range plans?

Answers By Mr. Bodovitz - I don't know that I can give you
figures particularly in the south coast region where there is
such intense development along most of the coastline in Los
Angeles and Orange County. Obviously a great deal of the time
is spent on permits. But I'd like to go on a bit because I
think the implication of that question is important. The impli-
cation being that permits are somehow different from planning,
and that if we Just could somehow get rid of all these permits
we could do something wonderful called planning.

At the risk of offending those of you in the audience who
are planners, I don't have a mystic thing that something called
planning will solve all their problems and out of a permit pro-
cess grows understanding about what the pressures are, and what
the issues are that help you reach sensible policies in planning..
The kind of planning that we are emphasizing is kind of apolicy

Session I

planning or decisions about the coast. There is an enormous
amount of data available. If anything, we have got more data
than we've got people to read. The problem is what will we do
with it all. What types of decisions are going to be made, what
things should have priority. Should there be super-ports or not,
should there be power plants or not, should there be high densi-
ty or low density housing or no density housing, should the
coastal zone be given priority for other uses? These are the
things that are value judgements and must be based on as much
information as we can assemble.

Here is an example of one of the planning considerations
thats grown out of a permit application before us recently. A
developer proposed (and the matter came on appeal to the state
commission) a recreational vehicle park in the Malibut area of
Los Angeles County (recreational vehicles such as campers).
There was great opposition to it but out of the controversy abot
the park came about what we think is going to be a very important
policy, or at least a question that may lead to a policy; and
that is where there is land in the coastal zone that is obvious-
ly going to be developed (that is, it is not going to be put to
any public purpose) should the development that benefits the few
have priority over a dvelopment that benefits many. Or, to put
that into other terms, if the area isn't developed as a recrea-
tional vehicle park, it is going to be developed for housing,
the cost of which would be quite high, such that a large element
of society will not be able to afford to live in that part of
the coastal zone. But remember, if the site were used for a
recreational vehicle park then there would be other people that
could use that land and enjoy the coastal zone albeit tempor-
arily.

Now thats not saying that the whole coastal zone should be
one large recreational vehicle park or anything of the sort. It
is saying that there ought to be very clear standards regulating
how these things are to be planned. The point I'm making is
that great chunks of the coastal zone are already going for high
income houses and the commission in dealing with this matter
came, tentatively at least, to the concept that where development
is to take place there is certainly a strong case to be made for
resort hotels, commercial recreation and things that will allow
a large number of people in a variety of income brackets to use
the coastal zone rather than having it go for higher income
housing.

Now I wouldn't say that those issues couldn't have been
developed in a planning report that someone might have prepared
but I do say that they would not have come out move vividly or
more dramatically than they did through the permit action. Thus
I would say that whatever time was spent on that permit could
reasonably be charged to planning.
.
Question: I still would like to know how much time is spent on
the permits?

Answer: By Mr. Bodovitz - It is very hard to have a ledger to
say where you put the time. I'm sure there are many more hours
spent on dealing with permit applications than there are hours
spent on the formal part of planning. I don't know what the
ratio is, maybe 2 to 1 in terms of staff huurs. All I'm saying
is that many of the things that you put on a permit side of the
ledger could be charged to planning. In terms of answering the
phone, talking to applicants, and so on, that takes a great
number of staff hours.

Session I

Question: What procedures do you expect to develop in making
specific decisions where areas have detailed planning. Let me
give you an example; we have, as I have indicated, planning for
everyone of our (or in process) 70 communities within Los Angels
and we are begining to implement them. On top of that you are
going to encompass a good many of those by the 5 mile planning
limit. What procedures do you anticipate setting up so that
some how or other there will be a resolution of this at the plan-
ning stage so that we do not have a lot of discussions and
fights? I'd really like to have work plans both at the local
level and at the state level that would agree.

Answer: By Mr. Bodovitz - We share the same objective and I
think Mr. Barna pointed out the county has already set up a kind
of task force to work with the regional commission and the hope
is that everyone will come up to the same place. We would en-
courage all the localities to do exactly that. There will be
hearings held before the regional commission of all the plan
elements. I think the best procedure to have people from the
municipalities in contact with the regional commission staff. I
think there will be problems in the decision, but I really don't
know of any way to set up a formal procedure at this stage that
would work to everyones advantage.

The point is that there is a great inducement on our side
to want to work these things out as early as we can and as soon
as you see things that are going to be in conflict, I think that
is the time to pop up and say, look we're headed for a problem
here or it looks in likelihood that we'll be in agreement on
this thing. But I suspect its because we are talking about the
policy decisions, and that those things are going to have to
come first. I don't see the coastal commission ever getting to
the level of detail of the normal municipalities or local gov-
ernment land use programs. We don't begin to have the time or
the money and I don't see a need for that. It seems to me that
if we can arrive at these kinds of policy decisions that we
shouldn't get into the detailed level of design. The kind of
example I gave before were determined indeed as a policy. I
think that would let everybody go about planning within that
guideline.

Comment by Mr. Barna Szabo

On your point of to think of precisely why we appointed a task
force. We were very much concerned as to what would happen to
our general plan on which we have conducted extensive hearings,
over one year of hearings, on several items and we're hoping
that the coastal commission staff would aquaint itself with that
plan. If necessary critisize it at this stage so that we can
work out the differences that might exist. What we have suggest-
ed, is perhaps if they have to hold hearings on these planning
elements, we can hold those hearings in conjunction with one
another.

Questions How many local groups are meeting with your task
force?

Answers By Barna Szabo - Our problem at this time is that the
local groups have not organized. For example the various civic
or citizens groups have not given us or the commission input or
other coordinated coherencies that would perhaps be helpful.

As to Joe's comment, out of permit processing there flows some-
how an understanding of how policies should be if there is long
range planning. I think thats true much more on the state level
than on the regional level and I think that we should make that

SB~

Session I

qualitative difference. The state level is a little more coher-
ent and trained and gives a better understanding to the commis-
sioners, even when they consider permit approval.

Question: If social planning is a proper function of coastal
zone management, what kind of strategies or guidelines would
any of them recommend to provide low cost housing in the coastal
zone?

Answer: By Mr. Bodovitz - Speaking personally and not necessar-
ily for the commission, it seems to me that that is something
that very definitely is due and should be taken into account.
Now thats the easy part and as you pointed out, how you do it is
something else again. It seems to me that in this are some in-
genuity is what is needed and maybe I can give you an example,
again from Los Angeles, where this was done.

One of the concerns of the Los Angeles regional commission
has been accessibility to the beaches in Venice which as Cal
Hamilton explained is a very tight congested area and where any
more additions to traffic, since streets are not being widened,
and parking is a problem - - makes it that much harder for the
public to get to the beach. The regional commission with jur-
isdiction over that area has generally been very tight on the
number of offstreet parking spaces there must be for each unit.

The commission had before it a developer who wanted to build
a relatively small numer of units but felt he couldn't provide
as much offstreet parking as would have been required to meet
the standard. A young lawyer from one of the anti-poverty legal
groups suggested to the developer that maybe there was a way to
solve everyones problem and that was to guarntee that a certain
number of the units in that building would be for the low income
elderly under a leased housing program with the city. The
rational being that the elderly people would agree not to have
cars and therefore there would not be a need for as much off-
stree parking and the elderly who very much want to live in this
area near the beach would be accomadated. The result was, a
certain number of units in that building through cooperation
with the city are going to be leased for the low income elderly
housing and as a result the parking demand for the building will
not be so great. What is being approved is a project that seems
to be one that meets two or three objectives all at once; the
developer is happy, the commission is happy, the city is happy
(it got some low income housing where it didn't expect to get it)
I'm not saying this could necessadily be reproduced on a large
scale but ingenuity can sometimes go along way.

Questions To Mr. Bodovitz - How much, if at all, is the Cali-
fornia coastal commission involving other existing state insti-
tutions, particularly universities and other agencies?

Answer: By Mr. Bodovitz - We are involved with everybody we can.
We really have no desire, nor tme, nor money to reinvent the
wheel, so we really do rely on the expertise and knowledge of
people like Cal Hamilton and his staff, the State Fish and Game
Department, the state geologist and the Army Corps of Engineers.
There is really no shortage of this kind of expertise available
and we are trying to make maximum use of it. We have people
from all of these agencies reviewing all of these things that
are of particular concern to them.

Session I

Question: To Mr. Bodovitz - The state and nation has some im-
mediate energy considerations and I'd like to know what the
state commission is doing to insure that these are dealt with in
California on a comprehensive basis in the coastal zones. For
example, if San Onofre and their plan is not accepted and if we
don't have offshore drilling then somewhere else there will
probably be more marine terminals.

Answers By Mr. Bodovitz - The implication is that the coastal
commission should be doing all these things, and I think this is
something a reasonable man could differ with. I'm not sure that
a commission with limited permit and planning responsibility is
the right commission to be coordinating the energy policy for
the state. There was a bill in the legislature that would have
set up a state energy commission, it was highly controversial,
it narrowly got through both the houses of the legislature and
then the governor vetoed it. I gather that there will be
efforts to revive that kind of measure.

It seems to me that the coastal commission is called upon
to make these energy decisions more because there is an absence
of that kind of coordination. I think our feeling about it is
that we have to take part to those kinds of decisions and point
out concerns affecting the coastal zone. But, I thing that in
the terms of broad policy it is not something we alone should do.

In regard to San Onofre the staff recommendation on that
is not that the plant cannot be built, but that it cannot be
built in the way it is now being proposed. This leads to one
point I meant to emphasize earlier and that is the challenge
all this has in coastal zone planning.

The pressure that is hard to resist is the challenge we
are trying to meet to provide for balance in the coastal zone.
I don't think there is anybody who believes that all development
should be stopped or conversely that everything should be left
just as it is. The problem, under the pressure of changing con-
ditions and in light of the energy crisis, is how to protect
the environment of the coastal zone while allowing necessary
development to go forward. That is the basis of the staffs
concern with the present San Onofre proposal. It is easily
possible to have a power plant in that area, with little or no
environmental damage, if that being the case, it seems to us
both unnecessary and unlawful to allow something to be built in
an environmentally harmful way.

*
Question: To Mr. Bodovitz - No one has really commented on the
coordination efforts or requirements between the three states on
the west coast. Is it being considered and if so where are we
in the planning process?

Answer: By Mr. Bodovitz - There is certainly no formal coordina-
tion. It seems to me there may perhaps need to be some sort of
coordination, but again, as Cal Hamilton pointed out the plan-
ning differences just within California are so great and the
problem differs so much from area to area that I'm not sure that
we could get this type of coordination.

Question: Just along that basic principle, if you have rules
and regulations and permits and other things that can hamstring
a developer in California, if the developer is really interested
he's going to run up to Oregon before they finish their planning
or go to Washington. It seems to me that a real necessary evil,
so to speak, is to have coordination so that you can all benefit
from each others mistakes.

YO/

Session I

Answers By Mr. Bodovitz - I'd say that is true in only a very
limited number of areas. For example, if one state didn't want
a superport and another would actively encourage them that might
have an effect but my knowledge of that would still be that oil
companies want to take their business where the people are and
that would have more to do with decisions perhaps than how each
state might see it. The question of a developer going from one
place to another, I think depends on where the market is. I
don't see someone who wanted to build a condominium and a swim-
ming pool in La Jolla being satisfied in Portland.

*
Comment by Mr. Robert Knecht

Looked at from the federal level, I think the problems are
different in various parts of the country. Clearly in New
England those six or seven states are closer together on a good
number of problems because so much of their coastal planning and
management is regional (that is interstate) in character. The
same thing is true in the southeastern part of-the country to a
certain extent and in the gulf area as well. But with the west
coast it is different and we have seen that regional coordination
will be needed in the Pacific northwest, especially between
Alaska and the state of Washington and the state of Oregon, in
regards to some of the problems; in particular, deep water ports,
marine transportation of oil and so on, to meet the energy
requirements.

But, perhaps it is less required in California in general.
We look at it as having two parts when the state submits its
management program for our approval it will have to list what it
thinks the regional considerations are like and what mechanisms
it proposes to develop taking into account the regional problems.
We think of them in two cases, the question of consistency and
uniformity across the boudries from one state to the next where
you might have some sort of localized or interstate aspects to
be dealt with, and then with the problems of scale size where
you are dealing with large scale phenomena like energy genera-
tion and distribution of deep water ports. It needs to be done
within a regional basis.

Comment from Audience directed to Mr. Knecht

Relative to coordination between the states and to connect
some of this. It seems to me that it is reasonable that we
might expect the federal government to take a role in addition
to their usual standby role of federal funding in terms of the
coordination between states. This is a regional area for an
agency which transcends things too active, and I hope that we'll
be able to look to the federal government for aim in this area.
I know it is an area that has had a lack of emphasis.

Comment by Theodore R. Gillen waters, office of the President,
Oceanic Research Institute, Newport Beach, California.

Throughout all of these discussions of state and federal
legislation and implementing regulations there is one essential
element noticeably missing, i.e., emphasis on the necessity for
greater funding for research and its application to projects
whereby decision makers can make realistic and sensible deci-
sions about land use based upon the carrying capacity of the
offshore, nearshore and inshore waters, as well as the atmos-
phere related thereto. As near as I have been able to ascertain
many of our recently created commissions in this atate are
spending too much time trying to enforce unreasonable moritoriums
and not enough qualified manpower and money is being spent upon

ill

Session I

utilization of already known facts that will result in an
acceptable overall plan for the state waters and the lands
adjacent thereto!

Question and Answers after Mr. Ross's presentation

Question: The problem with public participation or homogeneity
seems to; one, facilitate that you don't have alot of diversi-
fied inputs, two, the size of the public (say you are dealing
with 160,000 on the oregon coastal zone, and three, do you in-
volve residents from the Willamette Valley who may be the main
users on the Oregon coast in your public participation?

Answer: By Mr. Ross - Yes, and don't think that we don't have
diverging interests either. We do. All of California is coming
..no not really! We are launching in January with a series of
six public workshops in other parts of the State of Oregon cov-
ering the entire state. If you are familar with the state, one
in Portland, one in Salem, one in Eugerein the Willamette Valley,
one in Medford in the Rogue Valley, one in Bend in Central
Oregon, and one in Pendleton in eastern Oregon. And the com-
mission, by the way, does have a committment to taking input,
not Just from people in the coastal zone, but also people from
the state at large. And interestingly enough, due to probably
the number of second home owners on the coast, our coastal work-
ships have had a lot of participation from people in the
Willamette Valley, primarily.

Questions Would you comment on two things: one, the financial
backing that the commission has from the Oregon legislature and
secondly, the type of background or technical expertise which is
represented on Oregon's commission?

Answer: By Mr. Ross - We do have a unique situation in Oregon.
We have funds from a number of sources. General fund money from
the State of Oregon and also we have contributions from local
counties. We don't have a lot of money. For the financial
period from 1973-1975 we have $120,000 from the state, about
$80,000 from local county contributions and the rest we have to
find from federal sources. From HUD 701 we have $100,000 and
we are looking for other sources, obviously the Coastal Zone
Management Act of '72 for more money.

On the level of expertise of the commission, we have a
staff of eleven people, we have six professional people on our
staff. We are really a quite small staff. The level of exper-
tise.,... one of the things for which we are very greatful for is
the natural resource agencies of the state who have been a tre-
mendous assist to us. They have helped enormously. We have
used a lot of their staff people in doing some of our work. We
also have an advisory committee which is made up of a broad
range of interests from the economic oriented, development
oriented to the various conservationist organizations. This ad-
visory committee, nineteen members strong, has been of tremend-
ous assistance. Most of our technical expertise actually comes
from state natural resource agency people who are assisting us
on sometimes practically a full time basis.

HAMILTON

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Hamilton was asked a question from audience:

Question; Did you recommend to the Mayor that an EIR be
prepared for the Los Angeles Harbor, even though
there is an existing Harbor General Plan?

Answer: Our view Is that each element of the existing
General Plan requires an SIR. When the Harbor
Element (Plan) comes up for review and Council
approval it will be accompanied by an EIR. Each
element-of the General Plan must be reviewed
every five years.

We will have 150 elements in the General Plan.
We will prepare an SIR on each of those elements.
At the present time we have about 45 elements in
various stages of process including adopted plans.
We don't have an adequate staff to go back and do
all 45. Each element in the General Plan should
have a complete SIR. The task of preparing SIR's
for the adopted plans, including the Harbor Plan
will take place over the next three years.

THE ENERGY CRISIS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES
OF OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING

D. J. Everitts
Manager
Energy and Mineral Resources Development
California State Lands Division

Well, the news about our current energy supply is good,
and bad, too. We are all becoming familiar with the bad news.
I saw in Sunday's paper that gasoline was selling for 52 cents
per gallon in San Francisco. The marine station in my neighbor
hood was out of diesel fuel, and the local service station
operator told me he had been cut 7,000 gallons of gasoline last
month, and was going to be cut 10,000 gallons this month. Simply
put, we are running out of cheap energy.

The good news, of course, is that the head geologist up in
the sky laid down ample crude oil supplies in Alaska; he made
sure that there were large deposits of oil shale and coal
available; and he has even kel us from blowing ourselves up while
we learn how to harness the atom; and given time and acceptable
environmental reports, we'll survive.

In the meantime, we here in California must rely on con-
ventional sources of oil and gas to supply 89 per cent of our
energy consumption. The State uses 1.3 million barrels of crude
oil a day, a third of which is imported. It burns nearly 6
billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, most of which is impor-
ted from Canada and the Southwest.

If projections are correct, California's energy consump-
tion will more than double by 1985, and, with alternate energy
sources such as nuclear, geothermal, coal and solar not develop-
ing as fast as hoped, oil and gas will still be needed to supply
approximately 70 per cent of those requirements.

There are three basic approaches to supply the short-range
need for oil by Californians: (1) increase imports of foreign
petroleum; (2) reduce demand growth; and (3) accelerate the
development of domestic oil and natural gas production.

If current trends continue, the United States will be
importing about 40 per cent of its total energy supply by 1985.
This will, of course, add to the increasing balance-of-trade
deficit, and would aid in placing the national economy at the
mercy of foreign powers, some of which already are using oil as
an economic weapon. In fact, there is no guarantee that foreign
producing nations will continue to provide us with hydrocarbon
products, or, if they did, would take out dollars in payment,

The increase in demand can be partially satisfied by
increased efficiency in the use of energy. Currently, only
about half of the total energy utilized by this nation contri-
butes to productivity. Improved technology will ultimately

Everitts

mitigate this problem, but not in the immediate future. Energy
can be conserved by limiting personal consumption, but not
without significant effects on American life styles, employment,
and economic growth. Moreover, reduced consumption would
interfere with other State and National goals, such as an
improved environment that requires additional energy.

The third approach, that of development of domestic
petroleum resources, can mitigate the problem until alternate
sources can assume the load. Full development of the State's
offshore and onshore resources, including the Federal Outer
Continental Shelf, coupled with California's eventually expected
share of Alaska North Slope oil, could make California essential-
ly independent of unstable foreign supplies in the short range.

It is the third approach, that of increasing domestic pro-
duction, that has been the consideration in the study that I am
reviewing here today.

(Description was given at this point of the State Lands
Commission and the State Lands Division)

Despite the exceptional record of petroleum producers
operating on State-owned tide and submerged lands (no major
spills or blowouts from more than 925 offshore wells), the State
Lands Commission acted promptly after the 1969 oilwell blowout
on Federal Outer Continental Shelf lands to ban new drilling or
exploration by its lessees offshore California. The State Lands
Division was directed to make a technical review and report on
the Platform A occurrence, and to take a hard look at procedures
and spill-containment capabilities on all leases authorized by
the Commission. Shortly thereafter, on February 27, 1969, the
Commission further acted to postpone the date for receiving bids
for an oil and gas lease on a parcel of State-owned tide and
submerged lands in the Channel.

On July 31, 1969, the Commission considered the Division's
technical review and report, and concluded that it was in the
public's interest to continue the moratorium. Pending adoption
of more stringent drilling procedures and development of effec-
tive spill-containment and recovery devices, recommendations for
drilling new wells on existing leases would be considered by the
Commission on a well-by-well basis if there were unique circum-
stances that justified such drilling.

CURRENT STATUS
The drilling ban on State-owned lands continues, and the
Commission has consistently assured Californians that the ban
will remain in effect until the oil industry demonstrates that
it has developed adequate oil-spill containment and recovery
systems, and that the Division's more stringent procedures have
been adopted.

As a result, although the Commission has recognized that
wells drilled or redrilled from the uplands do present special
circumstances and has approved such wells on an individual basis,
only twelve wells have been approved from filled islands and no
wells have been approved from platforms since January 29, 1969.

More recently the Commission has considered the excellent
record of oil-well drilling and production on the State's off-
shore leases; it has noted the establishment of a State oil-
spill contingency plan; and it has reviewed recent studies made
by State agencies indicating the increased importance of off-
shore oil reserves in the light of present crude-oil and natural
gas shortages in the United States. It therefore on April 26,
directed the Division to conduct an in-depth review of current
Commission policy concerning drilling and producing on existing

Everitts

oil and gas leases on State-owned tide and submerged lands.

Public hearings were held by the Division in Los Angeles
and Santa Barbara, and testimony was received from government
agencies concerned with possible oil spills, from the oil
industry, and from other interested groups and organizations.

A basic and necessary assumption in the review was that.
there is always some small risk of an oil spill inherent in
offshore oil operations. The hearings, therefore, were directed
towards three basic questions:
1. If drilling is resumed on State offshore leases, what
can be done to minimize the chances of pollution from
an oil spill?
2. If a spill does occur, what would be the consequences?
3. What alternatives are available for obtaining crude
oil?

Further the hearings addressed themselves only to those
questions as they related to existing facilities on existing
leases. They were not concerned with the issuance of new leases
or the issuance of any specific well permits.

Five main points were discussed: energy, geologic hazards
and seeps, drilling and producing procedures, containment and
recovery, and impact areas.

I have already discussed the energy problem. It has been
our conclusion that State lands offshore California are not
geologically hazardous.

I should say something regarding drilling and producing
procedures, however. The State Division of Oil and Gas and other
regulatory bodies have significantly strengthened their controls
since 1969, through both new laws and administrative procedures.
Each offshore oil and gas lease issued by the State Lands Com-
mission contains a specific provision prohibiting pollution or
contamination of the ocean or the tidelands. These are not new
provisions, however. More than 1300 wells (from both uplands
and offshore) have been drilled on State lands without a major
incident of pollution, largely because of State operating
practices enforcing the lease prohibitions. The State Lands
Division has proposed procedures which consider the specific
geologic and engineering conditions that led to the 1969 Santa
Barbara oil spill, and formalize many of the practices that have
resulted in California's excellent record. At the same time,
the number of safeguards to be observed by offshore operators is
increased.

The purpose of the procedures is to allow recovery of oil
and gas from beneath State lands in an orderly and safe manner
without conflict with the environment or jeopardy to the health
or safety of workmen engaged in those oil and gas operations.

Oil spills occur primarily due to personnel error, equip-
ment failure, and inadequate design of equipment. The proce-
dures address themselves to such problems, and contain detailed
engineering requirements on well programming, blow-out prevention
equipment, testing procedures, and supervision and training
related to these subjects. The operator is required to maintain
close on-the-job supervision of drilling operations on a 24-hour
basis, and a representative of the State is required to perform
a variety of daily inspections of procedure.

The procedures will add cost to the production of oil,
both to industry and the State, but safety must be the over-
riding consideration. Support was given to this concept by one
simple statement made by the City of Santa Barbara Envirnomental

Everitts

Quality Control Board when a representative testified that if
one State requirement alone had been enforced by the Federal
Government on its Outer Continental Shelf leases, "Santa Barbara
would probably not have been subjected to the disastrous
pollution in 1969."

Containment and recovery has been a major consideration--
for obvious reasons. The first step in oil-spill control is
prevention. There is no necessity to spill oil on the water.
Past State Lands Division regulations and practices have served
to prevent any major oil spill. The new procedures are designed
to preclude a spill even further. In the unlikely evert, however,
that a spill does occur, organization, preplanning, equipment,
and training are necessary to "fight" the spill.

In 1969 neither the oil industry nor anyone else had the
equipment or organization to deal quickly and effectively with
a major oil spill in the open sea.

Since that time, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan has been developed to provide a pat-
tern of coordinated and integrated pollution reponse between the
spiller and Federal, State and local authorities. The State has
developed its own plan, which can function either within the
Federal plan, or independently, as required, and industry has
established a formal Pacific Coast network of cooperative
response teams.

Significant efforts have been expended for research and
development in the areas of containment and recovery, not only
by industry, but by EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National
Science Foundation, the U.S. Navy, NASA, and many others. Money
has been expended for the procurement of equipment, large inven-
tories have been built up, and additional equipment is on order
or will be ordered.

Finally, although it may be categorized by some as
"enlightened self-preservation," industry, in the conduct of
offshore drilling operations, has testified it will " not
knowingly incur risk of accidents by conducting sensitive phases
of (their) operations during hazardous weather conditions."
Should such conditions arise, "all necessary precaution would
be taken, including, if necessary, suspension of the critical
phases of drilling operations in progress."

Now to the matter of "consequences of offshore oil drill-
ing." Four major areas of possible adverse impact were discus-
sed. They were (1) the matter of esthetics, (2) the involvement
with navigation and ocean traffic, (3) the economic impact of
such operations, and (4) the effect of operations on the marine
environment.

Little can be said regarding the matter of esthetics. Oil
operations have existed on the California seacoast for more than
70 years. If the drilling moratorium is lifted only on existing
leases and existing platforms, the visual impact of such opera-
tions will be essentially the same as it is now. There will be
little if any change in operations visible to the untrained eye.
A person either likes or does not like platforms on the marine
landscape. Energy is a State-wide problem and oil must be
drilled for and produced where it occurs.

Parenthetically, whether or no resumption of activities on
State lands would affect the Federal Government's decision on
Outer Continental Shelf lands is conjectural. Operations on the
Shelf have never really been curtailed to the same extent as on
State lands. Additional platforms have been installed since the
blowout, and over 200 additional exploratory and development

Everitts

wells have been drilled. Further, the Administration has
already withdrawn its support from a bill to terminate 35 of the
Federal leases in the Channel.

The impact of existing offshore oil and gas producing op-
erations on navigation and ocean traffic is minimal. Sea lanes
have been established along the coast of California, and the
existing platforms and islands are not within the prescribed
coastal sea lanes. The existing platforms are located precisely
geographically, and are indicated on all official navigation
charts for any given area. Therefore, not only do such struc-
tures act as an aid to navigation, but, further, have been used
as energency havens in more than 150 documented instances. The
additional impact of renewed drilling also will be minimal, and
will consist of some additional boat and helicopter traffic. In
fact, new drilling, and the associated new oil production, could
easily result in the need for fewer imports, thus decreasing
tanker and boat traffic. A study by the California Resources
Agency indicated that 75 per cent of all oil spilled between
1956 and 1969 resulted from vessels, and, of these 90 per cent
were tankers. From a purely environmental point of view, there-
fore, resumption of offshore drilling may be far less hazardous
to the environment than continuation of the moratorium.

There is always some small risk of an oil spill inherent
in offshore oil operations. In the unlikely event that a spill
should occur, the activation of contingency plans will substan-
tially reduce any deleterious effects. Additionaly, it is
clearly the responsibility of the spiller to mitigate any
damages that might occur. In the case of the Santa Barbara oil
spill, the companies invoved not only have expended large sums
for beach cleanup, but have, in fact, paid in excess of $7
million in other claims.

Testimony presented by the City of Santa Barbara has indi-
cated that the State, the County of Santa Barbara, and the cites
of Santa Barbara and Carpenteria sustained a considerable loss
in terms of income tax, sales, tax, property tax, hotel and
motel bed tax, and unemployment and disability taxes. Whether
such losses are compensible must be settled by the courts.

State Lands Division revenue estimates indicate that more
than $176 million in future royalties to the State have been
deferred, if not lost, by amendments to the Public Resources
Code made as an aftermath of the 1969 spill and that prohibit
drilling in specific areas (sanctuaries). In addition, if the
ban on drilling and leasing continues, it is estimated that over
$70 million in revenue will have been lost between the time of
the inception of the moratorium to December 31, 1978; or, to put
it in perhaps more significant terms, daily production in the
Santa Barbara Channel, for example, has dropped from more than
600,000 barrels per month at the time of the spill to just over
300,000 barrels per month for the month of September 1973, and
at least one facility was shut down completley because of the
company's inability to initiate drilling. More than 200,000,000
barrels of oil have been effectively locked up in reserves
created by the sanctuaries established since 1969, and nearly
58,000,000 barrels of produced oil have been deferred, if not
lost, as the result of the moratorium, from oil reserves on
existing State leases. Finally, the oil industry testified re-
lative to another aspect of the matter that concerned principal-
ly the interests of the oil companies themselves, and, in their
words, " that is the fact that the State drilling moratorium
has deprived the lessees of State offshore leases of the right
to drill on these leases for an unjustifiable and excessive
period of time, particularly as to drilling from existing plat-
forms. . . . The companies holding these leases have been denied
the right to conduct fArther drilling, and this has been done

pa/I

Everitts

without any compensation for the substantial losses suffered by
the lessees as a result of these delays . . "

Perhaps one of the most hotly debated subjects is that of
the ecological impact of offshore oil and gas operations. Argu-
ments against resumption of drilling summarize the more important
points of the effect of oil spills on the environment by saying
(1) large spills and chronic pollution of the sea have presented
a threat to certain species of birds, (2) the immediate killing
of shallow-water marine life may be great and recovery slow,
especially of pre-existing balances. (3) chronic pollution and
coating of shores can reduce the habitat along the high tide
line in rocky areas, and (4) oil can be a long-lived contaminent
containing toxic and cancer-producing substances.

Proponents of the resumption of drilling hasten to point
out that such conclusions may be true, but are based on research
done in closed areas in which refined oils were spilled.

In the case of the Santa Barbara spill, heavy rains and
flooding complicated interpretation of data gathered. Although
there was a significant mortality rate among the waterfowl pop-
ulation at the time, there has been no evidence reported that
bird habitat was permanently damaged, thus indicating that such
impact was only temporary. The Department of Fish and Game
reported that it is known that California crude oil has little
lethal effect on marine mammals, such as the seals, sea lions,
and whales.

The Santa Barbara Channel in particular is highly contamin-
ated by oil because of natural seeps, and it is probable that
organisms in that area have developed a natural immunity to
crude oil. In addition to this natural immunity investigations
have indicated that the effect on marine life by crude oil was
minimized primarily due to the ability of the organisms to
migrate down to greater depths, to close up their shells until
high tide, or to produce a mucous-like coating for protection.

The Department of Fish and Game has also reported that,
notwithstanding the social impact of oil spills, there is sub-
stantially less damage to living marine resources by spills of
California crude oil on the open ocean waters than there is by
spills of processed oils in more restricted areas, and has con-
cluded that, simply put, it is because crude oil on sea water
degrades much more rapidly and is less toxic than processed oils.
The Department's experience has shown that, except for bird life
the damages from crude oil spills have only a temporary effect
on the marine environment. The fact that an abundance and
variety of species live and breed in the Coal Oil Point area,
where an average of 50 to 70 barrels of oil a day continue to
seep naturally lends further credence to these theories.

To summarize, our study has led us to conclude that:

1. There is clearly a shortage of cheap energy that can
only be partially remedied by fuel economies and
efficiencies.

2. It appears from present projections that by 1985
California will have to import 85 per cent of its
oil from outside the State. This will result in
increased tanker traffic with its inherent risks
of oil pollution.

3. Existing platforms are not navigational hazards,
but instead are aids to navigation for shipping,
and have in the past served as points of safety
and refuge.

�9

Everitts

4. The geology in the Santa Barbara Channel is not
unique, nor do the specific conditions that existed
at Union Oil Company's Platform A exist on State
lands. There is, however, a lack of adequate in-
formation concerning the nature of natural seeps
and their relationship to oil on the beach.

5. The ecological changes from the Santa Barbara
Channel spill were short term by nature, and most
of the resulting problems related to esthetic,
recreational, and economic matters.

6. Over 1300 wells have been safely drilled on State-
owned lands, largely due to enforcement of past
procedures and regulations. The State has drafted
more stringent procedures that are designed to
preclude oil spills and that would have prevented
the 1969 blowout on Federal Outer Continental
Shelf lands.

7. Advances have been made in equipment and recovery
systems that were not available in 1969. These
systems provide rapid response and will function in
the seas that are expected to occur most of the
time. Proposed procedures require curtailment of
critical operations during adverse weather conditions.

8. All conditions of the moratorium imposed by the
State Lands Commission have been met.

ALTERNATIVES

There appear to be three options open to the Commission:

1. Continue the drilling moratorium.

2. Lift all drilling and leasing bans and proceed
with an accelerated development program.

3. Lift the drilling moratorium and authorize resump-
tion of drilling operations on a lease-by-lease
basis.

To continue the moratorium is to ignore that there is a
serious shortage of cheap energy in the short range. It is to
deny the importance of the fact that in over thirty- years more
than 1300 wells have been safely drilled on State-owned lands
without mishap. It is to not recognize either the development
of more stringent procedures and regulations by the State, or
the advances in spill control, organizations, and equipment made
by the oil industry.

Carte blance lifting of the moratorium with no restriction
on development nor leasing, might initiate drilling activities
on approximately eighteen offshore State leases; at least one
parcel would be considered for leasing in the near future; and
it is possible that as many as three more platforms would be
required. Such a program would be responsive to the growing
energy problem, but would not necessarily be responsive to the
public's desire to protect more fully the existing marine envir-
onment.

A more effective approach is represented by a lifting of
the ban on a lease-by-lease basis. It is responsive to the
energy problem, it reflects environmental concerns, and it
recognizes the development of more stringent operational pro-
cedures and advances in spill-controll capabilities.

ff0

Everitts

RECOMMENDATIONS

With these thoughts in mind, therefore, the Division will
recommend to the Commission that:

1. The State Lands Commission adopt the proposed
operating procedures.

2. The drilling moratorium be lifted, and drilling
operations be resumed on a lease-by-lease basis,
such resumption to be predicated upon review by
the State Lands Division for compliance with the
procedures and upon final approval by the State
Lands Commission.

3. The State Lands Division be directed to develop
and implement a program for the identification
of sources of oil pollution both natural and
man-caused on the beaches.

The report has been submitted to the State Lands Commis-
sion informally, and will be considered at a public meeting to
be held in Sacramento on December 11, 1973.

REBUTTAL TO MR. DONALD EVERETTS' SPEECH

Editors Note: This rebuttal was allowed by the MTS
board. These words do not represent
MTS or its members but are allowed in that time did
not allow the rebuttal to be presented at the open
meeting.

My name is Steven Travis, and I'm here representing Inter-
national Surfing Magazine. I live at 1707 Paterna Road, Santa
Barbara.

I'd like to offer a rebuttal to Mr. Donald Everetts' speech
on the third of December, in which he outlined some of the
reasons behind the decision to resume drilling for petroleum in
the Santa Barbara Channel.

Evidence of natural seepage of crude oil in the channel
dates back from the time of Cabrillo, who made a note of oil
bubbling up from what is now known as Coal Oil Point (Deveraux
Point, to those familiar to Santa Barbara) near Isla Vista Beach
in Goleta. According to long-time residents of the area, a
greater amount of oil has been deposited on the beach since the
construction and operation of the drilling rig offshore from
Coal Oil Point. In 1973, a "minor leak" of 40 barrels a day was
found at the same rig; the leak was examined by Coast Guard
divers, who found that the source of the leak was not assertain-
able. In other words, the leak could have been part of the
natural phenomenon recorded by Cabrillo, it might have been
initiated by the oil rig itself, at the spot where the line
enters the "dome," and it also might have been caused by the
activity of the rig, thus fissuring an area adjacent to the
drilling site. Mr. Everetts theorized that instead of making
the ocean floor more vulnerable to seepage, drilling and pro-
curement of oil in the Santa Barbara Channel will serve to
alleviate pressure that has produced natural seepage observed in
the past. It seems to me that this argument may be used by
either proponents or opponents of the resumption of drilling.
More directly, drilling has yet to be proven as an environmental
plus in the Santa Barbara Channel. The argument, which I read
in full in the State Lands Commission Report on the resumption
of drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel, appears to be incon-
clusive.

Another point that was made in the report, was that cap-
abilities for recovery operations, should a blow out occur, have
been proven to be "effective in seas up to five feet." Records
of swell height in the channel showed that seas of 8-10 feet
or more represent less than 2% of the total wave activity. Do
we need any other example to refute this argument than what
happened in January of 1969? A large swell, bringing breakers
to a height of 8-9-10 feet at Rincon Point swept into the
channel from the Pacific Northwest at the same time that the
blow out was at its peak. Surfers from my area recall a lone
man out with a board at Hammond's Reef, NORTH of platform "A."
He rode waves regardless of the oil, and returned coated from
head to foot with goo. His hair had to be cut off, but he was
smart enough (we would hope!) to stay away from the mess. Sea
birds and homeowners were among those less fortunate, in light
of the fact that their habitat was the scene of the greater
catastrophe; the oil remains. Crews sent out from Union Oil
and the government were commended for their role in clean up
operations, falsely, it seems. For the oil that washed ashore
by the moderately large seas was buried below the mean high tide
level. As winter swells and accompanying currents wash the sand

rebuttal to everetts

from the beach, heaps of oil from the 1969 platform "A" disaster
appear. When the sun shines under predictably warm conditions
brought by "Santa Ana" winds, the hardened oil once again becoms
a nuisance and a hazzard to the lives of birds, molluscs, and
marine plant life, and certainly to residents of Santa Barbara.

I offer my remarks as a surfer, that is to say one who is
interested in a healthy future for marine recreation, and as an
environmentalist concerned with this hasty decision, undoubtedly
made to counter present shortages of petroleum products, yet
before facts are known concerning the fuel crisis.

MTS/LARS December 3 & 4, 1973
Coastal Zone Management and the Western States' Future
Session II - Technological & Management Strategies For
Increasing The Coastal Carrying Capacity

The Honorable Dennis E. Carpenter
State Senator, 34th Senatorial District

We have been riding a really enjoyable crest of a new preserva-
tion and conservation attitude or movement, and with legitimate
grounds for dissatisfaction and criticism over our past manage-
ment of the land and water and coastal area. I do agree that we
should be attempting to increase the carrying capacity of the
coastal zone. And, I think that is the central issue. There
are many who want to utilize a framework of devices and proce-
dures that prevent the necessity for having to expand that capa-
city. I tend to feel, and during the course of my comments I
think you will see where I have been on these issues, that I
agree with opponents of growth in terms of philosophical posi-
tion, but I would prefer to concern myself with increasing the
capacity issue as it applies to our coastal zone and the waters
of California. I do not feel that I have that choice. It is
my impression that the crush of humanity and the necessity for
economic survival in our state have placed us beyond the ability
to indulge ourselves in drawing back from our utilization of
land and water in the coastal zone of California. We have an
area of discussion going on in Orange County--which is generally
conceded to be one of the more pleasant places to live--wherein,
the Board of Supervisors is grappling with the issue of what is
the optimum population number for the county of Orange at a
given point in time approximately some ten years from now. While
our population today is the in the neighborhood of 1.8 million,
many are saying it is the second most populous county in the
state. They are wrestling with the problem in somewhat of a
vacuum, in my judgment, because I have told them that in my
opinion the population figure for Orange County should be some-
where around 500,000 people. And I have offered to serve on the
selection committee with regard to who should stay and who should
leave--and I think this really points up what our problem is in
the coastal zone of California. We are past the optimum and the
choice decisions, and we have now only the more difficult deci-
sions of ordering our priorities in order to accommodate the
problems we have already created by inaction, moreso I think,
than by stupidity. And I think these people in the preserva-
tion and conservation movement, if nothing else, have tended to
focus on the very important social problem that brings us all
together in meetings like this and with regard to legislation in
our own businesses and our own considerations. I have had, in the
past few months, more than 100 people--immediate residents of my
vicinity here--some of whom I have had arguments with in the last
year, as I took time off voluntarily on my own to campaign
against Proposition 20, not because I didn't believe in its pre-
cepts and the planning required, and not because I did not share
in the condemnation of the errors we had made, errors of omission

Carpenter

and commission in prior years--because I do and I did then. But
because I was very much opposed to the procedure that it repre-
sented--and I have had more than 100 of my friends come to me
who voted for Prop. 20 and they want out. Why? Because as a
concept it was attractive to them, and it was on that basis that
it became the law of the land in California. As a philosophical
treatise, it was perfect. But we, everyone, recognizes the needs
and the problems of this type of conservation, but these 100
people had found themselves the owners of land within the
coastal zone, and they never knew what the problems were in a
practical sense, and now they have come to realize that it hurts,
and accordingly, they have, if you will, changed their positive
attitudes with regard to this particular phase of legislation.

I want to take issue with some comments that Mr. Gruen made in
particular, indicating the voice of the people as it applies to
Prop. 20. I think people in the planning and preparation indus-
tries that relate to this type of development control, and how
to do it properly and planning our resources, are becoming a
very important segment of our business society--because I do not
feel that the people of California understood and voted for Prop.
20 on the basis of knowing what was involved. I think they
responded to the general philosophical presence of the recogni-
tion of our errors of the past of omission and commission which
resulted in bad planning and bad use, in general, with which
most of our citizens agree. But I don't think they really
accepted the structural and procedural concepts of Prop. 20 in
any way. It is part of my feeling that legislation by the public
at large, sitting as a legislature at large.in the State of Cali-
fornia, which we will have in increasing amounts, is a very
deleterious and unnecessary exercise, and we are putting the
people through a way of governing ourselves that is both unwork-
able and most unfair. And those who are treated unfairly in
this process have no recourse, and that isn't the intent of
representative government.

So Prop. 20 is only one of many, many examples, and I can agree
with many of the concepts: the pornography control bill which
was defeated, Prop. 14, and many others which are tremendous
and massive legislative programs submitted to the people at large.
Prop. 1 that we had this year is a concept with which I am wholly
in agreement and would support, but is one which was incapable
of being understood by the people. And if we talk about an
enlightened electorate making these choices, the proponents know
going in that the people will not understand it and they will be
emotionally pushed into a procedure that they would not other-
wise accept if they understood it.

One of the second areas I want to talk about is public acquisi-
tion. The existence of Prop. 20 and the increasing attitude of
the public of recognition, particularly in Southern California,
of the evaporation of open space in the coastal area has created
a healthy situation in terms of public recognition of the need
for acquisition of private property. And you will see running
through this, so I am not giving any revelations, that to me one
of the major issues involved is the class struggle and the analy-
sis of proper governmental intervention, dealing with the proper
and fair handling of what I call private property rights. Be-
cause we do not have the Irvine Company, and Mission Viejo and
other great land-holding organizations ultimately to deal with.
One can be somewhat impersonal and unconcerned about this, but I
am concerned about you and me, and the mass of our population
who are going to be faced with exactly the same choice that they
had with Prop. 20--this year, in the Legislature and probably in
the following year if that fails, and I think that it probably
will, on the ballot in the form of what we now call "Preprint
Assembly Bill No. 1, which for simplication, I will merely call
"Prop. 20 applied state-wide." And this is going to, I think,

5-5

Carpenter

bring home to more citizens the issue of who is affected by this
type of regulation and procedure. If you happen to like it, of
course, one can, I think, take a great deal of satisfaction and
comfort from the fact that these generalizations could have some
grounds for possible success. But I think spurred by Prop. 20
and a new public recognition of the desirability of reserving
areas, we are finding an increased interest and support for
acquisition of property. I'm much involved in this myself. As
a fiscal conservative and probably the lowest spender in the
state legislature, I am co-author of, and much involved in, all
the acquisition funding that we are now undertaking at the state
level. Why? Because it's acceptable to the people and to me,
it is the only fair way for the government to do its proper
function when we talk about reserving areas, because to reserve
areas by regulation which says to you, the citizen, you may con-
tinue to own your property and pay taxes on it, but you may not
use it for anything, is totally unacceptable. The political
framework which our constitution envisioned is violated, and I
think that we are going to have to come to grips with an increas-
ing public necessity for expenditures of money. And they are
going to be expensive, but I think that will be one of the least
foolish ways that the government has ever spent money. I happen
to be of the opinion that it does not spend very many wise dol-
lars. The lack of money has been a substantial problem. The
other areas of public expenditures must be increased, and as
Dr. Craven indicated, the massive federal support they have had
r, in my judgment at least, a fairly far out project, off-shore
utilization for urban and industrial and other purposes, is
still something worth examining. And the sum of $70,000 a year,
I submit to you, is probably less than the daily loss of pencils
which are broken by irate federal employees.

It strikes me that the order of priorities will require us to
demand of government at all levels an application of substantial
and increasing portions of public money to the type of research
and development which is necessary in this area. I think we
have to take into account the economic necessity for continuing
to utilize our coastal zone, and I touched on that briefly in
the opening. There is no way for us to go back to living on
roots and berries in the coastal zone. It is just unrealistic
for us to try and consider backing down to a different utiliza-
tion of land mass and the water than at the point which we find
ourselves currently. I think the ability to accomplish these
things is tied up in politics, if you will, as it translates
into public support, because the funding that would be required
must come from the pockets of all the people in the state of
California as well as in the rest of the nation.

Other aspects, externalities if you will, will come to the fore.
For example, consider that 56% of the land mass of the state of
California is already publicly owned. Unfortunately, the very
large regions involved are inland where they are to a lesser
degree, subject to the proper and total utilization by the
masses of people in the coastal areas. Also, in the coastal
zone area, when we remove from the public tax roles properties
by acquisition, if you will, or by other means, I foresee and I
will be very active in the examination of the public tax
rearrangement by which we would induce and encourage less devel-
opment in the coastal area we are going to create an economic
problem in local government for local services on which we all
rely and which we demand in increasing quantities. And that
will be an erosion of the tax base which this highly economically
usable land creates in the coastal area. That's another economic
factor in public acquisition.

Some people will say to me today that some of the good things
that are happening indicate a possible reversal of the conserva-
tional trend that we have enjoyed or decried, depending on your

Carpenter

point of view, in recent months or years. And it's very diffi-
cult to analyze this. Some say we've overracted when we talk
about preservation in terms of acquisition of land and control
of private property and what have you. Obviously, I am one who
has said on occasion we have overreacted and this is a danger--
and I reiterate a danger, because I think it would be extremely
negative for us as a people recognizing certain other problems
now being imposed on us to reverse a way of thinking that, to me,
in the long run, will have far more benefits than it does nega-
tives. And I think that when we look at this thing, for example,
that we now call the "energy crisis", people are already talk-
ing about the necessity of having, for example, to go back into
the ocean and to seriously construct a host of oil islands for
the purpose of actual drilling. It may be that that's a neces-
sity, but it demands a trade-off by the public and an acceptance
of something that has conclusively been unacceptable for many of
our people to date. It may be that when we talk about colder
homes and the loss of transportation freedom and other factors
that a shortage of oil represents, that we must find ways to
utilize this. And then the technology will be the key to it.
Because I happen to think that you can have it both ways and
that this type of utilization of resources can be done techno-
logically so that we do not end up with any kind of willy-nilly
or dangerous type of implantation in terms of oil drilling or
nuclear plants or what have you. I think we must have progress,
but then it will be up to technology to tell us how to do it and
to perform it without the increased danger.

And I speak from a position of some strength because we have
successfully avoided the construction of any type of off-shore
drilling in my area, which is a decision in which I have parti-
cipated and I still feel--not being from Santa Barbara or other
areas that might be more dramatically affected--I speak in the
philcsophical sense. The dangers that I see from overreaction
by some groups and segments of our society really is the vehicle
by which problems become publicly known so that at least an
issue is created and a change or result can come about. If we
have, in some areas, gone too far in the preservation or conser-
vation theory, then the potential of that is the failure to
recognize, by leaders of those movements, the dangers of going
too far so that we will find, for instance, that the public is
now unable to consume oil at the lasciviously wasteful rate that
we have, and I do and everyone of you do, I am sure, then it's
going to be healthy if we learn some better habits. But the
inability to recognize that those types of demands placed on the
public will cause consideration of conservation and preservation
to go out the window. The man who loses his job, or the man who
cannot get to work or what have you...if these problems become so
acute, there will be, I think a loss of interest by the public
in conservation orientation, which I think would be tragic. We
would lose all the good ground that we have gained. So I think
that good planning in this area and in philosophical areas is
essential if we are to keep the ground under us that we have
already made.

I've touched on the state-wide land use control provisions, and
on the prospects that we will be working on in Sacramento this
year, and I will reiterate some of the considerations I feel
are valid, such as the issue of whether or not local control is
better than the regional or state-wide planning, which is the
direction in which we are moving.

I personally feel that local control would be, and is, a better
vehicle. Why? Because in the political process the only form
of government to which the average citizen has accessability is
local government. There-are very few people who have the ability
to communicate and articulate in a meaningful way with elected
representatives in Sacramento, or who have that same ability in

Carpenter

that great institution in Washington, D.C., which I often refer
to as the great untethered marshmallow--it is uncapable of attack.
And I think that the problem is that we are going to be dealing
with the rights, not just of the people who have a consuming
passion and a good passion for conservation and preservation and
better land use and control, but with the people who have no
rights, because the decisions will be made without consideration
of them and without the ability to do it, I think in a fair way.
I submit that the procedure is equally important as the goal we
are trying to accomplish. And it is necessary to safeguard these
things.

I often used to hear the argument in the Prop. 20 battle that
local government has done a terrible job in the coastal zone of
planning, and I very much agree with that statement. They did
not do a good job in local governing. But why did they not do
a good job? They did not do a good job because they were
responsive to the people. We didn't ask them to do a good job.
We never demanded that they do a good job. We equated in the
State of California: progress equals growth. We didn't talk
about quality growth, or type of growth, or location or anything.
This state was built on the philosophy of growth to the point
where it is today. And this has created an economic problem
from which we cannot back away without pure chaos and disaster,
but problems from which we must unwind ourselves in a logical
and intelligent manner. So I think that they did what we wanted
them to do, and as a prior speaker indicated, if you will look
at the type of people who are getting elected in many of the
local government positions, and the attitude of many of the
older people who have been on planning commissions and city
councils and supervisorial boards for years, those attitudes
have changed, and there are very few places left in California
where you can do anything you want to or get anything you want
to done. And don't for a minute conceive that appointed and
not elected officials are going to be more intelligent and
fairly administer to the rights of the people in regard to
property management. They are not. And don't conceive for a
minute that the degree of honesty in publicly elected officials
is going to increase the further you get from home, because the
opposite is true. I think that we are losing sight of probably
the best vehicle for representative government we've ever had,
and the only vehicle in my judgment where everybody can get a
fair shake, and that's through the vehicle of local government
as opposed to regional and state or federal control on something
we consider as important as private ownership.

I think that one of the problems or one of the deep faults that
we have undertaken, and many of you, if you happen to be involved
in water research and usability factors, may think otherwise,
is that we have substantially ignored the issue of the water in
favor of the land considerations. Those considerations are
certainly logical, because we happen to be on land and that's
where we spend most of our time. At the same time, it strikes
me that the utilization of water, and the ocean in particular,
has for us the greatest potential in economic and survival con-
siderations when we talk about food and other factors that we
simply can no longer afford not to expend research funds and
pay more attention to the issue as it relates to the ocean. And
I think that perhaps good times are coming in regard to this
because through some minor breakthroughs I think there has been
an increasing public awareness of the necessity for proper plan-
ning and utilization of the ocean resource to a degree that we
have not done in the past, and in keeping it a parallel with our
land interests. Lack of funding has, again, been one of the
problems, but I think that most of the deleterious human trends
that have negative impacts on the ocean are reversible, which
they are not always in the land area.

Carpenter

I had a bill last year of great excitement to some people, called
a bill to save the northern sardine. And most people knew little
and cared less about that unfortunate animal at sea, but it was
something that used to abide in our waters here by the millions
and millions of tons. Our estimates in 1936 ran almost to 200
million tons of sardines. It was a major commercial fish that
had food value, it had fertilizer value and so forth. And so
this very year, I carried a bill which was finally passed into
law protecting a fish that is now down to some estimated 20,000
tons in California waters, almost an immeasurable resource that
we think can be saved by leaving it alone. it's not always that
easy to bring one back. You won't believe the resistance that
occurred to that little bill, but it's the type of thing we have
to recognize. There are commercial and other interests to be
served that are ligitimate that do not take into account the
necessity, the public necessity, if you will, for doing something
in a regulatory sense. In that case, I proposed to a handful of
fishermen who were claiming they were going to go out of business
that if that were to happen, it would be my position that it
would be appropriate for the State of California to find a way
financially to help them work out, over a short period of time,
their reliance on a commercial fish that we wanted to protect,
if it were absolutely going to kill their industry. in the
final analysis, when I got through all-the fleck, I found out
there were only two men fishing this in the state of California
because they could not get the number of tons they were allowed
to catch now. So that was not necessary. But once again, we
come back to the public necessity for legislative funding of
the type of programs we wish to undertake.

So I think that if we recognize some of the legal needs and
translate that into legislation, in the supportive area and in
the funding area, and we continue to massage the public so that
it has a supportive attitude towards the increasing expenditures,
which only can come from taxation, that we will, I think and
assume, achieve the techical and management skills that are
capable of solving these problems in the coastal zone both in
the land aspect and in the water. if we can recognize the pro-
cedural and legal problems and the economic problems and solve
those concurrently, because I think they are of equal import
with the techicel and managerial problems, we are way ahead of
ourselves, I think, in the technical area, to a degree that we
are overlooking some of the more philosophical and more intangi-
ble qualities of this issue, which I submit to you are equally
important.

Those are my remarks formally, and I would only submit then
that we will all be available for a short time for questions
that any of you would care to address to us.

5_9

TECHNOLOGICAL AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING
THE COASTAL CARRYING CAPACITY

Dr. John Craven
Coordinator of Marine Affairs
State of Hawaii

Thank you, Senator, for your introduction. I will not
however, speak on management because it seems to me that one bar
to the solution of coastal zone problems is management and reg-
ulations. Indeed there is a multitude in another session list-
ening to talks about management. Over and above management is
the lack of awareness, in my opinion, of the technological solu-
tions which are available to us, and what these technological
solutions could do to resolve the problem of increasing the
carrying capacity of the coastal zone. I shall not in my talk
review the total thinking process that has led to the "Hawaii
Concept" for the coastal zone, but I shall discuss the techniques
and concepts that have been derived from the studies that we have
completed on new city design. I shall cite the basic conclusion
of that study as the long term trend which we believe that man-
kind can and should use in building his new cities. The essence
of the concept is an elemental approach. This approach assigns
all the high density functions of mankind (the power plants, the
industrial functions, even the high density living) to platforms
called superstable platforms, which are deployed well out to sea.
The actual distance (essentially three to four miles) is far
enough so that the visual impact is sufficiently moderated.

These high density platforms are however, located close to
the land mass. The coastal land mass is dedicated to the low
density functions of society -- by this we mean such things as
agricultural areas, low density type living, golf courses, uni-
versities, government cities and state houses, and other extrem-
ely low density functions. The two complexes are connected to-
gether by marine transportation systems. The marine transporta-
tion systems are designed for mass transit of people, for the
movement of containers and goods, and the accomplishment of
other logistical functions. The superstable platforms themselves
are oriented in a 3-layered configuration in which the above
water part is reserved for essentially nonautomotive pedestrian
aspects of society. It is the place where people live. The
water surface is employed for the movement of goods and services
It is the transportation area. The area below the water is em-
ployed for industry, for nuclear power plants, for the heavy
industrial functions of society, etc.

Philosophically, the concept is clear and explicit, but I
hasten to make two points on the concept -- first that it is a
low energy concept. Since the movement of goods and services
and people on the surface of the water is, fron an energy stand-
point, the most efficient way of moving goods and services. In
addition, the organization of high density functions in a com-
pact environment cuts down the total number of unbilical cords--

Craven

which again results in a low energy solution. Secondly, it is
an environmental solution, since a careful examination of the
ocean environment reveals that it is easier to blend with the
ocean environment than with the land environment. And, there is
a third point I would like to make about this concept, i.e. that
it is not an ocean concept; it is a land concept. The motivatimn
which engenders the concept is to move things off the land, so
the land may be better enjoyed, and to preserve the coastal
zone by moving high density functions away from the coastal zone
and out to sea and moving low density functions away from the
coastal zone area.

Now, if this concept is not to be a mere dream, it must
meet two requirements -- it must be technologically feasible and
it must be economically feasible. I would therefore present a
few slide on both aspects.

First, one must have the marine transportation system. For
such a system to be effective, it must extend to the very heart
of the land. It must therefore use the canals and the waterways
which exist in great unused abundance throughout almost all the
major cities of the United States. You for example, have here
in Los Angeles, great arroyos which are dry almost all year. If
they were filled all year with just a little bit of water they
could become major arteries of transport. What vehicles are
available for these arroyos? Hover craft are available, the
captured air bubble craft can operate in waters of several feet
in depth. Another vehicle which is available is the Soviet
Union type: hydrofoil craft -- the S6viet Union hydrofoil craft
as shown here, (there are several hundred operating on the canals
of the Soviet Union) is one of their main means of passenger mass
transit in the Soviet Union. There are two configurations of
this particular craft -- one of the which operates in a draft of
3-1/2 feet and that is the deep draft configuration. And then
there is one which operates in water depth of 1-1/2 feet in the
shallow draft configuration. It may be said that such a craft
will operate with nothing more than a teacup of water. Insofar
as the available configuratons in the United States, there are
other types of canal boats that could be conceived of; the
prime characteristics are speed capabilities of 20 to 30 knots,
extreme quietness, and low pollution levels. These canals and
waterways do in fact exist, although in neglected condition
throughout all the major cities and are available immediately.
Therefore, the right of ways which are needed to acquire these
systems already exist.

When considering the open ocean, the chief technological
requirement is a low motion spectrum. People will simply not
travel in craft in which they would get seasick. It is manda-
tory that the craft have little motion. There are several craft
that meet this characteristic. The one that we will have in
Hawaii next fall is the Boeing Jet Foil. This is a hydrofoil
whose characteristics are different than most hydrofoils in that
the angle of attack of the foils are adjusted to match the wave
profile. Thus the motion spectrum of this hydrofoil is extreme-
ly low even in a very heavy sea. In Hawaii, the oldest inhabi-
tants talk about a most feared area of the ocean -- the Molokai
Channel. It is rightfully considered to be among the most sea-
sickness inducing waters of the world's oceans. Calculations
for the Jet Foil indicate that in these waters the motion of the
craft will be less than that of a DC-8 at altitude when the seat
belt sign is off. A new craft which is now being tested by the
U.S. Navy is the semi-submersible or SWATH craft (an acroynym
meaning small waterplane area craft). This consits essentially
of two submarine hulls which are below the water, thin struts
which pass through the water surface, and a platform above. The
advantage of this vehicle is that it rides with the submarine
hulls surfaced in shallow water in the port and harbor areas.

Craven

Thus they can operate at very, very shallow draft when coming
into port. When it is ballasted it operates in a submerged con-
dition at sea. Most naval architects trained to regard water
plane stability as sacred, shudder when they look at this craft
because this craft is not stable of itself. That is, without a
ballast control system, the movement of passengers to one side
of the craft would result in a slow but inevitable tilt over to
the side until all the passengers were close to the water line.
To avoid this effect requires a ballast control system which op-
erates in conjunction with the movement of loads around the craft.
Such control systems are now routine state of the art. The res-
ponse time is sufficiently slow that a failsafe back up system
can be applied in time. And, in the ultimate case of full fail-
ure, the crest can come down off the submarine hulls and land on
the main hull istelf. In this failure mode, the ship operates
in a standard naval architectured mode. This means the ship wil
not sink but it might be terribly uncomfortable for the remaind-
er of the ride.

There are a large number of other craft which are designed
for movements of goods and containers. This talk has only shown
the crest designed for passenger use. In Hawaii, we have in our
capital improvement budget for next year an interisland ferry
consisting of a SWATH type ship. The first one we will build
will be an experimental one for the movement of people only, and
then, if this is successful, the state intends to build inter-
island ferries of the roll-on/roll-off type in order to move
cars from one island to another. There are a great many advant-
ages to roll-on/roll-off types even in Los Angeles. As I drove
down here from the airport this morning, I thought how nice it
would have been if I could have avoided the traffic by rolling
on a ferry at Los Angeles airport area, proceeding here at 45
knots and rolling off at the port area here. I would have avoid-
ed all the congestion of the highway and lost no time in the
process.

If we are successful with marine transportation systems,
we have the first element of a successful coastal zone techno-
logical solution. The second element has to do with the ques-
tion of the building of superstable platforms at low cost. What
do we mean by superstable platform? This is of course our own
definition and by superstable platform, we mean one that has a
vertical acceleration of less than .01 g in the maximum sea state
that is expected. The reason we choose this figure is that such
a platform will have a lower design factor than that required
for earthquake loading, or, the platform will be more stable than
a structure built on land. Therefore, the structural require-
ments and limitations on this platform will be less than that on
land. (If such a concept spread, a lot of Southern California's
most eminent engineers will be forced into retirement status).

The current state of the art for these platforms is exemp-
lified by the oil industry's floating platforms, the semi-submer-
sibles. These are essentially two kinds -- the vertical column
semi-submersibles or the horizontal semi-submersible very much
like the Mohole concept. There are however, two characteristics
of the oil company platforms that are inappropriate for a super-
stable platform for use for urban society. The first of these
characteristics is an excess of motion. That is very understand-
able because the oil companies platforms are designed only for
the motion requirements for successful drilling. If you want to
make it more stable than that, you've got to have a larger plat-
form, more volume, and apparently more expense.

The second characteristic is that all of these oil company
platforms to date essentially have been built out of steel. It
is our view that steel does not lend itself to an efficient plat-
form. The current characteristic cost of these platforms is

Craven

about $30 million for a platform. The mode of holding the plat-
forms in place is important, they are now using dynamic position-
ing, that is they use continuously operating propulsors to hold
the platform in position. In our own Hawaii design of semi- sub-
mersible platforms, we believe that dynamic positioning is useful
not only for low-cost positioning, but also to meet city design
requirements to move the platforms. That is, it is a requirement
to move these platforms so the land gets a different view of the
platform and the platforms get a different view of the land. If
the platform has been inappropriately located the first time,
they can be better located at relatively little cost, to follow
the season or demographic changes in society.

The Hawaii design is essentially astllows: We have de-
signed these platforms in modules of three vertical towers per
module. In the particular configuration we have here that each
of the towers is 240 feet high and 80 feet in diameter, which re-
quires a depth in water of about 300 feet in which to operate.
This makes it very good for the West Coast and not very good for
the East Coast. You have ample water depths of 300 feet or deep-
er on the West Coast. A thin column goes into the water surface
about 27 feet in diameter, then a platform deck above it with a
capability of putting low rise structures as high as 10 stories
on the structure above. The slide shows a cardboard model of
one of these platforms. It demonstrates a little better how it
is constructed. A 3-tiered deck is located above the water,
each deck being about 2-1/2 acres in area, columns rise through
the deck on which you could have buildings. The three low-rise
apartments go down underneath the surface of the water. You will
observe that there is a great deal of freedom here for ships and
barges to come underneath the platform and discharge the goods
vertically where they are needed. There is no horizontal move-
ment of goods in the platform area itself, just vertical utili-
zation. In the columns, down in the deepest part where there is
cold water, is the place to utilize for your heavy machinery.
This location meets several requirements -- the ballast require-
ment makes it an ideal location for industrial functions. In
the upper portion of the columns, one can have ports and windows
for viewing or even for some kind of men in the sea function
through locks which are connected to the sea.

The question about the feasibility of building these --the
feasibility has already been established. Most of you are fam-
iliar with EKOFISK oil storage tank. The EKOFISK oil storage
tanks consist of nine columns, each of which is 80 meters high,
and many of you will recognize that 80 meters is 240 feet, and
it's a coincidence that that's exactly the same height as the
columns in the Hawaii design. These are made of pre-stressed
concrete. This is not, in fact, a floating platform in that its
final configuration and as it rests on the bottom of the North
Sea. However, it was built by the techniques that we recommend,
that is, a slip form technique utilizing the crane and the slip
form, a rather standard technique. It was also built in a
cofferdam so that no shipyard was required for building purposes.
When the structure was completed, the cofferdam was converted into
a small boat harbor and park area for the people of Stavinger.
The EKOFISK structure was then floated out to the site in the
North Sea where it was sunk in place and used as an oil storage
platform. From our standpoint, the chief characteristic of
EKOFISK demonstrates that the technological feasibility of these
platforms is present, and that also gives you some notion of the
cost. The total cost of building this platform was as I under-
stand it, $27 million -- a very low cost indeed for a platform
of this size.

We, in Hawaii, did not have $27 million -- we had only
$25,000, so we built a 1/20th scale model and we built it out of
steel, not concrete, just because in the small model scale, the

Craven

steel worked better for our purposes. Here, you see one of the
10 modules that we did build. A picture of the 10 modules assem-
bled on land shows them to be unattractive and ugly. They block
the skyline, are very congested. Here are the same modules
floating in the water and as you can see, the great bulk of the
displacement is below the surface of the water. You'll see some
students in the water disporting themselves. The students assem-
bled the platform in the water demonstrating the ease with which
the superstable platform is assembled in water. Remember, the
superstable platform is easy to assemble because it doesn't move
in response to the waves. It does move easily in response to
drag forces. Therefore, the problem of mating some of these is
a relatively simple one. Much simpler than the general mating
of unstable platforms in the sea which is a very complex opera-
tion if the two modules are pitching and heaving. Finally, we
have an architect's model to indicate that these offshore Dlat-
forms will not be the unsightly things that we've come to associate
with some of the floating platforms. There is shown architect's
model composed of 27 of these offshore modules. There is a view
from the free surface and a view from below, where the major
part and the bulk of the modules are.

In summarizing, I would add a few more technical facts.
We've had three independent cost studies done on these modules
and all these studies indicate the the concrete module, the bare
module itself, can be built somewhere between $4.5 and $5 million
for the concrete structure. These three independent estimates,
indicate that a functional platform for whatever function you
want, which includes the power and the utility and the transpor-
tation can be provided at a capitalized cost of $45 a square
foot of useable space. Such a cost makes it more than competi-
tive with costs on land because it's very difficult to get high
density buildings on land at $45 square foot even without the
transporation, without the power and the sewage treatment plant
capitalized in the total cost. Like any future cost estimate,
there is uncertainty in the estimate. The estimates, however,wee
made by three independent parties who didn't talk to each other.
If they are wrong, they are all equally wrong.

In summary, we see a growth pattern which can be developed
consisting of low density on the land, essentially a forbidden
zone right at the coastline itself, the forbidden ecologically
sensitive edge open to the public domain. Modern high-speed
mass marine transportation systems, smooth and comfortable,
economic, low energy utilizing, are employed to connect with
stable platforms on which there are power plants, industry,
petrochemical plants and living spaces. We think that this is
a solution for modern cities, but we haven't the foggiest notion
of how to bring it about in our society.

THE COST BENEFIT CLASS STRUGGLE

Claude Gruen
Principle Economist
Gruen, Gruen, + Associates
San Francisco

I am not going to talk about specific hardware, though I
agree with Dr. Craven's comments concerning need to provide
people with the kind of information they need to make choices.
In fact, my overall thesis is to submit first, that in fact
economic, systems analysis, sociological already contain tech-
niques that we can use to give people the information they need
to make choices. Secondly, one of my assumptions really is that
the place to make those choices is ultimately in the political
process. I don't think its the job of the economist, the phy-
sical scientist or the computer man to set values and make these
chcces. To the extent that our society is going to solve these
problems short of a wrenching institutional change, it has to be
done in the political process. I for one, see nothing wrong
with that. However, that process has been operating, when it
comes to coastal zone management, with I think a little less in-
formation than we are capable of providing.

I think before we get carried away with the techniques of
providing information, information about the alternate choices
that the body politiclas in front of it, we need to frame what
it is we are doing, in a little bit of an historical sense, if
for no other reasons than to give us, the professionals, some
humility and to give the public some awareness of what we can
put over on them so they will watch us.

I'd like to do that by going back and suggesting, first of
all, that what we are talking about here is increasing the al-
location of our land resources. We are going to have to make
decisions about how we properly use it. Well, properly to one
group means something totally different than properly to another
group. So in all of these cases, what we are going to have to
do is make decisions about what land uses can there be on par-
ticular pieces of coastal areas. In doing this, we are contin-
ually in a battle that in fact has been fought since man first
came to this earth. When he was in tribes man battled for the
choice hunting ground or the most desirable places to pick
berries. As soon as specialization came in, we began to develop
classes. Today we have no classes in America. Now, I thirkthat
while, being a philosophical point, we have to get over it.

Any of us that work in this area of land management, work
in providing information for land use decisions. We have in
America today, - reasonably homogeneous groups, and I suspect
that most of us in this roon fall in one of them, based on edu-
cation, occupation, income and half a dozen others, although
those first three are much more important to most of us. We
have values that differ from those of Other groups.

Gruen

Now in day-to-day activities of our firm, I recently over-
heard one of my interviewers addressing a group on a cost benefit
study we were doing on open space. As she interviewed the in-
dividual in very much the same way you would push the usual open
space program. What we were trying to find out was what are the
critical factors that the community wanted to get from this pro-
ject, so we could give them a relevant cost benefit analysis.
He finally broke down after about an hour of prodding by a very
clever interviewer and he said, "Well, you know before these
young people came in here, I used to get in the newspaper every
week. I haven't been in the newspaper now for 10 months." For
this man, living in his environment, that's a legitimate factor.
We see the same thing when builders talk about growth--they in-
evitably talk about the jobs that are going to be created.

Recently, we worked in one community that traditionally
wanted progress, but now when the state was going to provide an
active recreational park in their area, the community came out
against the park. In their arguments was this very much middle
(upper middle class, really)class, community concept that if we
allow the state to build this park, we're going to have Winne-
bagos up and down the streets. The way that Winnebagos was said
was clearly that this was a very undesirable thing. Retention
of quiet had a value. I think we have space values and they're
fighting for pieces of the coastal environment. BCDC is plan-
ning the same thing when we talk about pieces of the Bay in San
Francisco.

Now, there's nothing new about this kind of struggle. But
it is very important not only who wins, but in terms of our
society, how the game is played. Now, initially, when we first
began to develop these class interests, it was played essential-
ly by physical force. The toughest knight was the one who de-
veloped a feudal jurisdiction which gave him the primary right
to decide who gets what piece of land. That was a very destruc-
tive way to go about making these decisions. We spent so much
of our time fighting for who gets what piece of the pie that we
didn't have the time or energy to produce a very large pie.

So we began to evolve into a market society, we began to
let the market make part of these decisions. Now initially, of
course, the Kings monopolized this market, and it was the father
of my science, Adam Smith, who essentially waved the banner for
the middle class merchant group in which he was telling them,
"the market will work better for everyone's benefit," particular-
ly the group that he was speaking for. If we take away from the
King the right to push this thing toward their direction by
granting monopolies, making physical distribution and so on.
Now we recognize that even here, there have been continual ef-
forts to change the way the market allocates. We have tried to
stop fraud, institutions, but this works obviously for the con-
sumer classes less than for those who are perpetrating the
frauds, We have the Sherman Anti-trust Act and various anit-
monopoly laws. Even so, it was recognized that the market alone
could not do an efficient job of allocating all our resources,
in particular, our land use resources.

Now, frequently, we try to be objective and we wind up
being probably no more objective than most people, but we do
try and we wind up being damned by both sides. On the one hand,
there are those who feel to let the developer build and make
money is a sin. On the other hand, there are those who feel that
development is good for development's sake and that private pro-
perty rights, as has been shown, are inviolate. Well, as a
matter of fact, if we can show anything, we show they are not
inviolate. Why won't the market officially do the coastal job?
Well, for at least four very good reasons.

Gruen

First, the market does not put a price on the by-products
of the services and goods that are produced. The jargon for this
is externalities. For years we all drove our automobiles and
thereby created a dumping ground for our air pollutants. Only
we didn't buy it, because there was no price on it, we got it
free. When I build a house that blocks your view, I simply buy
the ground. I don't pay for the fact that one by-product of my
building going up and getting the view is that your view may be
blocked. In this mornings conversations, Joe Bodovitz gave an-
other example talking about public access. As more and more
units are put into Corona del Mar, the buildup of required ac-
cessability is strained but no individual developer pays for
that. We're working on one county now where 8% of that county's
roads takes 27,% of their budget, and yet that 8% serves a very
small percentage of the total population because its roads go
up into the mountains where there are second home sites. So the
market simply doesn't put any price on these externalities, or
by-products that are produced. These by-products are the types
of environmental damages that we are all increasingly concerned
about.

Secondly, is the action by the people who put these land
use policies in effect, provide some sort of services free--most
noticeably parks, recreation and schools Now as soon as the
public provides a service free, the market can no longer work to
allocate that. Now this policy has boomeranged, for example, in
the case of beaches and parks. What we thought was important
and should be provided at a low cost, we had the state provide.
The result is that even when more and more people want a beach
or park, the state can't outbid residential users, because they
have no way of bidding for that park, since they don't pay for
it except through the state. There are many other examples of
where we have a service that is provided by the public and the
market can't operate.

Let me break here for this one story I do want to tell.
This report I've got in my hand is a study that was done by Gruen
and Gruen with Sedley Cook. It was prepared for the Department
of Navigation and Ocean Development on setting guidelines for
coastal management decisions. As it turned out, the Department
really did not want control and elected not to use this, and in-
stead of the Department managing it the electorate voted in
Proposition 20. In the public hearings, several of the people
and the commissioners were saying, "now, who is the communist
who said all these things?" The things they were referring to
were some of the same things I'm telling you today. Even though
I hadn't been asked to testify, I was asked to speak and I said,
"Well, I'm one of those communists and I'd like to just give
you the literature of some of the other communists that have
been saying these same things for years." They include of
course, people like Milton Freedman, who is not famous for es-
pousing communistic views.

The third reason that the market never could be expected
to make these allocations for the social benefit is simply that
we are mortal. An operating society, hopefully, must be really
proof enough, in itself. Society, as we know it, will be around
for a lot longer than any of us sitting here, but when we make
individual decisions, we recognize that we have a limited life
span. Therefore, we tend to have a relatively high discount
rate for our decisions. Society shouldn't have such a high dis-
count rate. So for these reasons, the market by itself never
could, nor can it today, make these decisions. And the political
process has to get into it.

Now we have long recognized that there are economic tools
that can be used to provide information about the choices that
are before the body politic. Now, we first used these tools

Gruen

really during the 30's in cost benefit analysis, which I think
is still the word to use. It is also increasingly a land and
systems analysis, economic computer technology, but we began to
use them during the 30's when the things that were highly valued
by the kind of professional classes that were studying the guide
rules for cost benefit analysis were jobs in the period of depre-
sion, and the goods and services that would be provided by the
market as a result of whatever alternative was being filled.

So the first Corps of Engineers bluebook dealt primarily
with primary economic benefit. How much electric power would be
produced, costing how much, times the number of people who would
use it. Secondary benefits, how many jobs were created, and the
tendency by the way that cost benefit formulation was adminis-
tered was to suggest that we should always build the dam.

Now, this was a period, of course, when most of us that
were developing cost benefit methodology, did have enough income
so that we could get to recreational areas. Whereas, most of
America was not sufficiently affluent to get to what was avail-
able. So we were providing recreation and jobs for our price.
Increasingly, though, Amercia became more affluent and we began
to find Winnebagos and older cars using up our recreational
space. Now we can see, and I think this is very desirable, but
I think we ought to recognize the source, new cost benefit form-
ulations. We can read in economic journals that when we talk
about development of Mineral King, for example, we must consider
option demand--preservation demand--that is not just the users
but those who may want to see that it gets preserved, those
that are non-users. It is very important, for example, to keep
wilderness intact.

Dick Myers feels the same protection for the use of the
water. Dick did an interesting study to find out who uses dif-
ferent kinds of recreational areas. He found that very close to
the roads, were the kinds of people in occupational levels that
are in the semi-skilled and unskilled range--heavy equipment op-
erators, truckers, etc. As you went further up the mountainside
you have less equipment and also began to get higher levels of
education, income and occupation. And at the top of the mountain
where there was very few of them, came mathemeticians, philoso-
phers, senators and professionals.

Now I think that complies with the kind of cost benefit
formulations we're now developing on things like Mineral King.
I want to put this in not because I think cost benefit shouldn't
be used, I think it must be. But, because I think we ought to
recognize the way the cost benefit formula is developed can often
bias or push the information in one way or the other. This
means that we have to be very explicit, very honest about what
we are doing and then proceed to use the tool.

The tool, basically talks about two kinds of measures.
First of all, there is the measure of the primary economic good.
I must say that the one bone that I might have to pick with
Mickey Milane is that we do not have enough information. All to
often, we have so much data that we can't see through it. I
Think our problem is to know how to ask the right questions, to
use the data we have and, of course, the computer has a role
there.

What do we mean by primary economic benefit? We mean no
more than what is the benefit of the goods and services that
would be produced by each of the alternative land uses we have.
The key concept here is one of opportunity cost. If we do not
put it here, but put it somewhere else, will those who use that
thing pay more and get less quality. This can be done very very
simply. We merely need to categorize our land uses on the basis

Gruen

of the kinds of resources they provide to those who give goods
and services. Frequently, this means nothing more than finding
out if it goes on a different kind of resource base, what are tim
increased capital costs. If this refinery goes inland, how much
does it cost to run the piping in? If the nuclear power plant
goes inland, how much will the cooling tower cost? There are
discernible figures. Secondly, what are the extra operating
costs of going somewhere else? Or, for a product differentiated
site, what do we have to pay to make up for the kind of amenities
we can get on the coastal zone?

Let me give one quick example of one of the things you
learn. If you look at artichokes, what you find out is that ar-
tichokes today, or when we did this study, the grower got 14
cents per pound. He is paying for the land he uses, and it is
relatively few acres in California that can grow artichokes,
about $2,000 per acre. Now this is the relationship between the
price he gets and what he pays for the land. Residential devel-
opment is quickly chewing up this land--in fact, we found that
most of the artichoke growers that we interviewed had already
sold their land to developers and were waiting for the developers
to build. If the developer takes that, he can pay $6,000 to
$12,000 per acre. Once he puts his houses on it, it becomes an
irreversible change. That is, to get those artichokes back, we
would have to buy six houses at $30,000, or pay $180,000 an acre.

What will happen if we want to eat artichokes? We can
grow them in greenhouses. Greenhouses cost the equivalent of
about $150,000 per acre. That would mean, to those who buy ar-
tichokes, that the cheapest artichoke you could get is the one
that the grower has to charge $1.50 per pound for. Now this
kind of analysis is not hard to do.

One foot note, we do have to say who or what products
are we talking about? We did one report for the California
Department of Fish and Game looking at values of the marine re-
sources, and it was very important to point out that you had one
totally different value if you look at the fish as a recreational
item. That is, if you look at the service as a fishing exper-
ience, and if you look at the fish as something you eat. These
are two different values and they are serving two different con-
stituencies. All I can say is that I think that we have a sug-
gestion. We can do this kind of analysis. We can also estimate
what are the externalities. Frequently we don't need 300 meet-
ings with citizens groups to determine how they feel about the
externalities. We can do a statistically proper sample and ask
those who would be affected directly quite simple questions. Such
as, "Would you pay X Y Z and so on not to have those derricks
standing out in the channel? Now the citizens of Santa Barbara
can answer those questions. They will give you some feel for
what that particular externality is worth. Its not perfect, but
I would agree that this kind of information is available, obtain-
able, and its much cheaper to go out and otain it in this manner
than to have your 300 meetings. It is also more representative.

Fiscal analysis can be done the same way and presented to
the body politic informatioi about the services that would be
gotten from alternative uses of land. The bad, the externalities
that would be imposed by each of these units, and what the
fiscal impact will be on their pocketbook. These are do-able
things that are not terribly complicated and I think that with
that kind of information, we can make better use of our coastal
land within the existing institutional framework.

GROWTH AND THE USE OF THE COMPUTER IN
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

Keynote Address
Michael P. Milane
President
Datatronic Systems Corporation
Computer Sciences and Environmental Technology Division

Environmental quality, coastal zone management, growth,
and the use of the computer; are they really related to each
other?

First, I want to take this opportunity to personally
welcome you here this afternoon, and I also want to thank you
for inviting me here to Newport Beach to speak at this national
forum on "Coastal Zone Management and the Western States Future.'
This issue has vital implications--not only for the Western
States--but for our nation in general.

I would like to talk about growth In the coastal areas, the
potential of the computer as a resource, and environmental
quality; and to challenge you to see what you can do to apply
your kind of professional expertise, to rouse tha spirit and
power of the computer, to the solution of our growth and coastal
zone management problems.

While this is truly a "national" conference, the fact that
it is being held here in Southern California provides a somewhat
different perspective to our view of the growth issue than if we
were meeting In either Dallas or Chicago. And this is good. It
is Important that we recognize the wide diversity of values and
concerns that are Involved. The one thing we should avoid are
dogmatic, categorical, and computerized approaches to solving
our coastal zone management problems. We are in a period of the
evolution of values, and we should both respect and encourage a
wide diversity of views. Different social and economic groups
will inevitably have different perceptions of the costs and
benefits of various kinds of coastal growth--or for that matter,
the lack of it. Different coastal areas likewise differ in
their perceptions of these questions. Again, this is as it
should be. But, beware of insistent voices that tell us cate-
gorically what our values should be. Let us adhere firmly to
our own values and never hesitate to speak up for them. But let
us also be tolerant and understanding of the values of others.
They just might be right!

Above all, we need the openness of communication on the
coastal growth issue, such as you are providing here, for a
free and honest exchange of information and technology. This
conference can help set both the direction and the tone of such
a national dialogue.

During the last four years this Nation has begun a broad,
conscientious effort to clean up the environment. We have moved

Milane

swiftly to reduce air and water pollution, control pesticides,
abate environmental noise, deal with our solid waste management
problems, protect wildlife and regulate the development in the
coastal areas. We have given strong leadership to international
cooperation in some of these same areas. Most of these are rela-
tively simple, preliminary tasks where the objective is not
inherently controversial.

The subject of this conference, however, is an entirely
different matter. For more than a century growth has been as-
sociated with prosperity, expanding opportunity and social pro-
gress. It has produced so many benefits, both apparent and real,
that for a long time it was an unquestioned end in itself.

But throughout the western states--that attitude is fading
fast. Many are beginning to ask whether we should continue to
regard growth--growth of population, growth of technology, and
growth of industry--as the primary measure of progress. Stated
simply, is more necessarily better?

Of course, this is a question which has no useful answer
unless we asks "More of what?" This is just another way of
suggesting that the question of growth in the coastal areas is
not one of absolutes--are we for or against growth? The really
meaningful questions are the kinds and the directions of growth,
or, the rates of growth. This is probably one of the areas
where the computer offers its greatest service as a tool for
analysis.

To look at the answers to these questions involves a
tremendous collection of data and information. For instance,
population density by census tracts must be looked at for past
periods using the ability of the computer to forecast population
density and mobility into the future.

In the broad sense, concern over the growth issue is
closely related to concern over the quality of life, and I am
convinced that this issue is emerging as the issue for the rest
of the 1970's. Our society is at a junction where traditional
assumptionas are being tested by new aspirations, new national
priorities, and new values. That is why we are here today in
Newport Beach.

The fact is that growth issues are being hotly debated all
across the country, not in the abstract, theoretical terms of
the university, but in the realm of real life concerns--energy
needs, housing, environmental protection, land use regulation,
transportation systems, and so forth. It is in these terms the
issue really comes to life. It seems to me that questions of
growth and coastal zone management--both how much and what kind-
can only be addressed practically within the context of a value
system. Thus, the question of whether we should have more or
less highways can only be addressed usefully in relation to the
values we attach to mobility, environmental impact, traffic con-
gestion, air pollution, etc. And the way we perceive and apply
such values must usually be in the framework of actual choices
between real alternatives.

Also, in the energy field, there is no useful way to
address the question of whether to have more or less energy,
except in terms of the positive and negative value impacts of
the various choices. Our society has come to attach a steadily
higher value to clean, healthy air. It has imposed strict
controls on sulfur oxide emissions from fossil fuel power gener-
ation facilities. Obviously, such controls--and the underlying
values--have important implications for coastal zone growth, in
terms of power plant siting and investment patterns.

Milane

Our society is addressing coastal growth questions, both
locally and nationally, in our homes and communities as well as
in the Congress and Federal agencies. Transportation control
plans proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency are a case
in point. Growing land use regulation, both at the regional
commission and State level, are another. Both reflect the new
priorities and the new values which are rapidly evolving within
the western states.

It is important, I think, to emphasize the evolutionary
nature of these shifting national priorities. They are reel,
but there is still no national concensus on many of the coastal
growth issues--both because there is still considerable uncer-
tainty over what it is we really want, and because our newer
values have not yet been fully tested in the crucible of choice
and the courts. We have already entered the period of such
testing in the 1970's.

For example, I think it fair to say that there is a
national concensus in favor of clean air. There is really no
argument over the overall objective of air quality. At the
same time transportation control plans for urban areas are pro-
posed to meet the primary ambient air quality standards by 1975.
And if those plans call for drastic reductions in automobile
driving, there may be a real howl. Plainly, the value of clean
air has run head-on into the value of personal transportation
freedom. It is also instructive to note that the howl tends to
vary in intensity, in different parts of the country--once again
attesting to the diversity of value perceptions.

I see the democratic, political process as a critical
element in the way we deal with growth and coastal zone manage-
ment. Societies values cannot be altered by decree but only
through a complex, evolutionary process of social interaction.
This fact underlines the critical importance of fully involving
our citizens in the decision-making process of coastal resources
use.

Once again, I would emphasize that what we are dealing
with are choices, which should be based upon a careful systema-
tic analysis of the data, costs, and benefits involved in the
management of coastal resources. The economic cost of urban
sprawl and other forms of poor development are usually very real.

In this connection, a growing phenomenon around the
country is the local "no-growth" or "controlled-growth" ordin-
ance which, through a variety of mechanisms, seeks to put a lid
on further growth. As you know, such ordinances are coming
under strong attack in the courts and the legal issues, I
believe, are still to be resolved. The Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 is a good example of this.

Looking at such laws, they represent a sort of absolute,
all-or-nothing response to a complex management problem, invol-
ving the very kind of rigidity which we should avoid in dealing
with social problems. What many communities have experienced is
uncontrolled, undirected growth, without plan or purpose; a
process in which permanent choices are made without community
involvement. In the absence of a more rational process, it is
a small wonder that many communities are shouting: "Stop!"
This is one reason, in my opinion, that it is so important that
we use the most sophisticated available technology and the com-
puter in coastal zone management. It is essential that we
develop rapidly at the State and local level, orderly and effec-
tive mechanisms for making rational choices in the use of
coastal resources.

72.

Milane

I was just asked by the press today whether I was for or
against offshore oil development, deep water ports, and similar
facilities in the coastal areas. My answer, of course, is that
there are certain places where we should probably not undertake
such developments, and we should never push them down the
throats of communities which are opposed. At the same time,
there are places where such developments can be undertaken, and
in ways which will minimize the environmental impact and also
provide substantial benefits to our society. It is a matter of
careful analysis of costs and benefits, and of the trade-offs.
Once again, it is basically a matter of making rational orderly
choices.

Public opposition to such development is sometimes descri-
bed as emotional and unreasoning. The fact is, I believe, that
we have seldom presented the public with any rational process
for participating in the choices involved. As in the cases of
uncontrolled coastal growth, these kinds of development have
just seemed to happen and the public has been confronted with
decisions that have already been made. If we are to avoid emo-
tional responses, then I think it is plain that we must develop
institutions and processes that provide truly effective means
for public participation and choice, and in-depth capabilities
for the analysis of coastal development.

Power plant and refinery siting are other cases in point.
Some feel that public participation in such matters can only
lead to delay. However, these individuals tend to be the same
ones who describe public response in such cases as emotional.
We can't have it both ways. We need orderly processes for makirg
choices, not confrontation. For these reasons we need power
plant siting research to develop more comprehensive computer
simulation models and analysis of their impacts.

Overall, we need to create a sense of public confidence
in the ability of the private citizen to influence the process
of decision making, and to bring about meaningful change within
the framework of our institutions. The National Environmental
Policy Act provides a major reform in this direction. The Act's
provision for environmental impact statements is essentially a
full disclosure requirement. To an extent unprecedented in our
history, government plans are made available in advance for
public examination and comment. Whatever inconvenience and dis-
comfort this process may occasionally cause, is far outweighed,
in my opinion, by the inherent value of public involvement in
the decision-making. Environmental programs and concerns touch
almost every facet of our life. They provide a major opportun-
ity to build a new confidence in the process of government, and
to bring a new vitality and a new sense of responsibility to
our citizens--both individual and corporate. I might add that
the impact statement requirement also applies to the determina-
tion of growth patterns. I am convinced that we must do a
better job than we have in the past in preparing such statements.

As we daily face the increasing reality of our energy
crisis, the interrelationships between energy and the environ-
ment are becoming very apparent. As we know, almost all forms
of energy available to us at this time involve environmental
costs of various kinds. Oil involves such costs at-the point
of production, transportation, and then at the point of use
through emissions. Coal involves such costs particularly from
the effects of strip mining and the emissions of sulfur oxides
and particulates when converted into energy. Nuclear power
involves both radiation andsafety concerns at various points in
the cycle, from fuel production to waste disposal. This is
hardly an exhaustive analysis, but enough to indicate that the
choices are not clear and simple, but involve careful identifi-
cation of the costs and benefits and of the trade-offs involved.

Milane

As with all of our environmental programs, the use of the
latest in technology is essential to our success. In the long
run, I am confident that new technology will give us clean,
abundant energy relatively free of the environmental costs we
now associate with it. Of course, I suspect that such an abun-
dance of clean energy might well give rise to an unconstrained
growth that could carry with it a new range of environmental
and social costs. As we develop such new technologies, we
should carefully assess their impacts and develop the institu-
tions for dealing with them. The availability of relatively
unlimited energy would create a strong imperative for comprehen-
sive and effective regulation of coastal development.

In the shorter run, we cannot avoid entirely the environ-
mantal costs of energy production and use--but we can minimize
them. One of the important opportunities is to conserve energy.
The President has called for a new national energy conservation
effort. All of us, in government and in the private sector,
should work to give effect to this policy. This is not a matter
of curtailing growth. What is really involved is the cutting
down on wasteful uses of energy so that it can be applied in
more useful and creative ways.

Likewise, we must move aggressively to install the
computer technologies and establish the institutions which will
reduce the environmental costs of our current energy production
and use--effective regulation of coastal developments, stack
gas scrubbing technology, desulfurization of fuels, auto emis-
sion controls, and so forth. The costs of such pollution
abatement are certainly not small.

The cost of U.S. environmental programs to meet control
standards and alleviate environmental pollution, during the
1970-1980 period, will result in the expenditure of approximatey
$287.1 billion dollars in public and private funds. However,
the value of the benefits to be derived far outweigh those costs
and it is in our national interest to get on with this job as
rapidly as possible.

As you know, I have been concerned that we do not permit
our environmental priaities to halt coastal development.
Environmental considerations are a part of our difficulties,
but only a part. Other factors include: poor planning by both
government and industry, oil import quotas, price regulation,
gas curtailment, international considerations, and a failure to
make adequate investments for research in new energy sources
and technology. Hopefully, we are making major improvements in
these areas. It will be unfortunate if we let our real energy
needs distract us from effective action to meet our equally real
environmental needs. The coastal management problems associated
with energy production will not be made to go away by slowing
down our commitment to their solution. They will only be
solved as we make the investments, do the research, and install
the technologies required.

We have all heaid it suggested that coastal zone management
will stop or slow down economic growth. Just the opposite is
the case. It is large-scale pollution--not its control--that
limits coastal growth. The American people will not and no
longer will tolerate unrestrained coastal growth, and activities
that adversely affect the public health and welfare. Thus, the
truth of the matter is that the real anti-growth forces--however
unwittingly--are those who oppose environmental progress.

This point has, I believe, profound implications for any
consideration of the interrelationships between coastal growth
and environmental quality. The sooner we minimize or eliminate
adverse environmental effects, the sooner the westem states can

7r4

Milane

direct its energies positively and more creatively.

There are a number of specific growth issues to which I
would hope this conference will devote attention. Let me touch
briefly on some of these.

We must develop better measurements of social progress and
the quality of life than we now have. The much-discussed GNP
was never designed for such a purpose and is grossly inadequate
to the job.

We need to do far more research on the economic aspects of
coastal growth questions, including studies of the economic and
other impacts of reduced rates of population growth or of a
stable population.

We need to develop institutions. such as USC's Sea Grant
Program, in both the public and private sectors to address
coastal growth Issues. In the Federal Government, we need a
focal point for the identification and analysis of long-range
trends and their implications for the nation and'the quality of
life.

We need to address the national Implications of growth and
coastal zone management issues, and open an active dialogue with
other states and industry. Population trends, energy needs,
agricultural production, and resource utilization must be exam-
ined in their totality. We should give some thought to the
intense pressures that growing demand for coastal resources will
place on the quality of life, and the stresses on our own envir-
onment that will thereby result. We cannot disassociate
ourselves on coastal growth Issues from the rest of the nation.

Finally, we need both individually and as a society to
develop a clearer vision of what kind of world it is that we
really want. In Its absence, the hard choices may only lead to
confusion. We need greater certainty as to the values we are
using as goals for long-term use of our coastal resources.

I would like to conclude my remarks txday with a request
and a challenge that you devote your best efforts to coastal
zone management; and employ the best available technology,
Including the computer, to the purpose of directing growth in
the coastal areas to the ultimate service of the quality of life.

Environmental
Crises

Pressures
from the
Political Technical
Process I Considerations

Federal COASTAL ZONE Administrative
and state
Requirements MANAGEMENT Dilemmas

Interdependen Unique
policies ecological
and factors
programs

Unproven
Management
Strategies

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND THE WESTERN STATES FUTURE

SESSION lit COMMENTS-DISCUSSION
QUESTION AND ANSWERS

Session II - Question and Answer

Answer: By Senator Carpenter - My comment with regard to what I
consider to be the best land management and use control device..
Well, let me go back. The best device for land control is none
In a free, democratic society, all right? Well, we have ended
that a long time ago.

Question: How do you arrive at that?

Answer: By Senator Carpenter - Well, all right, In terms of
pure freedom, and recognizing the constitutional right of owner-
ship of property, there are no restrictions on the usability of
your land and there's a certain attractiveness In a belief in
that system.

Question: If you had an infinite amount of land, I can see that.

Answer: By Senator Carpenter - I don't see that that Is the
issue. Because it doesn'.t make any difference the amount of laid
we are looking at unless you view the land mass of the United
States as being owned in equal proportions to the amount of
people in the U. S. today, because that Is not the system.

Question: But in terms of freedom of choice, it seems to me
that the type of system with those constraints is ultimately, on
the long term basis, going to further reduce choice because there
will not be that much choice to be made. And since this is one
of the things we believe in and one of the flings the plan ought
to do, provide the open space and the diversity .., ,and a variety
of things that different people have so that we as citizens
truly do have a choice. By no constraints at all, I think that
is the way to handle it.

Answer: By Senator Carpenter - I was not suggesting that we
were going to go back to that system, because I firmly believe
we are not. However, I would refer you, if you have not already
done so, to some of the writings that pertain to the no-zoning
areas of our country, which I think are increasing in support
and there are those thinkers in the field who increasingly rec-
ognize perhaps some benefits to a change in our zoning procedures
or in the existence of zoning as we know it. Houston, and other
places which have a very workable system without zoning. So. if
we recognize that, and I do at least. It is a starting point as
to what degree government should Impose itself on individual
rights to utilize the land he ostensibly controls. And we oan
find some very good arguments, obviously, for one who believes
in as much freedom as possible. I would find It very difficult

Session II

to live with my freedom if next door to my home in Newport Beach
a rendering works were established by that fellow exercising his
freedom. So we find the same kind of trade-off in terms of the
ownership of property as we have found in all human endeavor in
society that has to be considered. We have to stop when the
pliceman turns on his red light, even though we might not be
speeding or what have you, because he has a lot of other respon-
sibilities, and I want him out there protecting me against the
people who want to violate my rights etc. And on up the line to
government intervention; so I think there is a differentiation.

I recognize also that there are some subjects that lend
themselves most logically and fairly to the regional approach
and analysis. We must make a differentiation between land use
and control and planning as related to water and air. Because
of the transient nature of those qualities, they cannot be dealt
with in an isolated way, the way Los Angeles treats its air and
then exports it through the natural forces that we have not yet
controlled to Ritverside and Orange County. This is something
that I think demands a regional approach. The same is true of
water. So there is a differentiation that I would have to make.
I do not view land in the same way. Now some people say, "You
people live down here in Newport Beach and you have some fine
beaches, and I live in Pasadena, but I have as much right to
plan your community as you do." And because I might be a user
or what have you, I might have a little argument with him.

Question: And I would say that most ecologists disagree that
you can separate water and air in common with most systems from
the land...

Answers By Senator Carpenter - Well, there's at least one new
federal agency that shares your view in terms of land utilization
and its impact on air, for instance, a new regulation is now
being promulgated for immediate introduction, creating values I
won't even go into at this point. It is a matter of philosophy,
I think there is a differentiation to make.

Question: What I'm concerned about is the opportunity for a
property owner to use his land. By placing the highest value
you force high rise and high value of the property and what I'm
suggesting is that in neither of your opinions is this a) desir-
able, and if so, b) how can we somehow offset this maximization
goal in order to perhaps redeem land values?

Answer: By Mr. Gruen - We ecologists diagree fundamentally in
the sense that philosophically..I think democracy is a good
system and I want to see individual property rights not because
I think its the best way of allocating our land use most appro-
priately. Now where would we be if we did use a price factor to
allocate our land use. We do have a vast economy that can't op-
erate without conglomeration, or without central cities. For
example, without the people being able to get to each other you
couldn't have a growth incentive. You have got to have some
rationing of our land, and I think that by and large the market
system which essentially drives up the price of the land by
having competing bids for it obviously takes that land and puts
it into the pockets of the property owners.

We have always known that it operates in some ways that am
not socially desirable, What you are saying is that, you don't
want Orange County to develop like Miami Beach. I think this is
a legitimate function of government. You do have to have legis-
lation and controls. As far as I'm concerened the problem we
have today, and I don't think we disagree is that we have all
waited too long to postulate and enforce these planning

7'SI

Session II

regulations and controls. Let's take as an example in San Fran-
cisco, people buy buildings with the thought that they can build
an 800 foot tower, and along comes the planning board and they
say you can only build to 40 feet. Now, I think that 40 foot
level on Fisherman's Wharf is a good thing for the people. But
think of the cost of this retroactively, and I think you can see
why we have an equity problem. The equity problem means that
society as a whole in San Francisco and those who particularly
use Fisherman's Wharf, I think should be required to buy and to
pay for the equity problem. We are retroactively taking some-
thing of value away from him and I think we the public ought to
pay him back. I think we ought to pay in areas where we have
created an inequity, but by the same token you have to put on
the controls or else we get a pattern of land use that is social
ly inequitable.

Comment by Dr. Craven:

While I think this whole discussion of realtions of values
must be generally broad, and the general notion that every al-
ternative use relates to use of land and land alone.. this Just
isn't the case in this discussion alone, but isn't this the case
of thinking about land management that is only coastal land.

Our society is so structured that doing something on the
sea is not a practical commodity. You can't get a mortgage on
something which is put out free in the open ocean, because you
can't get a mortgage on anything that is not hooked on to a
piece of land. We are nS structured so that there is no way
that society can finance some alternative solutions to its pro-
blems. The society has a sort of built in block that it must
first solve its problems on land. I sat here and agreed with
your economics, but the logic of taking a power plant off the
coastal zone and moving it inland will not only be raising the
cost of the power plant, but will cause environmental problems.
The alternative is not to put the power plant on the coastal
zone, where it does not belong but to put the power plant off-
shore which will turn out to be a lower cost.

Someone asked the question about nuclear power plants.
Westinghouse and Tenneco did a recent study of offshore power
plant siting and found them to be cheaper. A lower cost nuclear
power plant can be built cheaper offshore, than you can put it
on land. When you put the same plant out to sea, that's your
coastal zone solution. When you go through all the environmentl
questions, when you go through it non-hysterically, and when you
look at it very, very calmly, you discover that you get all sorts
of environmental benefits by moving out into the ocean. You wil
get economic benefits from moving out into the ocean, you will
get all sorts of social and sociological benefits from moving
out into the ocean and you get all sorts of savings benefits
from moving out. In short, you solve almost all your problems
by moving out into the ocean. The mental philosophy is tied
very much to the land use notion, such that the solution ivolves
alternate land uses. This is the disturbing aspect of federal
legislation coming up. Legislation which would substitute the
land use act for the coastal zone act which would take the ocean
completely out of the total economic and free choice structure
of society. This is to me a very, very disturbing aspect of
all of the kinds of studies that you are talking about.

r7Q

Session II

Commient by Dr. Gruen

Well don't be disturbed on my account, because as far as
I'm concerned, land use does not exclude ocean use, I think that
if you can, in fact, show that its truly most economical to go
out offshore. Admittedly, we have rigidity in our system, but I
think that this picture clearly shows the advantages of control-
led land management. I think that one of the problems we may
have is that $45 Per sq. foot is frankly much more than any low
density use would recover. Therefore, it is Incumbent upon you,
I believe, to show ecological benefits at least in California.
If you can show that the environmental benefits are great-:
er by locating the power plants out at sea (and I don't know if
they are or not, you know, I'm not a physical scientist). There
I just can't believe that with the power crisis as it is, that
the demand pressure in California to locate them somewhere in-
land would be determined to be the only alternative site.

Question: If you can't lease the land out in the ocean, does
that mean you have to create the land in the ocean?

Answer: By Dr. Craven - No, I don't have to create the land
because I don't have to. If I were going to put a fractuating
tower out in the ocean, I would build a tower in one of those
pylon designs. I would be saving the land area that the frac-
tuating tower now occupies and then if I want space to keep adZ-
ditional towers, I have the space between the towers. So when
I'm talking $45 Per sq. ft. I'm talking $45 a square foot not in
terms of land area, but in terms of building area. The land is
free.

Question: I'm more optimistic than you are about the energy
crisis and power necessity, because with the power crisis as it
is, you don't have to get the banks to agree on a lending rate.
The PUC in this state sets the rates so the safest way and the
most economical way to build It elsewhere will prevail and the
PUC will pay for it.

Answer: By Dr. Craven - Well, you haven't been fighting the
battle of getting people to consider it.

Answers By Dr. Gruen - You have to remember Dr. Craven that
you are on what I call the leading edge of an idea. Very few of
us probably have as much background and expertise in this as you
with which to deal with your suggestion. I have difficulty
when you talk about banks because I'd have little trouble bor-
rowing on anything if I couldn't get a title report.

Answer; By Dr. Craven - That's exactly it, thats what I said
earlier about raising the money to put it in the ocean.

Comment: By Dr. Gruen - Maybe 10 years from now we won't have
the same attitude, but I think that's the problem we have to
fight when we do something new.

Question: If the statistics show that the underwater nuclear
plant Is the best way to build offshore, why haven't we been
putting themsm offshore and what is the holdup?

Answer, By Dr. Craven: - There are several holdups. The first
is that the AEC is not developing the offshore civilian under-
water reactor. I think you can put that down to politics,

Session II

because of the kind gentlement of government sitting over there
on the military side. There's been a wall set up to protect the
American public against any benefits of military technology.
Underwater reactor technology has been prevented from moving frm
the military side to the civilian side. If you look at the AEC
budget for reactor development over the pas decade, we discover
that perhaps the smallest item in the AEC budget has been devel-
opment of an offshore submerged reactor. Despite the public
statements of support by Edward Teller and statements by the
government that this is indeed the safest place to put a reactor.

If it sinks, it automatically does not go critical there's
no way you can blow up a pressurized water reactor. And its
absolutely the safest kind of reactor--if it sinks in the ocean
there's just no way that the radiation is going to create a
problem, its not going anywhere, its just going to sit there
beautifully shielded by the ocean, that's well documented, and
well known. Aut the power companies can't go into that because
the technology has not been shared by the military with the
civilian side. Adequate technology hasn't been developed on the
civilian side. You can't automatically take the best solution
and put it in the ocean even though you can get the public to do
it.

Question: I'd like to ask Dr. Craven. I was recently review-
ng some material on the deposition of sewage wastes in the
ocean presented by a gentleman from Hawaii. He pointed out in
the federal ruling that they were going to be required to utiliz
essentially park size areas on the shoreline in Hawaii for the
purpose of erecting secondary treatment plants with the sole
purpose of reducing the BOD of the effluent, whereas BOD when
deposited in the ocean waters off of Hawaii is no problem at all.
I'd like your commentary on that.

Answer: By Dr. Craven - This issue came up in the San Franci-
sco meeting of all the West Coast states held to look at this
very problem. There is substantial evidence to show that the
primary sewage in the ocean, placed in the right part of the
ocean, is the most environmentally sound solution, particularly
in Hawaii where we don't have any problem at all, and our fish
are craving for the good taste of primary sewage. Secondary
sewage goes in at the lower end of the trophic scale, resulting
in obnoxious algae problems before it is converted up the line.
So, the State of Hawaii has good documentary evidence, so good
that our Sierra Club people are marching out with banners callirg
for primary sewage treatment in Hawaii, against secondary, as
the basis on which we are actively seeking now to get legisla-
tion.

Now the curious thing, the real reason for the secondary
sewage needs across the nation is political, namely, there is an
economic benefit that accrues to a society that has coastal
waters which will receive in quality, not only admit, but prefer
primary sewage over secondary sewage. This is recognized of
course in profits, with no desire to give an economic advantage
to one part of the nation over another part of the nation. And
so it was decided that all the nation would use the most expen-
sive process whether required or not, in order to insure no
economy, that is, noncompetitive.

This is the primary argument as to why you can't go to the
much more intelligent, much more environmentally sound, much
more rational way of dealing with sewage disposal which is to
look at the quality of the receiving waters and to match your
effluent to the quality of the receiving water, whatever that
quality may be. In other words, you want to have zero discharge
- you think of zero discharge as fresh water in the ocean. Fresh

Session II

water is the most polluting thing I can think of, to be put into
the ocean. What you want to do is put in the ocean that water
which most matches the ocean and that happens to be primary
sewage.

Comments to above

Fresh water is not the most obnoxious waste you can put
into the marine system. You'd have to put an awful lot of
fresh water in.

Did you see what fresh water did to the Chesapeak Bay? It
wiped out the whole fishery and the oysters.

I'm Just telling you, it took it alot more, and there are
a lot more things, more toxic to marine organisms than fresh
water. You have to have it in tremendous quantities. Now, I'm
not disagreeing in concept..you're stepping over, maybe in your
enthusiasm for the ocean system. I think this is one of the
concerns for a nuclear power plant, while it may be safe where
you have service materials, and if there is a problem, concern-
ing waste, there is a problem with marine systems that is can
become so spread out and so diffuse, very quickly, that essen-
tially, the problem is irreversible. Whereas, on land, its more
confined. And this is a concern. It can be handled, but I
don't think we chould... the BOD I admit isn't much of a problem,
but there are certain conservative materials that can if done on
a large scale and can lead to long term problems.

Continued diologue on above

Dr. Craven: Materials like what?

Questioner: Like pesticides, etc., heavy metals, etc.

Dr. Craven: Oh, obviously when you talk about pesticides, we
are talking about biological wastes, all right?

Questioner: Biological wastes I agree with you.

Dr. Craven: As far as we are concerned, it is the least damag-
ing to the ocean (primary), the next most damaging
is seconkry, the next most damaging is tertiary,
the most damaging of all is fresh water.

Questioner: No, I would not agree with that.

Dr. Craven: Okay, on that spectrum?

Questioner: On that spectrum, maybe, but I think that has very
little meaning in terms of the types of waste we
are putting in. Parts of it are very serious, in-
cluding radioactive materials.

Dr. Craven: In Hawaii, we don't get pesticides, we don't get
heavy metals. Oh yes, we do put in heavy metals -
the volcanoes put in fantastic volumes of heavy
metals, more than any other source.

Question: I'd like to ask Dr. Gruen a question, you mentioned
most contemporary forms of cost benefit which seems to have one
objective.

Answer: By Dr. Gruen - I don't think you are aware of cost
benefit versus cost effective. I think it depens on who you are
reading. In the sense that you are using it I'd call it coat

Session II

effective. Incidently, we did do a study of ferries across the
Bay, we suggested hydrof oils was obviously the winner, and the
Golden Gate Bridge Authority put in a 26 knot conventional
vehicle that will be obsolete...

Dr. Craven: Right why?

Dr. Gruen: Well the otherzgencies kind of wanted to make a note
that it was aware of us, but it was economic, it was
esentially the kind of leading edge thing that the
Senator was talking about earlier. All I'm saying
is that the primary, the secondary and the extern-
alities have to be considered for each of those
alternatives. Now if you call that cost effective,
fine.

SHELF CURRENTS OFF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

A. J. Carsola
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company
San Diego, California

ABSTRACT

Currents over the continental shelf off Southern Califor-
nia are complicated resultants of a combination of components,
including onshore extension of geostrophic flow, wind currents,
tidal currents, and local non-steady flows due to irregular to-
pography, runoff, low-salinity sewage and high temperature
thermal outfalls, and other little-understood phenomena.

However, data from current surveys at several places
between Pt. Dume and San Diego present a surprisingly consistent
picture of the mean shelf currents in the Southern California
Bight. Currents are strongest off headlands and weakest in em-
bayments. They vary in depth in both speed and direction. Above
the thermocline, they are dominated by wind currents; below the
thermocline, tidal forces are dominant.

A study of four years of current data off the Palos Verdes
Peninsula showed the mean currents oriented along a northwest-
southeast axis parallel to the coast, with morthwest-setting
currents predominating. The occurrence of black, H2S-rich sedi-
ments, poorly-diversified benthic faunas, and possibly a higher
incidence of anomalies in demersal fish also occurs to the
northwest of the White's Point outfall system, strongly correl-
ated with the predominant direction 6f sub-thermocline currents.

Limited measurements by Shepard and his associates have
demonstrated that currents in submarine canyons are predominant-
ly down-canyon, towards the offshore basins. Both mean and
instantaneous down-canyon speeds generally exceed those of up-
canyon currents.

INTRODUCTION

Pollutants are introduced into an area such as the Southem
California Bight through atmospheric fallout, flood runoff, by
ships and through wastewater outfalls, and through contact with
volumes of surrounding sea water. The initial interactions
between wastewaters and receiving waters are physical. A con-
taminant or potential pollutant in a volume of water introduced
into a specified volume of the ocean may mix with the receiving
waters or be transported elsewhere. In the first case, diffusiom
irregular movements of water through turbulent and molecular
processes, generate a local exchange of the property without net
transport; in the second case, advection, the property is

Carsola

transported by moving water without effective mixing with the
surrounding water. In nature, of course, both processes occur.

Those responsible for the controlled discharge of waste-
waters into the sea are concerned with initial dilution and with
subsequent advection of the resultant partially mixed waters to
areas well beyond the point of initial entry.

Three principal types of currents can be identified: (1)
those related to the distribution of mass, (2) those caused
directly by the stress of the wind on the sea surface, and (3)
tidal currents.

The first type called geostrophic currents, results from
the lack of coincidence of isobaric surfaces (along which the
pressure is constant) and level surfaces (along which no compon-
ent of gravity acts). In the sea, isobaric surfaces slope
relative to level surfaces in a direction opposite to surfaces
of equal density. Water moves slowly down the sloping surface,
and the resulting current is deflected by the earth's rotation
(called the Coriolis force). The small deviations from a state
of perfect static equilibrium (in which level and isobaric sur-
faces coincide) can be determined from the density at different
depths. Density is computed at many depths from observed
temperature, salinity, and pressure observations. These data
are taken during hydrographic cruises or surveys in which many
temperature and salinity observations are made at many locations
at multiple depths.

These currents are fully developed only in water deeper
than about 500m; however, considerably modified by bottom fric-
tion, their influence extends almost to the breaker zone.

The second type of current is due to wind stress on the
sea surface. The wind moves the surface water, which is then
subject to both friction and the Coriolis force. In very deep
water the surface water moves at an angle of 45 degrees to the
wind direction. This motion is transferred to the underlying
layer, causing it to move, but at a lower speed. At the greatet
depth in the layer affected by the process, the water is moving
very slowly in a direction opposite to the surface current.
This current profile is called the Ekman Spiral. The angle
between the surface current and wind direction depends on
latitude and interference from water piled up by the wind. The
integrated effect over the entire layer under the influence of
the wind is an average transport at right angles to the wind. A
second effect is the redistribution of mass, which produces a
geostrophic flow, the first type of current described.

Off southern California, the onset of strong, steady winds
blowing in the late winter moves the surface water to the west
and permits water to well up. This water brings up nutrients,
which support heavy plankton blooms and cause the area to be
one of high organic production. The resulting distribution of
mass maintains a geostropnic current.

Tidal currents are produced when the tide rises and falls
in the ocean as the result of the gravitational attraction be-
tween earth, moon and sun and the centrifugal force which
balances the attractions. Although lunar and solar tides pro-
duce a rhythmic wave motion, irregular sea-bottom and shoreline
topography causes many secondary effects. The observed tide is
the resultant.

Of particular immportance in problems such as the disposal
of wastewater in the ocean are the regions in which currents
mingle. Convergences exist in areas where currents merge, and
divergences occur where surface currents arise and diverge. In

Carsola

coastal waters, which have a complex system of currents of a
wide spectrum of dimensions and velocities, many such features,
large and small, occur. Their importance in the distribution of
pollutants is obvious, but detailed knowledge of such phenomena
is unfortunately limited.

Another type of current, the turbidity current, is usually
associated with submarine slopes. These currents are heavily-
laden with suspended sediment, increasing the internal density
over the surroundings, and confining the flow to the region of.
the sea floor. The direction of flow is downslope at speeds
claimed to approach 50 miles per hour. They are important in
submarine canyons and on submarine slopes.

Geostrophic currents may be dominant in the coean where
depths are greater than 500 meters; however, in the nearshore
waters overlying the continental shelf and upper continental
slope, currents may be complex and highly variable, due to the
restrictive effects of two boundaries--the sea floor and the
shoreline. Resultant currents are more directly affected, and
to a greater degree, by wind and tide forces, internal waves,
boundary irregularities and low salinity waters from coastal
rivers, storm drainage systems, and large sewage outfalls. Local
water movements in close proximity to the shore are further com-
plicated by wave, rip, and longshore currents.

SHELF CURRENTS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT

Introduction

There has been very little investigation of the currents
on the mainland shelf, perhaps because of the complexity of the
factors and forces that affect and shape these currents. Of the
investigations that have been made, most have been conducted in
conjunction with studies for the siting and design of marine
wastewater outfalls. As a consequence, the data have been col-
lected in localized areas, and for the most part, over short
periods of time--l to 2 years at the most. In a few areas,
current measurements have been made in the vicinities of outfalls
over longer periods. Figure 1 shows the areas in which current
studies that are reviewed in this section have been made.

Most of the current study work conducted over the last 15
to 20 years has been done with drogues or drift cards, although
a few studies have supplemented these data with measurements
using current meters. It should be recognized that drogues,
drift cards, and current meters produce different types of data.
A current drogue presumably follows (ignoring the problems of
wind drag or friction) a particular mass of water as it moves
uner the various current-inducing forces. Drift cards provide
an indication of the strength and general direction of onshore
surface currents. To provide useful data, of course, the drift
cards must reach the shore and be found. Current meters provide
information on the strength and direction of the current at a
given point over some period of time. All three types of infor-
mation may be useful, but their differences should be recognized
and the investigator must be reconciled to the fact that the
data resulting from the the use of these different techniques
are not always comparable.

The circulation of water over the entire shelf off south-
ern California has been discussed by Stevenson (1963) in a paper
oriented towards sewage disposal into the overlying waters. He
has noted that the basic water movement over the shelf is to the
southeast and along the coast. He also calls attention to a
current flowing in a westerly direction from Ventura to Point
Conception.

Carsola

1210w 1 20oW 119oW 118O W II7W

JVT J PTION.
C S T .~~. I >-~ ,

340 1 /- SANTA MONICA- 1
lll, SANTA ROSA P BA A l.NO BEACH T.

W T.FIERMIN | 1
.'a tN'WPORT BEACH If
SAN NICHOLAS PITA PT

SSA.ATA JNSANONOFRE A

3PN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OCEANSIDE
> ];~~~CMARLSBAD
ELNCRUELI. SAN CLE" UMENTE

I6N PT.LM
14L ~ ~1. ~1 . I T-- .. !.. _

34�N L
w~ ~~~~ANACLEMENT 1.p I

32ON

Figure 1. Locations of Recent Nearshore Current Surveys in the Southern California Bight

He advised that headlands are better locations for outfalls
than embayments because currents are stronger in these areas.
The White's Point and Pt. Loma outfalls fall into this category.
He warned against location of ocean outfalls on coasts southeast
of major headlands because of relatively calm water and little
turbulence due to sheltering from prevailing winds and currents.
The Orange County and Hyperion outfalls fall into this latter
category.

The embayment with the least water motion is the shelf
from Ventura to Santa Barbara, becuase of protection by the
Channel Islands and the Santa Barbara headland. Small eddies
are superimposed upon the weak flow towards the west referred to
above. In 1963, Stevenson noted the presence of at least 8 small
outfalls in the Santa Barbara-Ventura embayment and cautioned
against any significant increase in waste discharge into that
area.

From Newport Beach to La Jolla, the coastline forms a
smooth arc. The coastal southeasterly flowing current, under tIo
influence of the northwest winds, gradually spreads away from
the shore. The current, therefore, has a progressively decreas-
ing effect on the nearshore waters. Toward the south end of the
shoreline are, eddies on the shore side of the current become
more pronounced, and it may be their influence which aids in
producing a nearshore counter-current in the vicinity of Ocean-
side. The counter-current flows to the northwest immediately
adjacent to the shore and constantly impinges on the coastal
boundry, This flow, along with the shoreward-moving wind drift,
results in water motion which is almost continuously directed to
the coast. Consequently, iff effluent is discharged into these
waters, it must be recognized that under most conditions it will
move toward shore.

Carsola

Wave action is also considerable along this open coast,
both from local wind waves and from the longer period swell. The
waters are constantly agitated and the dissolved oxygen values
are as high as in any waters along the coast, The area is, theA
not ideal for the location of a submarine outfall, but the sit-
uation is ameliorated by considerable turbulent mixing which
does not exist in protected locations. There were seven small
outfalls along this portion of the coast in 1963. None have
presented problems as yet, as long as they discharge treated
sewage at present rates. If the discharge is significantly in-
creased, undesirable consequences can be predicted.

Existing Data

Data from shelf current surveys are available for those
sites shown in Figure 1. Information regarding these surveys is
additionally summarized in Table 1. The author assembled and
compiled most of the data discussed in this report while a mem-
ber of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Projeot
(SCCWRP) and wrote the sections on the subject in the report
published in March 1973. While the support of SCCWRP is
acknowledged, the opinions are those of the author only.

TABLE 1

CURRENT SURVEYS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT. 1935-72
MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION
AREA TIME SPAN OR TECHNIQUE SOURCE

Santa Barbara 1969,1971 surface drift cards Kolpack. 1971
Channel

Santa Monica 1955,1956 surface drift cards,drogues Stevenson,
Bay current meters Tibby & Gorsline
1956

Palos Verdes 1960-1964 current meters Parkhurst,Whitt
(White Point) 1972 & Gorsline;
SCCWRP, 1973

San Pedro 1935 current meters, current Haight, 1939
Channel pole

Orange 1964,1966 drogues SCCWRP, 1973
County 1967

San Onofre 1964,1965 surface drogues, subsur- Marine Advimrs
face current meters 1965a,1965b

Oceanside 1971 bottom drifters- current R. Stone
meters(?) unpublished

Pt. Loma 1956,1957 drogues, current meters, Gaul & Stewart
1972 drogues 1960: SCCWRP,
1972

Carsola

The most comprehensive set of data is that acquired for
the Palos Verdes Peninsula area by the Los Angeles County Sani-
tation District (LACOSAN) water circulation for the vicinity of
the (JWPCP) Joint Water Pollution Control Plan outfall area off
White's Point. The most extensive time and depth coverage has
been provided in these data, collected over a 4 year period from
1960 to 1964. Therefore, a detailed discussion of the results
of SCCWRP analysis of these data, combined with the data taken
jointly by SCCWRP and LACOSAN in 1972, is presented in the
suceeding section.

COASTAL CURRENTS OFF PALOS VERDES PENINSULA

LACOSAN Surveys, 1960-1964

These data were taken from 1960 to 1964. The site was in
the vicinity of present monitoring Station C-l, about 7.5 km
west of the 90-inch diffuser and 7.5 km offshore from Palos
Verdes Peninsula (inset., Figs. 2-4). Currents were measured
with a Savonius rotor device at depths 2 ft. (0.6 m), 10 ft.
(3 m), 25 ft. (7.6 m), 50 ft. (15.2 m), 100 ft. (30.5 m), 150 ft
(45.7 m) and 200 ft. (61 m) from a boat anchored bow-and-stern
in water about 70 m deep.

Initially, current observations were taken at 30-minute
intervals; later, the interval was extended to 1 hours. Weekly
surveys of 24-hour duration were performed from 1 June 1960
through May 1961, except when high winds and swell prohibited
operations. Subsequent data were taken mostly over periods of
less than 10 hours. Data cover a wide range of tide phases,
and all seasons for a 4-year periods; however, little data were
obtained at wind speeds exceeding 25 knots (about 50m/sec) for
the reasons stated above.

K_ Because of the measurements system used, all measurements
were subject to the effect of surface waves, A slight bias
toward higher apparent speeds can be expected for the oberva-
tions above 15 m. However, the prevalence of low seas during
the current surveys minimizes this error in speed, and the effect
on direction measurements is considered to be very slight.

Direction

During the winter current measurement surveys (Figure 2),
the prevailing winds were from the northeast, Almost half of
the 130 observations of wind speed were zero during the winter
operations. The currents from 1 to 25 m did not follow the
measured winds, but showed a bimodal distribution of direction
towards the northwest and the east-southeast. At 15 m, this
bimodality still existed, but the current was predominantly
towards the northwest. At 30.5 m, the bimodality remained, but
the dominance of currents towards the northwest had increased.
At 46 and 61 m, the predominant currents were setting in a
general direction from northwest to west-southwest.

i� Again, the spring observations (Figure 3) were made when
the winds were weak; thus the wind at a may not be truly repre-
sentative. The Prevalent direction was from the west-northwest,
which is the mean direction generally quoted. Although there
was a tendency for the currents at 1 m to follow the wind, the
familiar bimodality reapppeared at 8 m and was quite pronounced
at 15 m. The prevailing directions were east-southeast and
west-northwest. While some semblance of bimodality in direction
reamained at all of the lower depths, an easterly component
persisted over that towards the west.

Carsola

DIRECTION SPEED
N N
WIND w

SPRING

25' 118,20' 15'
PALOSVERDESPT. O__j i
NAUTICAL MILES
-DEPTH IN FATHOMS
45'
3 m N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

C~ 3m vv E W E

N MAGNETIC
NNORTH 55 5
-1, ~~~~~~~~~z ~~ 40'
25' 118'20' i s , m w . ~

DIRECTION SPEED
S SS
SCALE SCALE N N
(PERCENT) (M/S)
N 3015m EI

IN S)- EN

N~ E IN 30.5m W~E WY,' E

--1WIND
S ~~~~S
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WIND & 46m w E 11

CURRENT w Es

N N
S

CURRENT 61m I

S S
Figure 3. Summary of Wind and Current Directions and Strengths off
Palos Verdes, Spring 1960-64.

Carsola

DIRECTION SPEED

WINDD V

WINTER

25' 118"20' 15, 1 M IN
ki-OSVERDES T: --A
PN AU TCAU LMILES
r-DEPTH IN FATHOMS
45.
N N

- 3m I N F

N MAGNETIC

2 lie:8 20, is,

DIRECTION SPEED I2
s s~~~~
SCALE SCALE
(PERCENT) (MIS) 1 m
N 15m E jk

w 2~5 E S

C 30.5m E W

WIND WIND
S

k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~CURRENT 12_" E 7T)

S s~~~~~

Figure 2. Summary of Wind and Current Directions and Strengths off
Palos Verdes, Winter 1960-64.

Carsola

Summer observations totaled 271, more than for any other
season. Winds blew persistently from the west-northwest
(Figure 4). The currents at 1 and 3 m were also directed from
northeast to south-southeast. A tendency for currents to flow
towards the northwest as well as east to south-southeast appear-
ed at 15 m; the currents at 30.5, 46 and 61 m retained some
bimodality, but the prevalent direction was towards the north-
west.

Autumn data were similar to those taken during the summer,
except that the shear below 15 m was weaker, and the predomin-
ance of currents toward the northwest below 46 m was weaker.

DIRECTION SPEED
N N

WIND 0-E Ea

SUMMER
S S

25' 118OZO 15' s,
APALOSVERDESPT: 1m w W
NAUTICAL MILES
-DEPTH IN FATHOMS4_

c 1 - ~3m w E

N MAGNETIC
NORTH 33
25' 118. 20' 15' S; �\4
8m w E

DIRECTION SPEED
SCALE SCALE N
(PERCENT) (M/S) 15m W E W4E

w 2.5-5 . E S E

30".5m w E W E
WIND

E N N

WIND & 46m w E W4E
CURRENT w .12-52 C

CURRENT 61m W

S S
Figure 4. Summary of Wind and Current Directions and Strengths off
Palos Verdes, Summer 1960-64.

q2.

Car sola

Speed

Mean speed in each 100 sector is also shown in Figures 2
through 4. In addition, wind speed and current speed at each
depth are given by season in Table 2. The mean winds were weak
in all seasons, probably because of the understandable bias of
the survey towards days of good weather. The tendency of on-
shore winds to increase in the summer is reflected in the persis-
tence of winds blowing towards the east (Figure 4) and higher
mean speeds. The mean winds observed in winter and spring are
the most biased because these are generally the seasons of
strongest storm winds.

Table 2

MEAN WIND AND CURENT SPEEDS (M/SEC)

Winter Spring Summer Autumn

Wind 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.0

Current

1 m 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.20

3 m 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.20

8 m 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20

15 m 0.18 0.10 0.20 0.20

30.5 m 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.15

46 m 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.15

61 m 0.18 0.05 0.10 0.13

Weakest currents are recorded during the spring. This may
be due to the maximum intensity of upwelling during the season.
Increased vertical flow may suppress mean horizontal flow,
although total flow may not change significantly from periods
when horizontal flow predominates. The strongest currents at
depths above 15 m were observed during the summer. Stronger
winds during the surveys are believed to be the cause of this
effect, which was most apparent near the surface at 1 and 3 m.
Currents below 30 m showed the least seasonal change, except for
the decrease during the spring.

A decrease of mean current speed with depth occurred in
all seasons. It was most prominent during the summer when sta-
bility is highest due to density stratification; the decrease
was very gradual and barely noticeable during the spring and
winter when the water is poorly stratified and stability is low.

The highest mean speeds were generally associated with the
predominant directions of current flow. Vector averages for all
the data were also computed by season (Table 3). As the result
of two opposing predominant directions of nearly equaly persis-
tence and speeds, the net vector sum was very small. The vector
average at each depth is an approximation of the mean seasonal

or annual transport at that level. The spring vector average
showed very low speeds and little change in direction with depth
On the other hand, current shear was well developed during the
summer and autumn, the seasons of highest stability. Mean cur-
rent direction reversal occurred between 8 and 15 m during the
summer and between 15 and 30.5 m during the autumn.

Table 3

MEAN WIND AND CURRENT VECTORS,
WHITES POINT, 1960-64

All
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Seasons
(N=130) (N=102) (N=271) (N=213) (N=716)

WIND
Speed (m/sec) 3 2 3.5 2 2
Direction (deg from) 290 230 270 240 260

CURRENT
l m
Speed (m/sec) 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.05
Direction (deg toward) 300 040 090 040 070

3m
Speed (m/sec) * * 0.1 0.05 0.05
Direction (deg toward) 290 090 100 070 090

8m
Speed (m/sec) 0.05 * 0.05 0.05 0.05
Direction (deg toward) 290 080 090 040 060

15 m
Speed (m/sec) 0.05 * 0.05 0.05 *
Direction (deg toward) 290 030 300 010 320

30.5 m
Speed (m/sec) 0.05 * 0.05 0.05 0.05
Direction (deg toward) 300 060 290 280 290

46 m
Speed (m/sec) 0.05 * 0.05 * 0.05
Direction (deg toward) 290 080 310 290 300

61 m
Speed (m/sec) 0.05 * 0.05 * 0.05
Direction (deg toward) 290 100 310 300 300

* Speed less than 0.05 m/sec

SCCWRP-LACOSAN Surveys, 1972

The joint SCCWRP-Los Angeles County current data measure-
ment program conducted in 1972 used a refined method of measure-
ment that permits closer examination of currents measured
continuously over periods of time ranging from a few hours to a
few days. This method was used in the County's monthly monitor-
ing cruises from February through September.

In the new procedure, pairs of Savonius rotor current
meters were moored to a subsurface buoy at a station designated
CM (see insert map, Figure 2) about halfway on a line between

95'

Carsola

the 90- and 120-inch diffusers off White's Point. One meter
was situated in the upper part of the water column, above 23 m;
the other was placed below the thermocline at a depth greater
than 27 m. Data were averaged over 30-minute intervals. Results
of the two surveys during March and April 1972 are shown in
Figures 5 and 6. The data are shown as vector addition diagrams
that is, vectors for each 1/2-hour average are joined. The
current plat resembles a trajectory, and becomes one if currents
over the surrounding area are representable by measurements at
the mooring location.

I I

oje Curren t 4 I?2m W5T -- wae tie inter4-val

Figure 5. Current on 13 March 1972 at Station CM off Palos Verdes.
Time between arrow points = 1/2 hour.

The measurements on 13 March showed a steady current at
12 m toward the west-northwest and a distinct rotary motion in
the form of an ellipse, with the long axis roughly parallel to
the coast at 30.5 m. The wind was light and variable, with
speeds less than 2 m/sec from the east and northeast.

Two sets of data were taken during April, the first in
support of a survey of phytoplankton and nutrient relationship
study by University of Washington scientists on the R/V THOMAS
G. THOMPSON and the second in support of the monthly monitoring
cruise. Only results of the first survey are shown in Figure 6.

In the survey of 3-5 April, both current meters recorded a
northerly flow, upon which changes to the east or west were
periodically superimposed. In the absence of strong winds,
these results are tentatively interpreted as showing evidence of
a persistent residual flow upon which tidal currents are
superimposed.

The relative wealth of data from the White's Point area
adds greatly to a reasonable understanding of mean annual or
seasonal flow. Such mears may be misleading, however, if applied
over shorter periods of time. Obviously much more work remains
to be done, especially during periods of rough weather, but the
prediction of currents on any given day or week will undoubtedly

q6a

Carsola

remain only probablistic for many future years.

_ 79 'g Hafl q~7t

zMoo
~~~~~~~~~0" 5 _. -- __ (7. ..

\ E W~~~~~~~ow FiAM,, 1'7t
fb\ ),

'Srea @4c) '3farF 19
Figure S. Current at Station CM off alos Verdes on 3-5 April 1972.
Time between arrow points = 1/2 hour.

Comparison with Other Areas

These results are similar to those found in an analysis of
currents in the Orange County area. This is especially interes-
ting in view of the fact that data were taken by different
methods; that off the Palos Verdes Peninsula with Savonius rotor
current meters, and that off Orange County with drogues. The
preferred directions were again west-northwest and east-south-
east. Above 8 m, the component most nearly parallel to the
prevailing winds (towards the east-southeast) was somewhat more
persistent; currents at 30.5 m and below showed a definite
tendency to flow towards the northwest. At 15 m, intermediate
conditions exist. This sampling location was apparently in a
transition layers possibly, it is at times in the wind-stirred
layer and at other times is below this layer, depending on wind
velocity and water stability. Currents at the deeper stations
off Orange County had higher sp eds than at locations closer to
shore in shoaler water.

Carsola

Although the data obtained from individual current
measuring surveys often appear to be inconsistent and difficult
to understand, the total data from Point Dume to San Diego pre-
sent a suprisingly consistent picture of the mean currents in
the area. These data have been taken using drift cards, drift
poles, and various types of drogues and current meters with a
wide assortment of techniques; yet, there is consistency in the
general picture they present.

Surface currents tend to follow the wind when it is blow-
ing; otherwise, they appear to be dominated by the general
patterns generated by mean winds and the offshore geostrophic
circulation. Subsurface currents show a close relationship with
the tides, except possibly when strong winds were blowing for
more than a few hours and stability was low. It should be noted
that much of the data that have been collected have, for obvious
reasons, been taken during periods of relatively light winds.
Consequently, many of the reported data are necessarily biased
towards conditions of low wind velocity. During times of weak
winds or weak tidal currents, residual currents apparently re-
lated to the offshore circulation system may dominate the flow
at all depths on the shelf. In general, the strongest and most
persistent currents are parallel to the coast. The greater pre-
valence of currents towards the east-southeast appears wherever
more than a few measurements have been made; except off the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. However, flow to the north-northwest is
only 10 to 15 percent less persistent usually than currents in
the east-southeast direction. It should also be noted that this
flow reversal occurs quite frequently and is usually related to
the diurnal or semidiurnal tide. Although the net advective
transport along and across the shelf may consequently be quite
small, the large variations of the current speed and direction
in time and space act to greatly increase the rate of dispersion
of materials over that which would result from ordinary turbu-
lent diffusion in a steady mean flow. This shear-induced
dispersion effectively acts to transport materials along and
across the shelf.

In general, the surface currents have a greater velocity
than those below, say, 15 to 20 m. The differences between
surface and subsurface currents are most pronounced during
summer, when the stability is the highest and stratification is
most pronounced.

Currents and Pollutant Distribution

Several lines of evidence show that pollutant distribution
in the Palos Verdes Peninsula is compatible with long-term
characteristics of measured currents below the thermocline.

1. The distribution of heavy metals in the bottom sedi-
ments, exemplified by copper (Cu) in Figure 7 is elongated
parallel to the coastline and the bottom contours. The ellipti-
cal contours of copper concentration in the sediments show a
northwest-southeast orientation, asymmentrical about the outfall
area, and elongated toward the northwest.

2. Species diversity among benthic polychaetes molluscs
shows a similar distribution with an asymmetrical orientation of
the region of low species diversity toward the northwest. Four
different diversity indes - Gleason Richness, Shannon-Weaver,
Scaled Shannon-Weaver, and Scaled Standard Deviation Diversity -
all show low values for polychaete species off Palos Verdes
asymmetrically distributed towards the northwest with respect to
the outfall area. In addition, two species of polychaetes con-
sidered to be indicators of conditions of envirnmental stress,
Capitella capitata and Stauronereis rudolphi dominate this area
of low diversity index, and their distribution shows a very

Carsola

similar orientation skewed to the northwest with respect to the
outfall area, for example, (Figure 8).

33040'N - i i

llgniii S --W 115~~,.,,, iluneiW

0o 1 21

b.E.,,,.VjI 81-9 I
1182�5'W 1120' IW

Figure 7. Copper Concentrations (g/dry kg) in Surface of Two Specients ArouWithin the Polychete Communites Off Paoint Outfall System 1971.
L3 v 5 PT. VI CETE'

[. 21- 80"

" 040 -

96~~~~~~FRI

Carsola

3. A zone of sediment with a flack surface, commonly
bearing a heavy odor of hydrogen sulphide exhibits a similar
distribution with respect to the outfall system (Figure 9). This
zone of black sediment corresponds very closely with the
C. capitata and S. rudolphi zones.

( ! / 'PALOS VERDES PT.

33'45 :~:/ :, PT. VIC0NTE .
\ 1. LONG PT.P ' _ _
BeI� O~��~:~ ��� DEPT.S IN METERS

SEDIMENT WIT H LIGHT SURFACE
BUT BLACK SUBSURFACE .
0 HEAVYODOR OF HYDROGENSULFIDE
3324'*N TRACE ODOR OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE 40 -
BbUNDARY OF AREA OF HIGHLY
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE
lla�25'W 1 2o'w I aDSw

Figure 9. Results of Qualitative Analyses of Sediments Off Palos Verdes, July 1971.
Organic Substrate, Hydrogen Sulfide,and Blackened Sediments

4. The occurrence of fin erosion in small dover sole
exceeds 10 per cent in a zone off the Palos Verdes Peninsula,
asymmetrically distributed about the outfall in a pattern over-
lapping those referred to above.

5. Ammonia concentration, clearly derived from waste-
waters are highest downcurrent from the outfall system. Concen-
trations as high as 150 gat./L have been measured at distances
up to 4 n. mi. from the diffusers consistently in or below the
thermocline. High ammonia concentration is associated with a
heavy concentration of particulate material and a low oxygen
concentration in a turbid layer ranging from one to five meters
thick. A more typical example is Figure 10, showing temperature,
relative transparency, ammonia, oxygen, and coliform bacteria
profiles at Station B8, southeast of the outfall system, or
23 February 1972. At the time the station was occupied, the
subsurface current was southwest.

Carsola

Te-npera lre- OFA) eelafive 7rasprareny (%)
50 diO se
X i, ~~~~DO

3 .5Z

505.70 ne 10.3

t o _ .....__ _ __ _
fvrzffa~zaed X

/00

15.20 higha 6. C

$rArIoN B 5

Figure 10. An example of the turbid layer pattern (transparency, temperature, and ammonia,
dissolved oxygen, and coliform content) at a station approximately 1 mi. SW of the Whites
Point outfalls, 23 February 1972.

CURRENTS IN SUBMARINE CANYONS

The shlef off California and Baja California is indented
by many submarine canyons. Some, like the Redondo, and Scripps-
La Jolla are quite large, extend within less than a kilometer of
the shoreline, and discharge far offshore into basins or troughs
many hundreds of meters deep. These features are natural "short
cuts" for the transport of wastewaters across the shelf into
deeper water; yet only one small canyon, Santa Monica, has been
used for this purpose. The sludge-line for the Hyperion treat-
ment plant discharges into the head of Santa Monica Submarine
Canyon, about 7 nautical miles (11.3 km.) from the shoreline.

We are indebted to a marine geologist, Francis P. Shepard,
for most of the pitifully few current measurements in these
submarine features. Shepard and Revelle (1939) began with
measurements in La Jolla Canyon almost 35 years ago, Shepard
and Marshall resumed the program after a long lapse of time
about 1968. In 41 or 45 sets of measurements, Shepard and
Marshall have recorded higher velocities and longer periods of
flow donw-canyon as compared to up-canyon. Net transport is
dominantly down-canyone, a significant result from the view-
point of waste discharge.

LITTORAL CURRENTS

Littoral currents are defined as those found in the coastal
waters, immediately adjacent to the shoreline. They are
responses to waves breaking on the shore and the backwater from
those waves, as well as the topography in that restricted zone.

100O

Carsola

They are an effective factor in beach and nearshore sediment
erosion, deposition, and transportation. Some of the old out-
falls were near the seaward boundary of the zone affected by
waves and littoral currents, but all the present larger and most
of the smaller ocean outfalls are now located in deeper water
farther offshore.

The momentum of a wave breaking at an angle with the beach
has a component along the beach parallel to the direction of
wave propagation. This generates longshore currents roughly
parallel to the beach inside the breaker zone. These bngshore
currents ultimately converge, resulting in the seaward return
of water through the breaker zone in the form of rip currents.
An offshore movement roughly parallel to shore develops from the
expanding head of the rip current. All these components descri-
bed above constitute the nearshore circulation system.

A continuous interchange between offshore surface waters
and the surf zone is maintained by the system. It is important
in waste discharge because floatables such as grease, oil, and
other materials which have surfaced from an ocean outfall are
easily introduced into the surf zone by breaking waves. Piled up
by the swash on the beach, they may not be picked up and returned
through rip currents, and thus constitute unsightly and highly
undesirable evidence of pollution.

Velocities in the littoral system may be very high when
high waves are hurled against the shoreline. Rip currents with
velocities exceeding 150 cm/sec (over 3 knots) and longshore
currents exceeding 250 cm/sec (5 knots) have been measured.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Currents in the water off Southern California are princi-
pally due to geostrophic flow, wind stress on the sea surface,
and tides. On the shelf complicated currents due to irregular
topography, runoff, internal waves, large low salinity outfalls
and other phenomena are superimposed. In the zone close to
shore littoral currents are generated as the result of the
breaking of waves against the shoreline.

On the shelf currents are strongest off headlands and
promontories and weakest in embayments. A study of four years
off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, site of the L. A. County Sanita-
tion District outfall system, shows that currents vary in depth
in both speed and direction. They are dominated by wind-driven
currents above the thermocline; below the thermocline, the
motion appears to be principally due to tidal forces and the
currents are oriented along a northwest-southeast axis, parallel
to the coast. The predominance of a resultant toward the north-
west is reflected in the distribution of black, H2S-rich
sediments, poorly diversified bottom faunas dominated by species
characteristic of stressed environments, and possible a higher
incidence of disease among some demersal fish.

Currents in submarine canyons tend to flow down-canyon
into offshore basins and troughs significantly more often and
with higher speeds than those flowing up-canyon towards the
shore. This suggests that they may be more attractive for waste
disposal than has been previously suspected.

The data base for currents is pitifully small. Consider-
able effort should be expended towards improved knowledge of
currents throughout the area.
Especially needed are:

1. Long continuous time series at stations spaced across
the shelf and into the basins. These transects should

f0I

Carsola

extend from headlands and through embayments.

2. Considerably more current measurements in submarine
canyons.

3. A research program to identify the relative importance
of predictable and measureable factors generating and
affecting currents is desirable, so that a prediction
model can be developed for forecasting.

4. A data bank for current and other oceanographic data
should be established and maintained.

SOME FEATURES OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ATMOSPHERE

Dale F. Leipper
Chairman, Dept. of Oceanography
Naval Post Graduate School
Monterey, California

Ocean Influence

At sea, the ocean exerts a dominating influence on the
overlying atmosphere. This influence is exerted through the sea
surface temperature which largely determines both the air temp-
erature and its moisture content. Incoming radiation from the
sun is at short wave lengths, and most of it penetrates the
atmosphere and is absorbed in the upper layers of the ocean.
Since the specific heat of sea water is several thousand times
that of air, the incoming heat may be stored in the ocean and
rationed off to the atmosphere over long periods of time
(months). The most typical interchange between the air and the
ocean on a global basis is heating from below.

Adiabatic Lapse Rates

Over most of the sea, the surface air temperature is near
that of the sea surface and the relative humidity approximates
85%. Because there usually is heating from below the air usually
rises. In the process of rising it expands and this results in
a cooling of approximately 10C per 100 meters of altitude up to
the level where the air becomes saturated. At this level con-
densation of moisture begins. Condensation releases heat and
although further lifting brings about further cooling, it occurs
at a slower rate. These rates of cooling for dry and saturated
air are called respectively the dry adiabatic and the moist
adiabatic lapse rates. It is through these processes associated
with ascending air that primary features of the vertical struc-
ture of the marine atmosphere are established.

Deviations from Adiabatic Lapse Rates

Changes in the type of marine atmosphere created by heatirg
from below may be brought about in several ways. One is by the
inflow of air from adjacent continental areas having different
characteristics. Another is by large scale sinking or subsi-
dence of the air mass, and a third by formation and movement of
storm systems.

Along the California coast differences between the observe
atmospheric features and the more common adiabatic marine atmos-
phere are largely related to the so-called Pacific anticyclone
and its movements. The Pacific anticycone is an area of high
atmospheric pressure some 1,000 or more miles in diameter usually
centered between the mid-California coast and Hawaii. The winds
flow clockwise around such an area in the northern hemisphere
and this leads to northwesterly winds off much of the California

/03

Leipper

coast. These northwesterly winds exert a stress upon the sea
surface which, in the presence of the earth's rotation, produces
an offshore flow of warm surface water and leads to the exposure
of cold water along much of the coastline.

Three Types of Southern California Coastal Weather

The Pacific anticyclone may vary in intensity and position
and, as a result, the California coastal atmosphere may be con-
sidered to have three primary regimes. Two of these are related
to vertical movements of the atmosphere (subsidence or sinking,
and lifting). In subsidence or sinking there is warming and the
air cannot remain saturated. It thus warms up at the dry adia-
batic rate as it descends (10C per 100 m) and the relative
humidity falls rapidly as a consequence. In the southeasterly
portion of the Pacific anticyclone the California coastline is
often in an area of general subsidence which leads to such warm-
ing of the descending air and to the consequent establishment of
an atmospheric inversion. It is this inversion which is associ-
ated with the typical summer stratus on the California coast.
However, the most marked subsidence feature tends to occur in
the fall months when the eastern portion of the Pacific anti-
cyclone moves eastward over the coast and produces the strong
offshore winds known in southern California as Santa Anas, see
Figure 1. In the presence of these winds the air moves from
mountain elevations of 4 to 5,000 feet down to the coast and
thus the winds are associated with an adiabatic warming of 20 to
250F. Thus the air arriving at the coast is much warmer than tie
sea and very dry. The atmospheric inversion is brough to the
surface, the air is clear, and the visibility unusually good.

The second category of atmospheric characteristics occurs
in relation to rising or lifting of the air mass. This occurs
when the wind is onshore, Such winds bring moist cool air from
the sea which is lifted and cooled as it moves up slope. These
situations are most common in the spring and early summer and as
category one type weather moves toward category two there are
associated periods of dense fogs and low stratus. The third
primary regime occurs when the Pacific anticyclone is moved
aside or broken up by passing frontal systems. The changes which
occur in the marine atmosphere at such times are more related to
the large scale horizontal movements of air mass than to the
local lifting and sinking process. Changes of this horizontal
movement or frontal type of course are more common in mid-winter.
A good reference on these three types of southern California
coastal weather is "Point Mugu Forecasters Handbook, 1972."

In all three types of weather the influence of the local
upwelled water and the sea breeze are superimposed. The sea
breeze, due to the greater heat of land during the day, increases
the onshore flow component during these hours and decreases it
during the very early morning hours.

Fog As An Air Pollution Related Coastal Phenomena

As one example demonstrating the interaction of the vari-
ous above factors on the marine atmosphere in this locality, the
formation of coastal fog will be discussed. A more complete
analysis is available in previous articles by the author (Leippr
1948, 1968).

In fog situations vertical air movement through the inver-
sion layer is greatly restricted so that pollutants introduced
at the surface tend to remain in the lower air layers. Thus fog
forecasting becomes useful in understanding, predicting, and con-
trolling atmospheric pollution.

Joq

Leipper

It appears that an initial condition required for the devel-
opment of a fog bank is the presence over the southern California
coast of air which is extremely warm and dry from the near-
surface and upward. Our data indicated that the most extreme
heating occurs at the lower levels as the result of down-slope
motion. This happens when the Pacific anticyclone pushes inland
north of Los Angeles and the Santa Ana winds blow toward San
Diego and Los Angeles from the east, warming adiabatically in the
4,000-ft descent from the mountains. In such situations there
should be extremely good visibility and no fog or smog inland
along the coast. The synoptic pattern which precedes sharp fog
banks at San Diego and Los Angeles is of the type shown in Fig.l.

The fog situation begins to develop when the dry air,
adiabatically warmed, becomes statinary over the sea. It soon
becomes nearly saturated with moisture in a thin layer at the
surface. The great overall stability holds the moisture near
the surface. When the east winds die down and the normal north-
westerly regime begins, fog is created in the thin surface layer
at sea as the warm, nearly saturated air moves over the cold
tongue of the surface water which is known to exist offshore.
Thus, fog is created by cooling from below. However, once the
white cloud is formed, so much incoming radiation is reflected
from the top and so much heat is radiated by the cloud itself
that observations show the fog layer cooling to a temperature
lower than that of any ocean surface in the vicinity.

Once the fog is formed at sea and the fog layer becomes
cooler than the ocean surface due to radiation, there is heating
from below and cooling continues from the top of the fog layer.
This creates a super-adiabatic layer. The mixing which occurs
within this layer causes the fog layer to'increase gradually in
depth from day to day. When the normal sea breeze regime re-
turns, the strongest onshore winds occur at the time of day when
the sea breeze blows. Late afternoon is thus tLh most probable
time when any new fog bank existing offshore woula be blown
towards shore.

On the first day that the shallow fog bank moves toward
the coast, it is quite likely to break up at the coast. Ibe heat
of the land is sufficient to dissipate a shallow fog and the
associated shallow inversion before it can travel far.

Figure 2 shows schematically a development of such a fog
situation in southern California. In Figure 2-1 the winds blow-
ing off the land carry warm air out to sea over cool and warm
water areas. Influenced by the underlying sea, the very lowest
air layers become nearly saturated at air temperatures near those
of the water. In Figure 2-2 the east winds have stopped, the
sea breezes have begun and some of the warmer moist air is cooled
to fog formation when it moves back over the tongue of cool
water. In Figure 2-3, in the later afternoon, the thin fog bank
is carried towards shore by the returning sea breeze but is dis-
sipated upward by the heat of the land when it reaches the coast.
The inversion is broken and the moist layer is dispersed. In
this situation moisture does not move inland. When the sea
breeze stops that day, the fog bank retreats toward the sea, as
in Figure 2-4.

As time goes on, the unstable fog layer (with a strong in-
version above it) increases in thickness due to convection with-
in it and is again carried towards shore with the afternoon sea
breeze. Eventually the fog reaches a thickness such that is
cannot be dissipated at the coast but may move inland. Figure
2-5, with the inversion unbroken, shows such a situation. At
this stage, there may be enough heating from below to evaporate
the fog particles but not enough to break the inversion.

/05

Leipper

With continued convection throughout the fog layer as days
go by, the layer is thickened further and it eventually reaches
a thickness beyond which there is insufficient cooling to create
a full layer of fog. This thickness is apparently about 1,300
ft. at San Diego. At greater thicknesses there is stratus over-
head, but a layer with no fog near the ground as shown schemat-
ically in Figure 2-6. Of course, the pollutants may remain in
lowest levels of the marine layer even though the fog has not
formed there.

This fog development sequence seems to take place frequent-
ly in winter. With the approach of summer, however, a fog sit-
uation may develop and move through various stages to the stage
illustrated in Figure 2-6. Then, this stage may persist for
several weeks or more at a time, giving the steady stratus over-
cast which is common along the west coast.

The time changes in the upper air temperatures are indicat-
ed for a typical fog period in Figure 3. The sounding for 23
September below 800 mb is the common nearly adiabatic temperatur
structure with the surface air temperature equal to the sea sur-
face temperature. From 800 and 950 mb, 30 September through
2 October, the air warms steadily as winds blow with easterly
components, At the same time the surface layer air temperatures
decrease. Both changes strengthen the inversion and improve the
odds that fog or stratus will occur. Heavy smog occurred in
Pasadena on the last day of the sequence in Figure 3. The def-
inition of indices useful in forecasting the development of fog
situations such as reviewed here may be found in Leipper, 1948.

Summary

Air pollution along the California coast is controlled by
the same atmospheric events as fog. The coastal air temperature
structure may be considered as consisting of deviations from the
common adiabatic lapse rates found over the open sea. The most
important deviations are related to arrival of descending air
from inland and to unusual cooling of the surface layers in fog.
More data are needed to fully describe the interaction of all of
the factors involved. However, some sequences of events useful
in forecasting can be described.

REFERENCES

1. Rosenthal, Jay, "Point Mugu Forecasters Handbook,"Pacific
Missile Range, Point Mugu, California 93042, Geophysics Div.
416, p., 1 April 1972.

2. Leipper, Dale F., "Fog Development at San Diego California,"
Journal of Marine Research, VII-3, pp. 337-346, 1948.

3. Leipper, Dale F., "The Sharp Smog Bank and California Fog
Developent," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 354-358, April 1968.

/06

Figure 1. Weather map showing the type of synoptic situation which usually
precedes winter fog in southern California.

4244<

tr.
yr y4A:4 �v

7 tt 4 4A
4 42

Figure 2. Six steps illustrating schematically the development of fog along
the southern California coast.

108

700 -

23 SEPT..-.
2220, -

Boo 0 %.- ,2 OCT

9l 00- C -

0 i /*."'..'

400 0.._ * m
330m.\ '129m

T'
1000- teas -

l I , Ii I I
10 20
TEMPERATURE (�C)

Figure 3. Comparison of atmospheric temperature structures on four selected
days, Santa Monica, California. Open circles are 7-yr averages
1958-64. T is the sea surface temperature.

/lo

LEAD POLLUTION: AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE LOS ANGELES COASTAL ZONE

Tsaihwa J. Chow
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, California 92037

Mr. Chairman, MTS members and guests!

Our first speaker of this Symposium Section, Dr. Carsola, has described
the ocean currents along the California coast which carry and distribute
pollutants that enter the ocean by precipitation or by runoff. - Dr. Leipper,
our second speaker, has discussed Southern California meteorological condi-
tions that greatly influence the accumulation and dispersion of aerosols and
gaseous pollutants.

This report deals specifically with a chemical-pollutant, viz. lead
aerosols, which is one of the major environmental hazards. In the next
fifteen minutes, I shall discuss the source of lead aerosols in the Los
Angeles basin and their passage through the air and water to final burial
in the coastal sediments.

Source of Lead Aerosols

The principal source of lead pollutants in the environment is the burn-
ing of anti-knock lead alkyl additives in gasoline. Being an automotive-
oriented megalopolis, the Los Angeles basin has a serious problem of lead
pollution; its atmospheric lead contents often far supass both limits set
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2.0 pg/M ) and the State of
California (1.5 ug/M ). To view the nation as an entity, in recent years
some 280,000 tons of lead in the additives are combusted annually. In 1972,
gasoline sales in California alone amounted to ten- billion gallons. Assuming
an average lead content of 2.1 grams per gallon and that 41% of California
automobiles operate within the Los Angeles basin, the consumption of lead
as additives totaled 8,600 tons annually. With an average of 75% of the
lead additives in gasoline emitted as automotive exhaust, the annual output
of lead emptied into Los Angeles ambient air is 6,450 tons.

Fate of Atmospheric Lead

What happens to the lead aerosols in the ambient air? According to
Stokes' Law, the particle sizes of lead aerosols play an important role in
their gravitational settling from the atmosphere.

For the Los Angeles basin, Huntzicker, Friedlander and Davidson (1)
have estimated than an annual amount of 3,600 tons of lead aerosols, whose
mean diameters are greater than several microns, are deposited along the
vicinity of roadways. Lead aerosols of small particle size precipitate out as
dustfalls onto the entire Los Angele9 basin. By assigning a surface area
of the Los Angeles basin as 4,430 km , it receives an annual lead fallout
of 730 tons. The residence time for sub-micron size lead aerosols and lead
alkyl vapour in the atmosphere is several days; thereby, some 2,000 tons
of these leads are carried out of the Los Angeles basin by air currents
and deposited elsewhere.

1/0

Chow

Portions of lead aerosols fall directly into the coastal ocean water.
Using lead fallout data for various islands off Los Angeles obtained by
Hidy, et al. (2) and Rabinowitz (3), Huntzicker, Friedlander and Davidson
(1) calculated that some 70 tons ;f lead settle directly into the ocean
between the Santa Citalina Island and the Los Angeles coastline which has
an area of 4,400 km . Based on the lead content of rainwater (4), an
estimated amount of 30 tons of lead aerosols are washed out annually from
the atmosphere into the same coastal ocean during rainfall.

Input of Lead to Coastal Ocean

There are many ways for the lead pollutants to reach the coastal ocean.
I have mentioned the direct lead aerosol fallout (70 tons per year) and rain
washout (30 tons per year) for the Los Angeles coastal water.

Municipal sewage effluent discharges deliver a significant amount of
lead to the Los Angeles coastal ocean. Huntzicker, Friedlander and Davidson
(1) estimated that about 234 tons of lead per year were discharged from the
Los Angeles City and County sewage treatment plants. However, the lead in
sewage effluent is deposited in the immediate vicinity of the outfalls (5).

Rainfall over the land carries the fallout lead, which has been accu-
mulating on the ground surface, as runoff into the ocean through storm
drains. Chemical data for storm runoff are few and spotty. Based on data
provided by Young (6) of the Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project, Huntzicker, Friedlander and Davidson (1) computed that some 160
tons of lead per year are washed out from the Los Angeles basin during
rainfall and discharged into the ocean as storm runoff, and additional ten
tons of lead runoff during the non-rainy times.

Lead Pollutants in Coastal Sediments

The marine sediments provide chronological records of lead pollutants
input to the coastal oceans. Since the sedimentation rates vary among
various locations along the California coast, the fluxes of man-generated
lead in the sediments are often more meaningful than the absolute concen-
trations.

Sediment cores from three oceanic basins (San Pedro, Santa Barbara
and Santa Monica) near Los Angeles have been studied (5). These sediments
are anoxic and thus relatively free from biological disturbance. A similar
anoxic deposit in the Soledad Basin (25�14'N; 112�41'W) off the coast of
Baja California was used as a control. A fifth core was taken off the
Los Angeles County sewage outfall at Whites Point.

Figure 1 shows the lead values given both as concentration on 110�C
dry weight basis and as the lead/aluminum ratios. The aluminum was used
as a normalization factor that reasonably represents a measure of the
detrital minerals that are assumed to have had a uniform input over the
past century. In general, both the lead values and lead/aluminum ratios
of these three ocean basins off the coast of Los Angeles give similar
trends as a function of depth in the sediments. The exceptions are the
surface sediments which contain high water and salt contents because these
sediments are subject to less compaction than the deeper deposits.

The lead accumulation rates began to increase in the basins in the
1940's. The much higher sedimentation rate in the Santa Barbara Basin
accounts for its lesser slope. The lead concentration in the Soledad
Basin is essentially constant with depth and averaged to be 8.5 ppm.

Surface values of the anthropogenic lead fluxes were obtained by
subtracting the pre-pollution concentration of lead accumulated per year
from the value computed from an extrapolation of the lead curve to surface
depth. The anthropogenic fluxes of lead for the Santa Monica, San Pedro,
and Santa Barbara Basins are 0.9, 1.7, and 2.1 micrograms per centimete~
square per year compared to natural fluxes of 0.24, 0.26, and 1.0 ug/cm /yr,
respectively.

I/I

Chow

Heavy metals such as lead are removed from waters within several
kilometers of the input site to the marine environment. The extremely
high lead concentration (averaged 390 ppm) in.the Whites Point sewage
outfall sediments reflect the discharge of domestic and industrial waste.
The radiometric ages of the Whites Point sediments were indistinguishable
from top to bottom, indicating that the deposition probably took place
within the last few years.

Acknowledgment

I wish to thank Dr. J. J. Huntzicker of the California Institute of
Technology for providing the Los Angeles lead aerosol data.

References

1. J. J. Huntzicker, S. K. Friedlander and C. I. Davidson, "The flow of
automobile emitted- lead through the Los Angeles Basin." California
Ocean Pollution Research Conference, Lake Arrowhead, California (1973).

2. G. M. Hidy, P. K. Mueller, H. H. Wang, J. Karney, S. Twiss, M. Imada
and A. Alcocer, "Observation of aerosols over Southern California
coastal waters." Preprint (1972).

3. M. Rabinowitz, "Plant uptake of soil and atmospheric lead in Southern
California." Chemosphere, 1: 175 (1972).

4. A. L. Lazrus, E. Lorange and J. P. Lodge, Jr., "Lead and other metal
ions in United States precipitation." Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, 4: 55 (1970).

5. T. J. Chow, K. Bruland, K. Bertine, A. soutar, M. Koide and E. Goldberg,
"Lead pollution: Records in Southern California coastal sediments."
Science, 181: 551 (1973).

6. D. Young, op. cit. in Reference 1.

Suggestions for Further Reading

D. Bryce-Smith, Chemistry in Britain, 7: 54 and 284 (1971); Ibid, 8: 240
(1972).

"Airborne Lead in Perspective", National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D. C. (1972).

"The Ecology of the Southern California Bight: Implications for water
Quality Management", Southern California Coastal Water Research Project,
Volume 1. Los Angeles (1972).

T. J. Chow, Chemistry in Britain, 9: 258 (1973).

Pb/AIxlO 4O 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 0 40 60 120
Pb in ppm 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 0 200 400 600

pe �-1960 ,</ =1960 10 970
49-0 -.o 1.... -1960
4 ~ }=-1950 ,o { 1950 ' 1960
,e_~ . .-11940 , - 1 -966 -1950

6 -1920 - -1960
-E1900~~~~~~~~~ o - -1955 0

2 SM50 SLUMP
8-

16-

0 1240

crSLUMP

28-

32 -

Son Pedro Basin Santa Monica Basin Santa Barbara Basin Soledad Basin Whites Point
36

Figure 1. Lead concentrations in ppm (solid circles) and lead/aluminum ratios x 10-4

(open circles) from various sediments off Southern California coast.

CIVILIZATION AND THE COASTAL OCEAN

Dr. Ronald L. Kolpack
Environmental Geology
University of Southern California

There are a number of things we can talk about in terms of
civilization along the coastal zone. We can look at it in terms
of history and we can also look at it in terms of effect. I
think that one of the major problems now in the coastal zone in
terms of the focal point or complex, is the result of tremendous
population, static population and also a concentration of people
in a particular area.

The present system for dealing with these problems appear
to be an adversary system where it affects the entire recrea-
tional, economical and policitcal portions of our coutry. Many
of the problems related to specific areas of high concentration
are common to say New. York and the southern California area.
What I'd like to do now is to look at some slides of a sewage
affluent coming out primarely in the Santa Monica area and then
look a little bit at solid waste dumps that were observed off
the coast.

The reason for looking at sewage affluent is that there
are a number of sources for contaminants or pollutants in the
environment. One, as previous speakers have shown, from the
atmosphere, are proponents coming in from the auto exhaust. We
can have material coming in from sewage affluent and there can
also be runoff from streams and agricultural applications. In
the southern California area of Los Angeles, there are approxi-
mately 850 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage that are
dumped in the coastal waters,

One area I'd like to look at in particular is the Hyperian
outfall in Santa Monica Bay and that outfall dumps 235 MGD of
primary sewage, 100 MGD of secondary sewage and another addition-
al 5 MGD of sludge.

Slide 1 is a general physirraph diagram of southern Cali-
fornia border land. The continental areas are outlined in
brown and the coastal islands are marked here. The northern
channel island is marked.

Slide 2 shows locations of Santa Monica Bay. There is
sewer affluent coming out here. There is a diffuser going out
to the north and another to the south. Another line goes out
to the upper end of the Santa Monica submarine canyon which dis-
charges primarely sludge. There are a couple of short lines
going in the nearshore area that are only used periodically for
short periods of time.

/11/

Kolpack

Slide 3 measuring the distribution or diffusion of sewage
in the offshore waters has been a very difficult task. A number
of years ago it was related to dye diffusion studies and one of
the problems has been with instrumentation to measure material
on a real time basis within a water column. We've been using a
transmisometer which has a light source at one end which travels
to the other end and folds back for a one meter light path
measuring at 470 microns. It has a 10 conductor cable and the
percent transmission is transmitted through the cable to the ded
for recording. It can also record temperatures and we also use
an STD to measure salinity from which we get the density of the
water.

Slide 4 is a plot of some work we did (Bob Brown and Marire
Resources and USC) several years ago. To demonstrate,the green
line represents percent transmission per meter, a high value
represents very clear water and a low value represents turbid
water. A value of zero is equivalent to about 6 mm of particu-
lar material per liter of water. Ninety eight percent would be
proven to be extremely clear water. The pink line is density,
a combination of temperature and salinity of water. Here we
have the salinity outlined in yellow and we can see that at a
depth of about 30 meters there is a tremendous fluctuation going
on. Influx of fresh water coming out of the effluent pipe and
a certain amount of mixing. One thing we don't have plotted on
here is temperature, yet temperature is a very significant fac-
tor in controlling the distribution of particulate material
within the water column. A temperature difference of about one
tenth of a degree C is sufficient to hold up the suspended ma-
terial on the top of it.

Slide 5. One study which we conducted in November of 1972
was to look at the distribution of the sewage coming out of the
long diffuser here. There is an outfall at the north and one at
the south. We ran a series of stations in a circular pattern
around the outfall and Just for purposes of orientation there is
a circle here, a second circle and then a third here.

On the next series of slides I'd like to unfold circular
patterns and show you distribution of turbulent material within
the water column.

Slide 6 - If we look first of all at the inner circle in
terms of direction this is out toward the west and this to the
north. Each succeeding slide will be orientated the same way.
We have a lobe at a depth of about 30 meters, of very turbid
material. This is material that has come out of the northern
"Y" of the diffuser. We get low values of transmission which
means it is high turbidity and then there is a secondary lobe at
the southern end of the diffuser.

Slide 7 - I'd like to point out that in this slide there
is a lobe of clear water coming in from the west. This is the
second circle now computing the same sort of pattern. We have
again a higher turbidity at the north diffuser and then a lower
turbidity at the southern "Y" of the diffuser. Some of this
material is going down toward the west but there is also alot of
clear water coming in here.

Slide 8 - we have a much larger pattern in the third circle
out and we can see very clearly that we clear water and we be-
lieve this represents clear water that is coming up the Santa
Monica canyon. I think I can take exception to one of Mr.
Carsola's statements about dumping material in submarine canyons.
I'm not convinced that the material is going down the canyon
and in the Santa Monica canyon, I beleive the material may be
going towards the northeast maybe ending somewhere around Malibu
or off the slope in that area. In Redondo canyon the current

//5

Kolpack

meter measurement by Shepard (we have been doing work there for
the last couple of years) shows that movement is down, but there
is a tremendous pumping action that is going on both up and down
the canyon. We don't know exactly what is going on. Let's say
sewage is dumped when the currents are going up canyon, there is
a possibility that the material could be moved up.

Slide 9 - To give you a little bit different perspective I
ran another survey, the first survey took approximately 13
hours to conduct and this one took an additional 12 hours. So
all of the information presented on these slides were obtained
roughly in a period of 24 hours. We are concentrating here on
the southern part of the diffuser, the "Y" coming out here, and
for orientating we have plotted values of turbidity going say
from one up to five. But everything on the left hand side here
will be on the left hand side of the next slide and everything
over here on the right side of the next slide. All are orienta-
ted in terms of the sewer outfall. We can see two down move-
ments. One is a movement up in here going from the southeast
toward the northwest and we get a secondary movement going from
the northwest down towards the southeast. So this turbid plume
staying submerged and the diffuser was designed to do that. We
have not seen sewage coming up and breaking through the surface
during our surveys in the last three years. We have on the
order of about 1500 stations out there for turbidity and we see
this general direction. Now the bottom current measurements in
the area indicate a velocity of about 3 to 5 centimeters per
second towards the south. If it explans the movement of mater-
ial towards the southeast, however, it does not explain move-
ment of material towards the northwest or rather the northeast
and there is a possibility that that is affected by the movement
of material by water coming up the Santa Monica Canyon.

Slide 10 - This is a cross section of the years of turbi-
dity or just to give you another outlook on it. The turbid
lobes around the outfall area is a circular plot. We have also
plotted the layer thickness of the turbid zone. The patterns
that emerge out of here is kind of complex, alot of different
lines. We tried to color this first of all to show the maximum
turbidity. Look at the yellow, it represents a value of 40
which is the area of highest turbidity and they are lying in
this direction going toward the northwest and the southeast and
then extends out to areas here that are better than 20 to 30 %.
The layer thickness also corresponds to this, in other words,
the layer is a thin or closer to slope source and then the layem
are getting much thicker going away from the source, but both of
the lines in that direction, in other words northwest and south-
east.

Slide 11 - This is a summarized report that was presented
in Japan by Bob Brown and myself. Looking at the information
that was accumulated, the survey that Bob Stevenson was involved
in in Santa Monica Bay, 1955-56, this is the envolpe of value
which they obtained prior to the pipe being out in that area.
There is the suggestion that there is movement coming out of the
canyon, that the sewage effluent being pumped out in there has
affected the water movement slightly and the influx of material
coming up the canyon may not have been present at the time prior
to the construction, subsequently it was altered.

Slide 12 - I would just like to show a couple of photo-
graphs of solid waste material that was photographed in three
dives in the Deep Star the summer of 1972. This is a photo-
graph of some radio active material that was dumped. At this
other side there was another 12 million barreles of oil mud
dumped in 1966-70, and another additional 12,000 gallons of
material was dumped in 1971. This dump site was selected on the
basis of the information I was showing you where there is almost

,l!

Kolpack

no oxygen. Consequently there is no bentdt forms to be affected
there and other observations indicated almost no life. Our pro-
blem is we don't know what the affect is, if there is diffusion
or the water column or if the material is transported out. It
comes back to one of the things I pointed out, that we have done
a fair amount of work offshore but there is still a tremendous
amount of information necessary in order to define what the
material is and to define its affect on marine organisms.

Slide 13 - In this slide we are looking at a solid waste
dumping site of garbage, primarely from the foreign vessels off
the south end of Catalina. In that area the currents we rela-
tively strong. The bottom fauna is rather prolific, and we have
a cardboard box. There are a lot of ophiurods crawling around
the bottom, the bottom is very well stirred up. At about a
depth of 2300 ft. the ground currents are relatively strong, one
can see movement of fine grain material, you can see the align-
ment of the organisms with the current.

Slide 14 - Just an example of the material dumped down
there. We saw no high concentrations of material in any one
particular spot. The theory being that the material was not
dumped in the primary target area or the currents scattered the
material out and down.

Slide 15 - That is another kind of matexal that has been
dumped down there.

Slide 16 - In the area primarely between Avalon and Newport
these are the kinds of waste.

I would like to comment on some of these problems in this
area and this is where I'm going to put my foot in my mouth be-
cause it seems to me that the problems we have coming along, are
proliferating and are becoming more complex all the time. I
think this is in direct relationship to the trend in population;
and it is getting down to the point now where individuals or
very small groups cannot make decisions on a local area without
consideration of the effects on the very large population mass.

One solution that has been proposed for this is to get
into coastal zone management. I've been thinking about this for
some time and have come to the conclusion that the best use of
the term coastal zone management is sort of a buzz word, because
I can't figure out what people are trying to manage, unless they
are trying to manage the people. It seems to me that the manage-
ment is being advancedthrough legislation. The legislation is
coming about without an understanding of the basis of pollution
and the problems of the coastal area. In order to understand
this,one usually needs scientific information and the needs to
organize it, relating to some form, either a standing format or
certainly be able to get it into a data bank and then be able
to manipulate it. One of the ways of doing this is to formulate
another model, model is another buzz word, but models can be
very simple or they can be very complex. Certainly we should
start looking at available information and use that information
to direct our efforts in time and priority and be able to see
the relationships between the physical instead of going out
there and the biological things.

At the present time I really don't see that we are doing
this, I think there have been a number of hangups and my impres-
sion is that people are sort of acting like a flock of chickens,
throw out a grain and everyone is running around grabbing for
the nearest kernel.

"/7

INFERENCES ON OCEAN ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT

Glenn A. Flittner, Ph.D.
Director, Bureau of Marine Sciences
California State University, San Diego

ABSTRACT

Scientific investigations of ocean conditions prior to
1930 in the Southern California Bight were limited. Consequent-
ly, the search for data comparative to today's conditions is
hampered by the dearth of information indicative of water
quality and the character of the marine biota present in earlier
years prior to the onset of major urban-industrial activity in
the Los Angeles Basin and development of ocean outfall systems
discharging primary-treated sewage wastewater. Previously un-
published commercial catch data for albacore tuna (Thunnus
alalunga) in the Santa Catalina Channel and off Newport Beach
and elsewhere inside the Channel Islands during the 1920's are
presented as one more index of oceanic, "blue-water" conditions
that once prevailed off southern California.

In the past few years, a great deal of public discussion
has occurred over the state of ocean conditions today, and how
they compare with conditions in earlier times. In March of this
year, a comprehensive three year study of the Southern California
Bight concluded that"..there is no evidence to document that
present (sewage) wastewater disposal practices have had any
substantial adverse or irreversible effects on the general ecol-
ogical characteristics or environmental quality of the Bight..
.." (SCCWRP, 1973).

On the other hand, Fay, 1973 presented substantial bio-
logical evidence to support his views that nearshore conditions
had indeed deteriorated substantially. In virtually all
instances evidence of ocean conditions prior to the 1940's is
scattered and largely circumstantial; worse still, research
quality data prior to 1930 are extremely scarce.

Today, I will offer one more bit of evidence relative to
nearshore water conditions in the summer of 1920. The area
under discussion will encompass the waters from Santa Monica Bay
south to Santa Catalina Island, and thence southeastward to the
shore off Oceanside.

The Pacific Coast albacore tuna fishery had its beginnings
in Southern California when A.P. Halfbill experimented with
canning of a small sample of fish in his Long Beach cannery in
the summer of 1916. His test market of the "chicken of the sea"
proved remarkably successful, and by 1920, a major fishery had

11'

Flittner

grown for albacore to meet the consumer demand. In 1920 an
estimated 300 small boats fished the Southern California Bight
by day from ports ranging from San Pedro and San Diego harbors.
This paper summarizes a 9 day period from July 22 to 30, 1920,
in which 234 tons of albacore were taken as close as 5 miles
from the beach off Newport, San Juan (Capistrano) Beach, Ocean-
side and inside Catalina channel.1
Slide i - July 22, 1920. Approximately 25 boats working
inside the catalina channel and spread over a
35 mile reach took 27 tons of albacore. The season had
started on July 12 to the southwest of Catalina Island.

Slide 2 - July 23, 1920. More boats worked to the south
end of Catalina and to within 6 miles of Laguna
Beach. 14 tons reported.

Slide 3 - July 24, 1920. About 30 boats returned to the
southeast corner of Catalina Island. 22 tons
reported.
Slide 4 - July 25, 1920. Same fleet extended east to
within 10 miles of San Juan. 15 tons reported.

Slide 5 - July 26, 1920. Fish appeared to scatter and
boats operated as close as 10 miles S of Point
Fermin and 6 miles S of Newport. 15 tons reported.

Slide 6 - July 27, 1920. Some boats found fish S and E
of Santa Barbara Island, but the majority fished
in major area to within 5 miles of the beach from Newport
to 10 miles S of San Juan. Best day yet, 33 tons reported.

Slide 7 - July 28, 1920. A major fishery had developed
from about 5 miles off Newport; a large concen-
tration occurred about 4 miles off San Juan, but fish were
found close to beach to within 6 miles of Oceanside and
about 10 miles off Del Mar, just N of Pine Hill (now
called Torrey Pines Bluff). Catch today, about 28 tons.

Slide 8 - July 29, 1920. Region of fishery had expanded
considerably to between Catalina Island and
Santa Barbara, to the NE tip of San Clemente and inshore
from 6 miles off Newport to about 10 miles off Oceanside.
Catch today, 42 tons.
Slide 9 - July 30, 1920. Fish schools had scattered, and
boats ranged from W of Santa Barbara Island E
to Oceanside and up to Newport. Catch today, 37 tons.
From these data, it can be concluded that the appearance
of albacore tuna so close to the beach was more than just happen-
stance. In fact, this fishery continued to operate in the same
general area through late August. Further, albacore tuna moved
northward to an area 5 miles S of Point Dume and were found
scattered between Anacapa, Santa Cruz and San Nicholas Islands
well into September. The last recorded catch was taken Septem-
ber 27, 1920. The season total was between 8,500 to 9,000 tons.

i - These data are part of some unpublished holdings in the
library of Dr. W. F. Thompson, who died in early 1966. The
junior assistant working under Dr. Thompson at the time, and
who also acheired experience lr as a fishery oceanographer
was Oscar Elton Sette who died last year. These plots were
made personally by Elton Sette. These slide are color
photos of the originals.

IN'

Flittner

From what we know now about albacore tuna, ocean condition
for such a persistent nearshore fishery in 1920 (and also 1921,
1922) were probably as follows: water temperature ranged from
62-68 degrees F., with optimum at 640�F water transparency -
secchi disc depths greater than 15 meters; baitfish present,
probably anchovy and Pacific sardine (the fishermen reported
using salted anchovy bait).

Clemens and Craig (1965) stated that most albacore avoid
the cold, green water associated with islands and continental
land masses, preferring the blue waters. Murphy (1959), in a
study of the effects of water clarity on albacore catches, ob-
served that ".....albacore are probably sight feeders." They
have large and presumably efficient eyes, and thus vision in the
nearshore zone would be expected to be related to turbidity,
which is in turn related to the amount of particular matter in
the water.

Pansline (1971), in a study of the Oregon coast albacore
tuna fishery in 1969, observed that water color and sea surface
temperature were prime determinants of albacore distribution and
availability. Over a three month interval, 66% of the fish were
taken in "blue water," whereas only 27% were taken in "blue-
green," and 7% in "green" water, respectively. The latter ob-
servations were predominant in the Columbia River Plume, which
is a complex fingerlike region of mixing of the river runoff
with Pacific ocean waters.

One can conclude, then,that the ocean waters off Southern
California were indeed clear enough for nearly a three month
stay of albacore in 1920, and a gain in 1921. One can conclude
also, that in those years, man's impact on the nearshore zone
was not yet evident. Harbor dredging was just beginning; ocean
sewage wastewater outfalls were not yet engineered; and streams
tributary to the Los Angeles Coastal Plain were just being reg-
ulated by dams and impoundments. Agriculture was well developed
and erosional deposition in the nearshore zone could have been
substantial, beginning with the record flood year in 1916.
Nevertheless the cumulative impact of man on the ocean waters was
insufficient to deter the prolonged visitation of albacore so
close to the beach.

In the past 30 years, we have no such equivalent record of
tuna abundance. In the 1962 season, which set all albacore tuna
sport fishing records, albacore tuna came within 20 miles of
Point Loma, but remained well outside the Catalina Island - San
Pedro Channel.

What has happened in the 50 year interim? Sea temperature
have fluctuated according to the intensity of the upwelling
season each year, but have remained optimal for albacore at
least two to three months of each year. Water transparency has
dropped substantially--but the comparative data are few to
document this assertation. Emery (1960 pg. 100) reported a
secchi depth survey of over 1200 stations aboard E.W. Scripps
in June 1938, in which the majority of the Southern California
Eddy had readings greater than 15 meters. Fragmentary observa-
tions are available for recent times, but it can be said
generally that such measurements are unattainable in Santa Monica
Bay, off Palos Verdes, off the Catalina Island east side, and
the San Pedro Channel.

I maintain that the continual, cumulative additon of
primary treated sewage wastewater effluents are significant
contributors to these subtle changes. The natural upwelling and
enrichment process, which occurs on a seasonal basis commencing
with the onset of the persistent northwesterly wind regime from
March through September of each year, is now receiving signifi-

120o

Flittner

cant additon of nutrients via the nearly one-million acre feet
of sewage wastewater discharged annually from the Hyperion,
White Point, Santa Ana and Point Loma outfalls, not counting the
Santa Barbara and Port Hueneme outfalls as well.
These discharges also carry thousands of tons of flocculert
settleable organic solids into the nearshore zone each year
which are only partially degraded in the sewage treatment
process. These materials are being dispersed at intermediate
depths within the Santa Monica Bay, Palos Verdes offshore zone,
and off Newport Beach in turbid layers that have been suspected
of merging at times (Brown, personal communication). The
ecological impact of such widespread submerged wastewater fields
is poorly described and even more poorly understood. Orecan
assume, however, that the triple combination of seasonal natural
upwelling and enrichment, continual sewage nutrient enrichment
and continual addithn of settleable organic fine solids from
sewage wastewater must contribute significantly to the reduction
in water transparency now being observed in the Southern Califoa-
nia Bight.
As long as man continues this course, and as long as he
persists in using the Southern California Bight as his septic
tank for increasingly large urban-industrial communities, we
will witness the gradual but inexorable exodus of pelagic marine
organisms that depend upon the clear, deep blue sea for their
existence. The albacore tuna could be brought back close to
Southern California shores if man so chooses to select other
means of waste disposal, and to reverse the processes he has set
in motion.

NOTE: T.Chow's inflection points on lead concentration in S.
California Bight sediments after about 1920: "concentra-
tions rise sharply."

FUTURE OPTION OF COASTAL ENERGY

Dr. Jack Green
California State University
Long Beach

Coastal energy options are grouped in three sets: 1) water
food; 2) ore-fuel; and 3) electricity-land. Under group number
one, Figure 1, fresh water from towed icebergs, aluminum plate
transpiration systems, and reverse osmosis fiberglass pipes is
considered together with 3 D mariculture, algae-water hyacinth
blooms in sewerage outfall lagoons, and artifical nutrient up-
welling.

Under group number 2, Figure 2, sodium chloride from solar
evaporation, magnesium and bromine from brines, vanadium and
nickel from marine animal farms, and copper, zinc, and silver
from rift brines are considered with hydrogen from seawater bio-
photolysis, magnesium hyride from brines and seawater electroly-
sis, methane from algal fermentation, and petroleum products
from beneath coastal ice.

Under group 3, Figure 3, electricity from (a) vapor tur-
bines involving Claude heat exchange systems, (b) low-head
turbines run by surface or density currents, (c) von Arx elec-
trode systems, (d) solar panels, (e) floating nuclear reactors,
(f) reactors emplaced in salt domes, (g) geothermal heat, (h)
wind turbines, (i) tidal turbines, and (J) wave turbines is
considered with land-producing mechanisms such as direct pumping
of seawater into subsurface strata by wave or tide machines
(possibly augmented by pumice tow-and-dump techniques). Wave or
tidal energy could also power local maintenance dredging opera-
tions.

Hydrogen may become the fuel of the future. There is a
good deal of literature published on the development of hydro-
gen. Other sources of fuel, such as methane, can be readily
produced from algal fermentation. Lime calcium carbonate gases
can be derived from calcium oxide and magnesium, found in bit-
terns. Calcium oxide can be used to extract magnesium from
magnesium chloride. Oklahoma State University researchers have
found that magnesium hydride decomposes at low temperatures and
is safe to handle. Hydrogen can therefore be handled as mag-
nesium hydride. Concentrated vanadium present in salt can be
produced by adding manganese.

Research on low head turbines has been conducted by Alan
Pascal of the United States Manufacturing and Engineering Com-
pany in San Diego. Figure 4 demonstrates the simple boundry
layer effect with the bladeless turbine.

The French have not talked much about their research pro-
gress in tidal wave energy. It has not been too successful. It

/22

Green

�N3I~~hh1N 1VI~~~IdIJ~~bV zv/0 flO. Gs40 g901 df
,N3-L~N'VD.lW

(.Os >.Gz-c ~ ~ -K 3sQ3Ydfl0S~V H1V

w3Js~~~~~~s~~~ani.S~~~~~~~y~-0erlssUIA33v

F~ ~ ~~~~.L3'VIGR 1iN3A
Not-MLFOO WATERD1 IID1

LA~~~~~ND' Po Iv-Isn FO SAWTEVBOPOTL
WnSAS ~ ~ H-4 BACTERI.ALVj3a 1YD4OGisaSE

149C12 VCa 3 %4h~~&t~r

S~~~~~FOO -, WOATR-

ALLGAS F
7~-.. &~'7GZ-w- EX RMOR 4TAOTI4UON-CALq

~~~OEFUEL -m

M~~clz 0 CE/23

Gr een-y

~~ __ O'L04IAEADTUR8JlE PLUS VON AR
fa'll PRINCIPLE -ELECrRICALCUISEr
VAPOR (WIGH LATITUDE)
TURBINE

CLAUDE HEAT EKCHANGE
PLUS UPWELLED NUTRIENTS

BOATENCE
ISOLARI ~~~~~~~~WIND
-~ L I'LJZ~'~' bzz~�I~j) TURBINE

- ACL PRINCIPLE PJ4C O
UPLIFT FOR LAND OR FLOATING
SUBSURFACE ~~~~REAC.TOR
PRESSURIZATION ) ~~~~SEISMIC BUFFER
L~BURIED ~- NEGLIGIBLE TIERIIAL
ILTN SALT WAST REACTOR- SL IMPACT
DIPSALT WAT1DM 4EAT PIPE- DOE (*STORM PROTECTED
DISPOSAL ~~ TURBINE *TOW ACCESS
SYSTEM -- ) COOLING WATER
z~.IJDUCD IED DFig.3ITIIIODE
F,-ECB(QLAOILVL LOW HEAD TURBINE PLUS

CLAUDE HEAT EXCHANGE PLUJS
GEOTHERMA ~ ~ ~ IJ'VLL NUTINT
SURFACE CURERENT
(HAWAII) ~~DENSITY CURIZENT

FIGURE 3

ELECTRICITY - LAND.

BL~~~~~AELUMINU TURBINE DICONIUSTO

~~~~~~MNIUSIN BO AYLADER FRESSACES

Green

would be possible to pump water undergound using Pascals' princi-
ple and incremental tidal and wave energy sources. The cUoridatd
heat exchange technique is another method of driving a turbine.

On the subject of solar energy, I'm reminded of a recent
article in the Los Angeles Times related to a historical event
of 214 B.C. An experiment reproduced the action of Archimedes,
who destroyed the Roman fleet nearshore by focusing sunlight. He
commanded that his soldiers focus sunlight from their swords and
shields on the boats offshore. In the experiment, a rowboat was
ignited 160 feet offshore in two seconds by having dockmen hold
simulated shield reflectors and directing the sunlight on the
test boat. Solar energy is a very powerful source of energy and
much research is needed. Wind turbines also offer a potential
and Arronomus is currently doing research along that line.

A floating nuclear reactor is being planned. It will need
to be protected from climatic damage and secure from a military
threat. Salt domes provide, in my opinion, a preferred alter-
nate site for nuclear reactors. Wave energy studies by J. M.
Coleman have shown the availability of 1.3 kilowatts. Wave
energies on the west coast of South America and in Brazil result
from very large waves.

Southern California wave action warrants additional study
as does that of the remainder of the west coast of North America.
I'm always looking for coincidences for energy. I want to call
your attention to the coincidence of very, very high waves.
Enormous wave action is found in the area of the Archipielago
de los Chonos, Chile where we also find very, very strog current
velocities of 4 knots. I don't have much faith in current
energy, but when you have a coincidence such as these two, it
might be worth looking into--these coincidences could prove to
be most valuable.

As far as wind energy is concerned, again Arronamus of MIT
is doing some interesting work. He proposes 300' of high
towers with blade diameter of something like 70 meters - an
enormous windmill. WIND POWER can theoretically yield 19% of
year 2,000's annual kilowatts. Coastal for instances assuming
60 meter diameter wind turbines:
KWH x 109
- Offshore Eastern seaboard along 100
meter depth contour, Ambrose shipping
channel south to Charleston, S.C. 283
- Offshore Texas Gulf Coast along 100
meter depth contour from Mexican
border eastward 190
- Offshore Aleutian Chain along 100
meter depth contour 402

Source: 1972 NSF/NASA Solar Energy Panel

Energy resources of the Artic are hardly known. Along the
Aleutian Chain there is a cdncidence of tidal energy and wind
energy. This is something that deserves some kind of investiga-
tion and to see if any similar coincidences exist in other areas
on the earth.

Two aspects of low-head turbines involving density currents
and confined surface currents in the coastal area are important.
The bladeless turbine provides a sample of the boundary layer
effect concept. It is possible that we have an insufficient
number of prime currents, but the Gulf Stream provides for con-
siderable R and D. The bladeless turbine is simply a disc that
boundary layer forces make it turn. It is an old idea. There
is no major hub stress and other things useful in the extraction
of energy from the various surface currents and density currents.

125

Green

As far as the combination of circumstances, again, you have cur-
rents which can turn conventional Kaplan type or Prossel type
blade turbines. This is, of course, Claudet's old idea. I'm
pointing out combinations of circumstances and applications. A
surface current that could run a generator, raise cold water
which would be nutrient rich, create an artifical fishing area,
and could also run a vapor turbine.

One area already receiving considerable inspection from
Arronomus is the Gulf Stream off Florida where it is relatively
shallow, 100 fathoms deep. This could be used to tap, again, a
200 centimeter per second current velocity right off the coast
70 miles from Miami, an area where energy is needed to support
the growing population. In the Strait of Gibralter, at the
entrance of the Meditterean, the density current of the bottom
goes out at 200 centimeters per second, again at about 4 knots.
There is a shallow, 45 fathom, point where it might be possible
to install low-head turbines.

The floating reactor is real. Floating reactors must
avoid the shock effect. I am disturbed about its vulnerablility.

One of my favorite subjects is reactors in salt domes.
Because, I think, salt domes are nature's shock absorbers; they
are relatively safe, they are elastic and you can maintain a
positive or negative pressure and they are very, very deep; in
other words, they come to the surface or near the surface and
extend down a great depth. My concept is to use heat pipes,
which is usually boiling, evaporation-type cycle.
The concept of putting a reactor down here and having it extract
the heat from the top without having any communications with
the hydrological cycle is extremely intriguing. Off the shelf
configurations (Figures 5 and 6) would be some kind of working
fluid, you cannot get up to the temperatures with conventional
reactors to melt salt, yet. You could use heat pipes to extract
the energy and I think this is a way to help the siting problem
because you are removing your reactor from the hydrological end
of the meteorological cycle. Any runaway reactor, even a guil-
lotine break, would not be disastrous because of the salt dome.
In case of an accident, nuclear material would simply melt down
through thousands of feet of salt (salt melts at 8000 C). Salt
domes have been mined and rooms as large as parking lots for
trucks exist.

The new high temperature gas reactors, like the one at Ft.
St. Brian north of Denver, are already using liquid helium as a
coolant with temperatures at just about the temperature to melt
salt. I don't think we have to be worried about the reactors
in salt and again using heat pipes to extract the energy, com-
pletely isolates the reactors from the surface.

There are numerous salt dome areas in the coastal areas,
Typically, near the Artic Circle and in the Gulf of Mexico. I
want to conclude by saying there are possibly two major energy
centers in the coastal area. This salt dome, for example, is
near New Orleans and the salt dome is within 500' of the surface
and the salt depth goes down to 12-14,000'. The domes are en-
ormously thick masses of salt, so one energy center might be
the Gulf Coast, and the other might be the Artic Circle. In
Russia there are salt zones near Norvich. I don't mind the
Russians having the benefit of salt zones in the Artic, but I
think we want to be a little bit in prospective and try to look
for sources of energy in our own Artic area and so here is a
very important slide, I think, showing salt zones in the Cana-
dian Artic. You can see it is also definitely the oil province.
and the possiblity of using reactors in salt domes to maintain
long range energy needs is very important.

126

Green

I want to conclude by saying there are lots of op~tions and
there are a lot of wonderful ideas published in the various lit-
erature. For polluntion free energy sources, see Figure 7. There
are lots of programs going on, I j(ust hope that we have enough
support to see these through in time.

SURFACE
POANERPLPPT T-

7 SALT HEAT PIPES- SULFU~~~~R COOLANIT
OCI O KI 1

(BASALT WOOL SLFUR 'i" 611 '35
PRIMARYNT R 20 720 993 1328

PR- ~.TANESSUR CO

URANIUM ~~~~ITM)
DISPERSANT ~~~0.13 333 16061 631 1
0R RECOVERY ~1 445 718 833I
*JCON99ITS *~~ 2 493 766 919
5 574 B47 1065

FIGURE 6

SALT DOME REACTOR SITING
OFF-THE SHELF CONFIGURATION

S UPFACE
POWER PLANT T rT--

NI~~~~~~~~~N~

)T PRSE-a OR REOTHER)
N4LDDN 1COOLANTS

FIGURE7

SALT DOME REACTOR SITING
MODIFIED CONFIGURATION

Green

HEAT PIPES LOW HEAD TURBINES
TO SAN FRANCISCOTOAYHR

- -- j~~~.. 1EO~~n~J~~oo ~}COWIRESSED

A. EQUATORIAL UNDERCURRENTS I.E,
A. GEOTHERMAL FLUIDS I.E., GEYSERS CR0,MV1~

I ~~~~~~~~TO GIBRALTAR

I FRESH

SALINE

BASALT MEL
B. LAVA POOLS I.E., CHAIN OF CRATERSIB DENSITY CURRENTS I.E.,MEDITEPRANEAN

TO GUILF COAST CITIES T IM

C SALT MELTS I.. ITON I..Gc

FIGURE 7

POLJLUTION FREE ENERGY SOURCES

/26

AUTOMATED OCEAN MONITORING SYSTEMS

Kenneth Samples
George T. Barlow
Melvin B. Folkert
General Dynamics Electronics Division
San Diego, California 92138

INTRODUCTION

Automated systems for monitoring the ocean are maturing through efforts by
academies, Federal and local governments, and industry. There are many examples
of both success and failure in systems deployed for ocean data acquisition, but the
technology is available and it works when the budget and schedule permit meticulous
execution. The automated systems have the advantages of eliminating the labor inten-
sive costs of manned stations, and they do not suffer in quality of observation from
tediousness of the job, long hours, or heavy weather. Most of the early work in auto-
mated monitoring was directed toward measurements in the deep ocean. Monitoring
the Coastal Zone has gained attention as the pollution of coastal waters has reached
alarming levels in recent years.

For those of us involved in design and deployment of automated systems, the se-
lection of suitable instruments for measuring parameters of interest in the Coastal
Zone has proven to be more difficult than for open ocean measurement requirements.
Because the parameters are more specialized, the fouling environment much richer,
and the human activity greater, long term accuracy and reliability are consequently
inhibited. Biological parameters are the most difficult, and representative current
measurements are as difficult near shore as in the open ocean. Dissolved oxygen is
still a problem parameter if accuracy and reliability for long time series are re-
quired. However, most parameters of interest in Coastal Zone Management can be
monitored.

Automated ocean monitoring systems have generally taken the form of instru-
mented moored buoys, both large and small, surface and subsurface, telemetering
and internal recording. My report covers the large, surface, telemetering buoys
designed for high capability data acquisition with long endurance on station.

DATA BUOY STATUS

Data buoys have matured during over 20 years of development, deployment and
refinement. In the 1950's, several kinds of special purpose buoys for scientific re-
search were developed by academic institutions. In the 1960's, agencies of the Fed-
eral government undertook the engineering development of a general purpose buoy and
conducted analyses of buoy employment for operational and scientific data acquisition.
A working committee of distinguished scientists guided the concept and development
at General Dynamics of what they christened "the Monster Buoy". Sponsored by the
Office of Naval Research, the Monster Buoy has been improved through critical eval-
uation and refinement by many quarters of the nations environmental community, in-
cluding NOAA Data Buoy Office, Naval Oceanographic Office, Naval Oceanographic

12q

Samples/Barlow/Folkert

Instrumentation Center, academic institutions and the National Science Foundation.
Now, in the 1970's, the data buoy enjoys the status of a qualified data acquisition sys-
tem for classical meteorological and oceanographic parameters. That status has been
achieved because the development/refinement cycle recognized and satisfied the re-
quirements for effective data acquisition:

1. Representativeness of the Data
2. Quality Control of the Data
3. Data Validation

The Representativeness requirement concerns the ability of the sensing system
to measure the environment in a meaningful way for the intended use of the data. It
first involves information theory relative to the required sampling frequencies to
avoid aliasing of the data in describing natural variability. Second, transducers must
be selected that will faithfully measure the environmental values, uncorrupted by the
sensor housing, sensor installation, or buoy motion. Once taken, the data sample
must be accurately reproduced through the mechanical and/or electronic sequence
that conditions and formats the signal into useful data. While the question of repre-
sentativeness has been addressed by academic, government and industrial organiza-
tions, the most thorough analyses have been conducted by the NOAA Data Buoy Office.
Through the work of Withee and Clem* at NDBO and others in government, academia
and industry, error analysis of the buoy data acquisition system has authoritatively
established the meaningfulness of data from properly designed data buoy systems.

The second requirement, Quality Control of the data, depends upon the excellence
of the hardware and software which transforms the environmental measurement into
a data report. To satisfy this demanding hardware requirement, the sensors were
selected from the best units available from the nation's experienced instrument in-
dustry, providing accurate, reliable measurements at the buoy and formatted for
machine/machine transmission. Automatic checks of radio transmission-induced
errors are made with every data message. Ashore, comprehensive computer pro-
grams handle data editing functions and prepare reports, eliminating human inter-
vention and error potential. (Human monitoring can be applied as deemed desirable
in the view of the data user, however.)

The third requirement, Data Validation, concerns the traceability of the data to
a certified standard. Such traceability assures that a data acquisition network is pro-
ducing uniformly valuable data without unknowns or eccentricities in individual re-
porting stations. There is then no need for approximations or arbitrary interpreta-
tions in the primary use of the data, and secondary users of the data can have
confidence in their conclusions when treating such data. Data Validation begins, as
do the first two requirements, with selection of accurate, reliable transducers. It
continues through the execution of calibration procedures relating the buoy sensor to
a known, certified national standard. Validation is a continuing concern until the
sensor is returned from the ocean station and subjected to post-station-calibration
check to certify that the measurement was within specified tolerances throughout the
deployment. For data buoys, calibration procedures have been meticulously prepared
and methodically implemented and the results documented.

THE XERB-1 POLLUTION MONITORING SYSTEM

Applying Monster Buoy technology to water quality monitoring was undertaken by
General Dynamics as a part of the NOAA Data Buoy Office program. The platform
used was a 40 ft diameter discus hull Monster buoy designated XERB-1 (Experimental
Environmental Reporting Buoy) moored off Cape Hatteras East of Norfolk, Virginia.

*Determination of Total Observational Error in Environmental Data from Ocean
Measurement Platforms, G. W. Withee and L. M. Clem

130

Samples/Barlow/Folkert

The primary function of XERB-1 is to monitor meteorological parameters for use
in weather forecasting. To accomplish its task, it was already equipped with a small
digital computer which could be reprogrammed to control the operation of the pollution
sensing system when it was installed at sea, and an HF telemetry system for trans-
ferring data to the shore station at Miami, Florida. Also, because the buoy was al-
ready equipped with two engine-generator sets, there were no restrictions on the
power required by the pollution sensing system.

The water quality parameters to be measured by the system were conductivity and
temperature to derive salinity, hydrogen potential (pH), and dissolved oxygen (DO).
Two approaches were initially considered for bringing the sensors in contact with the
water sample to be measured. One approach involved an automatically deployed
sensor arm which would extend the sensors into the seawater under the buoy for
measurement, and then retract them into an anti-fouling solution which would purge
the sensors but not contaminate the electrodes or subsequent samples. This approach
presented several mechanical design problems: possible interference of one sensor
with another, or a distribution of sensors such that a small sample volume could not
be used. It had the advantage that disturbance of the chemical balance of the seawater
measurand would be minimal.

The second water sampling approach considered employs a sampling pump and
associated sample tubing for pumping water on board the buoy. The sensor trans-
ducers are mounted in series with the sample tubing, and the sample tubing is reverse-
flush purged with an anti-fouling solution. The pumping approach presented a possible
problem of upsetting the chemical balance of the measurand due to outgassing of oxy-
gen which would change the DO concentration, outgassing of CO2 which would change
the pH level, and possible temperature changes due to pump heat and agitation. This
approach did not involve significant mechanical design problems however, and allowed
a common volume to be sampled.

The approach selected as the most suitable for incorporation into the buoy was the
pumping system. A slow pump speed and short sample-tubing run were selected to
minimize measurand outgassing and temperature changes.

SENSORS

The sensor types selected for use in the system were an inductively coupled con-
ductivity sensor, a platinum wire thermometer for temperature, a glass electrode for
pH, and a thallium electrode for dissolved oxygen. Selection of the conductivity and
temperature sensors was based on in-house background experience, while selection
of the DO and pH sensors was based on an extensive survey of sensor suppliers.

Sensor suppliers indicated that two basic types of sensors were available for
measuring dissolved oxygen (DO): the thallium electrode sensor and the polarographic
sensor. All but one sensor supplier indicated that their DO sensors would not survive
unattended in an ocean environment. Life expectancies claimed ranged from hours to
2 weeks. One sensor supplier claimed the successful deployment of thallium-electrode
DO sensors in raw sewage for an unattended period of 6 months. It was believed that
the raw sewage, although different, was an equally hostile environment as seawater.
The thallium-electrode sensor selected for testing to determine its suitability em-
ploys a reference electrode identical to the active sensor electrode. The reference
electrode is co-located with the active electrode in, but isolated from, the measurand.
This method is used to cancel out the temperature dependent errors. The testing pro-
gram indicated that the sensor lacked the stability required and, consequently, a DO
sensor was not included in the deployed system. A more recent evaluation reported
by PijanowskiI of the National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center indicates that a
suitable DO sensor may now be available.

1lReferences and illustrations appear at end of paper.

131

rumples/Barlow/Folkert

SAMPLE PUMPING SYSTEM

The sensing system aboard XERB-1 pumps the water sample aboard from a point
1 meter below the bottom of the buoy. Taking the water from this depth prevents
damaging or clogging of the intake by material floating on the surface, and also pre-
vents ingestion of water that has been supersaturated by air as it is forced down under
the buoy by the bow wave. As a further precaution, the intake is equipped with a
coarse mesh screen. Pumping is accomplished by a small pump selected to prevent
"bruising" the water sample and changing the composition before passing through the
sensors. Various types of pumps were considered. The flexible impeller type was
judged to be the best choice when heating, agitation, pulsation, and pressure differen-
tials were considered. The pH, temperature, and conductivity sensors are inserted
in series in the plumbing system (Figure 1). Provisions have been made for inclusion
of a dissolved oxygen sensor at a later date. After passing through the sensors, the
water exits overboard at an elevation selected to present a head at the sensor location
similar to that at the depth at which the inlet is located.

Although the need for an anti-fouling purge was not well established, since the
sensing system is located in a dark buoy compartment free of sunlight necessary for
many types of marine growth, it was decided to incorporate a purge system into the
pumping system as a precautionary measure to assure success.

Since the system is always filled with fluid, the problem of formation of air
bubbles caused by the incoming sample water mixing with air in the system is avoided.
If present, these can be very troublesome because they may become lodged at the
sensors and cause false measurements. When the dissolved oxygen sensor is in-
cluded, such mixing would also affect oxygen dissolved in the sample as seen by the
sensor. Gases dissolved in the seawater can also come out of solution and form
bubbles if the sample is mechanically "bruised." For this reason, a pump with flex-
ible rubber impellers was used and great care was taken to eliminate sudden diameter
changes or other discontinuities which might be sources of sudden pressure changes
in the plumbing system.

SYSTEM OPERATION

Upon command from the digital computer, the pollution-sensing-system control-
ler turns on the power to the sensors. Two minutes later, the intake pump starts and
runs for 2-1/2 minutes (10 system volumes) to rinse the system with fresh sample
water and to allow the sensors to stabilize. Near the end of this period, the computer
automatically reads the sensor signals and stores the data in computer memory.
Once this has been accomplished, the controller reverses the intake pump and starts
the purge pump for 1/4 minute (1 system volume). During this period, a solution of
10%0 alcohol and 90% water is drawn from storage tanks and is then passed through
the sensor system plumbing and out the sample intake to flush out the seawater. This
solution is left in the system (in contact with the sensors) until the next data collection
period. The solution sweeps out organisms which may have entered with the seawater,
and prevents buildup of growth between sampling periods.

Upon interrogation, the data in the computer memory is transferred in digital
form through the XERB-1 Telemetry System to the shore station located at the U.S.
Coast Guard Radio Station at Miami, Florida. Scale factors are applied ashore be-
fore data is distributed to users.
TESTING PROGRAM
Since the system required long term unattended automatic operation, an exten-
sive testing program was conducted before deploying the pollution monitoring system
aboard the buoy at sea. The purpose of the tests was to establish:

a. The effect of pumping water through the system on sensor system
accuracy.

13L

Samples/Barlow/Folkert

b. The long term stability of sensor calibrations.
u. The time required for sensor readings to stabilize when operated in
cyclic mode.
d. The reliability of the pumping and control system.
e. Effectiveness of the purging system in preventing a buildup of marine
growth.

TEST RESULTS

The system was found to be insensitive to seawater sample pumping rates over a
wide range. Pumping rate change from 1.25 to 4.0 gallons per minute produced no
change in sensor output. Testing established that the use of a 10% alcohol purge solu-
tion does not affect the accuracy or stability of the sensing system.

During the Phase I tests, the DO sensor exhibited large temperature dependent
errors due to a difference in the thermal properties of the active and reference elec-
trodes. In addition, the calibration drifted rather severely due to formation of a thin
thallium-hydroxide layer on the active thallium electrodes. These instabilities re-
sulted in the DO sensor being omitted from Phase HI testing and from the system
deployed aboard the buoy.

Warm-up time for the temperature and conductivity sensors was less than 10
seconds, and that for the pH sensor was approximately 2 minutes. Stabilization time
after the pump has been turned on was approximately 1 minute. When sensor power
and pump power were turned on simultaneously, the stabilization time for the overall
system was less than 2.5 minutes.

The cyclic tests both in the laboratory and at Scripps Institution of Oceanography
established the stability of the pH sensor calibrations obtained in the laboratory. The
differences between the calibrated sensor measurements and the values derived from
the seawater samples drawn while at Scripps Institution of Oceanography are shown in
Figure 2 using the laboratory determinations as the base. These data indicate that the
system may be expected to read pH well within +0. 1 pH unit.

PERFORMANCE AT SEA

The pollution sensor was installed on XERB-1 during a visit to the buoy in early
August of 1971. The buoy was on station off Norfolk, Virginia at a location 36.5'N
and 73.5�W, near the edge of the Gulf Stream. During the installation, the pH sensor
developed a leaky seal which required repair ashore. Consequently, the system was
initially activated using the conductivity and temperature sensors. The pH sensor was
included in the operational system during a visit to the buoy in September of 1971.

The system was initially operated with samples taken hourly to study short term
variations in the measurements. Figure 3 (a weekly plot from telemetry data of the
hourly measurements) illustrates the variations observed. The abrupt mid-week
change in the measurements may possibly have been caused by a path deviation of the
Gulf Stream.

On 20 August, the sampling rate was reduced to once every 6 hours by a telemetry
command from shore. At this time, sufficient initial short term data had been accum-
ulated and the slower sampling rate was used to conserve the purge solution stored in
tanks aboard the buoy. Data taken during the week in which the sampling rate was
changed is shown in Figure 4 and illustrates the difference of information content at the
two sampling rates. Figure 5 is typical of the data records obtained after the pH sen-
sor was installed. The system was operated routinely in this mode until the end of
February 1972, when the 300 gallons of purge solution had been expended. At this
time, the system was returned to the hourly sampling interval and operated without
purging.

/33

Samples/Barlow/Folkert

The system continued to operate routinely until 19 April 1972, when the pH mea-
surements became suddenly erratic. Since that time, the remaining measurements
have continued to be stable and the pumping system continues to operate reliably. The
buoy was retrieved from station in early June 1972. At that time, the sensors were
carefully examined to determine whether any fouling had occurred. Preliminary indi-
cations were that it may be satisfactory to operate without purging the sensing system
in future deployments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Much of the work described in this paper was sponsored by the National Data Buoy
Center, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi under Contract DOT-CG 02,319-A. Mr. Robert
F. Devereux made a major contribution to the system philosophy and the initial design.

REFERENCES

1. Pijanowski, B. S., "A Quantative Evaluation of Dissolved Oxygen Instrumentation,"
Joint Conference on Sensing of Environmental Pollutants, AIAA Paper No. 71-1053,
Nov. 8-10, 1971.

POSITIVE PRESSURHE
(SAMPLE RETURN ONILY

~~~~~~~~~~~SENSOR co

I I A~~~~~SAMPLE S
~~~~~~~~~~~~III VOLUME

POMP WELL
TESTPA~~~~~~~~~ft ~~~(SIMU LATED BUOY WELL)I

BR~~~~~~~~~~~~~AMPINS IUP*

RGE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WITH REVERSING MOTOR

FIGURE I POLLUTION SENSING SYSTEM.

R PESMI-SABLE ERROR SAND I TOLERAN OFEENSOR pLUSTOLERANCE OF STANOAROI

o5$ pH UNIT CLMEO SENSOR ACCURACY

*mKpHNIT ACCURACY OF LAORATORY STANOAsD

/ 1145

POT PT?
7 B 4 13 11 IZ 13 14 13 1S 17 1/ 19 20 21 22 23 as 25 2 32
MONTI OFJUNE

FIGURE 2

PLOT OF SALINITY AND PH ERRORS
REFERENCED TO LABORATORY ANALYSIS
(data starts Month 7)

Samples

DATA FOR WEEK STARTING 13 AUGUST 1971

OCEAN DATA STATION - X ERB-I
NORTH ATLANTIC 36-51 DEG N 7350 DEG W
WEEKLY COMPOSITE TIME SERIES-
ELECTRO DYNAMIC DIVISIODN O EDENERAL DYNA1MICS

Sffl-IDTy FOLLITICH SEN PARTS/1-SR
3B.0

34-.

CON3JUIVIT PaJJJT1(Na~lcva

S5.

4.0
40.a

.0
WATER TEW-� AT P0LLIf1QW-SM;WB 0 REZ C-

in.
SAT SN 0 TUE W TSFl
+ STASRYT TIN 1aU T 1j3 ALS isZi

Figure 3

'37

Samples

DATA FOR WEEK STARTING 20 AUGUST 1971

OCEAN DATA STATION - X ERB-t
NORTH ATLANTIC 3651 LEG N 73.50 LEG W
WEEKLY CAWPOSITE TIME SERIES
ElECTRO DYNAMIC DIVISIONI OPF GENERAL DYNAMIC

SALINUY RUlj-TIEN SEER, PARTS.11flSA9f

32-0.

34.0

CMD-CTIVTY KLLUTIN SDAR, W-AOSIe

WATER TY-A FCLLUJJTIX SENSR, N4CEM CO
20 -

START T:lE iH (24 TUE Wm E THU
STWRT TUC I GMT 20 AM jrjq~j

Figure 4

'39

Samples

DATA FOR WEEK STARTING 17 SEPTEMBER 1971

OCEAN DATA STATION - X ERB-1
NORTH ATLANTIC 38.51 lEG N 73-50 OEG W
WEEKLY COMPOSITE TIME SERIES
ELECTRO DYNAMIC DIVISION OF GENERAL DYNMICS
IYDR03 F'OTSENTIL-RI. AT PLLUTIONJ S1&R

4 SLINITY FOJJJTXQ4l( EsE PFRTS'l

3:4-

40.
j--WATER TSP. AT FUJJJUTSJ -MaMFW.E C-

as. - .-----------

SAT W m Tk.
START TINE 1EM G4T 1 ET 1WI

Figure 5

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~l'

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION

J. D. Frautschy
Scripps Institutuion of Oceanograhpy

What are the data needs of coastal zone planning and
management? In C aiori' case the needs are almost so broad
as to be undefinable. First of all, the California Coastal Zone
Commission is charged With preparing a multi-element plan for
the coastal zone consisting, at least, of the following compon-
ents:
A. A precise, comprehensive definition of public
interest in the coastal zone.

B. Ecological planning principles and assumptions
to be used In determining the suitability and
extent of allowable development.

C. A component which includes the following elements:

1. A land use element.
2. A transportation element.
3. A conservation element for the preservation and
management of the scenic and other natural
resources of the coastal zone.
4. A public access element for maximum visual and
physical use and enjoyment of the coastal zone
by the public.
5. A recreation element.
6. A public services and facilities element for
the general location, scale, and provision in
the least environmentally destructive manner of
public services and facilities in the coastal
zone. This element shall include a power plant
site study.
7.An ocean mineral and living resources element.
S. A population element for the establishment of
maximum desirable population densities.
9. An educational or scientific use element.

D. Reservations of land or water in the coastal zone
for certain uses, or the prohibition of certain
uses in specific areas.

E. Recommendations for the government policies and
powers required to implement the coastal zone plan
including the organization and authority of the
governmental agency or agencies which should assume
permanent responsibility for its Implementation.

In general, one can say that the data needs are for data
which will assist In answering all questions which arise in the

Frautschy

broad planning areas as listed, as well as specific data essen-
tial to intelligently control development during the planning
period, which is another charge of the commission.

To get down to brass tacks, let's see what one needs to
know to act properly in assessing the permit application of San
Diego Gas and Electric Company and the Southern California Edisan
Company to construct two systems, each of 1140 megawatt electri-
cal output, powered by light water nuclear reactors on a site at
San Onofre, California. It is proposed that ocean water be used
to assimilate waste heat.

Specific issues to be assessed are:

1. Is there a need for generating capacity?

2. Should it be on the coast? and if so, is this a
suitable site on the coast?

a. does it interfere with or preempt an area
otherwise useable for public recreation?
b. does it interfere with scenic vistas?
c. is it an irreversible commitment of coastal
resources?

3. Using cooling water from the ocean, as is proposed,
does it have an adverse effect on living ocean
resources and aesthetics? and finally

4. Is the development proposed safe, insofar as
seismicity of the site and engineering design
are concerned?

Fortunately there is federal preemption of the final issue
of safety and the Commission is precluded from considering that
point although it is the issue in the public mind.

To assess the issue of point 1, the need for the generat-
ing capacity, the answer can only be an overwhelming yes. When
one considers the present almost total dependence on fossil fuel
generating plants and the small finite reserves of acceptable
fossil fuels it is clearly in the public interest to construct
this plant which is not dependent on fossil fuel, and as rapidly
as possible. Thus the normal projections of power useage need
not be computed.

The remaining issues are tougher, mostly because of our
lack of solid information, although there are numerous expressed
hypoteses and apprehensions bearing on specific problem areas.

There are, of course, economic considerations for siting
power generating facilities on the coast. Concentrations of
population exist on the coast and the load centers are there.
Because of this, transmission losses are held to a minimum. The
capital cost of constructing a plant with open circuit ocean
cooling is usually considerably less than that of a plant utiliz-
ing cooling towers or cooling ponds. The capability of a plant
with open circuit cooling is generally at least 2% greater and
since one does not need to maintain cooling towers or purchase
cooling water the operating costs are lower.

The cost and availability of fresh water for cooling can
be an important consideration. San Onofre units 2 and 3 would
require about 50,000 acre ft. of water per year were the units
to be dependent on fresh water with tower cooling. Since in this
part of the world water equates to power in the overall scheme
of things, the net electrical yield of the plant is thus further
reduced.

Jq1r

Frautschy

On paper, salt water towers might be attractive. However,
there is very little experience with salt water towers and only
limited experience with towers in the 100 megawatt capacity
range in England and perhaps elsewhere. The option of salt
water tower use on a large scale is not very attractive environ-
mentally, at least until more is known about the ability to
control salt drift, climatic effects and problems associated
with concentrated blow-down brine disposal. It will be seen
that a great deal of data, most of which is now non-existent, is
necessary to evaluate specific alternatives to open circuit
cooling options for comparison purposes with plants of this size.
Certainly considering fuel efficiency only, the coastal open
circuit cooling plant is the most attractive.

Passing to the question, "is this a suitable site on the
coast," one finds himself dealing with matters both factual and
subjective. Seismicity of the proposed sites and population
distributions become important when one is dealing with nuclear
plants. San Onofre appears to be marginally adequate on these
counts. Other high public value utilization of the site is
another consideration. Measured on this basis, and with present
public values, San Onofre would be unacceptable since the site
contains beautifully sculptured sandstone cliffs and barrancas
which would be lost in the site prepartion process. Also it
is bounded on two sides by state beach parks. The only redeem-
ing feature of the site on this score is that is is immediately
adjacent to existing nuclear unit one.

An additional negative aspect is that some view of the
ocean from Interstate 5 would be lost because of construction of
a berm to screen switch gear and distribution lines from view.

Certainly loss of the sandstone cliffs is an irreversible
commitment of coastal resources. Other aspects of the proposed
construction constitute reversible commitments if one considers
a time span of the order of thirty years or more. The staff
analyst of the Commission has equated destruction of the cliffs
to "burning down our cathedral for firewood." At least the
"ashes" of the sandstone cliffs would have value in replenishing
our vanishing beach sand and this must be considered in the
overall balance of the proposal.

The place where good solid data is needed and where it is
unavailable is with respect to the effect of plant operation on
the ocean environment.

Here there are a number of questions. What will be the
extent and nature (vertical and horizontal) of the thermal field
and how will it vary in time and space? The principle concern
here is for the well being of nearby kelp beds which have econ-
omic value themselves and which also play an important role in
the support of other living things. Kelp has a limited toleranm
for heat. During the warm water years of 1955-1958, the kelp
beds of southern California declined markedly.

A considerable amount of aata exists on the thermal field
associated with unit one, but the degree of confidence that can
be attained in extending that experience to the much larger
units two and three is uncertain. Modelling has been done, but
again the validity of the models is unknown. The existing
thermal field is generated by a plant with a capacity of 450 MW
(e) as contrasted with the two proposed units at 1140 MW(e) each
The combined pumping rates of the three plants would be about
1.95 million gallons per minute with the water heated 200F.
above intake temperature. The thermal field geometry will be
affected by winds, currents, waves, and details of the ambient
density structure existing in the surrounding area at any given
time.

Iqz

Frautschy

Another area of concern has to do with the consequences of
entrainment of planktonic organisms. The probable mortality of
entrained organisms is virtually unknown, based on the mortality
projections made by various investigators. The estimates vary
from about 12% to nearly 100%. Here solid data is really lackiig
In reviewing monitoring data taken since unit one went into
operation in 1968, Professor James Enright of Scripps found that
there is a major concentration of zooplankton in the vicinity of
the intake discharge. He ascribes this concentration to a
collecting of plankton from other areas since primary phyto-
plankton productivity does not track with the zooplankton incre-
ases. His belief is that the mortality of entrained copepods
and other large forms is high, probably of the order of 70% or
more. Further, my impression is that he believes that much of
the mortality is caused by mechanical damage associated with the
organisms impinging on pump impellers and conduit walls. However,
impoverishment of plankton in nearby ocean areas has not been
noted to my knowledge, and the California Department of Fish and
Game reports the biota of the area to be "lush and diverse."
His speculation as to the role of mechanical damage in the
mortality of zooplankton raises an interesting question in my
mind. Are ship propellers responsible for comparable plankton
kills? The dimension of the action of a tanker propeller is
comparable and the velocities are higher. If San Onofre expan-
sion is to be prohibited on the basis of plankton kills, should
we determine whether or not tanker propellers are killing large
numbers of plankton and tie them up if they are? My personal
attitude towards things like bacteria and plankton is that if
there are enough of them to successfully support other living
things, I care little about their health and happiness. I guess
I lack planktonic empathy. Unfortunately the question remains,
will there be enough of them left in the vicinity to do the job?
In the case of unit one, I think that the indirect evidence is
that there are. Unfortunately, little is known about the effects
of elevated temperture on viability and growth rates of plankton
In higher forms the general effect is to accelerate growth,
often by a factor of three or more.

Still another plankton and larva problem might be caused
by operation of units two and three. This one is an artifact of
EPA-required regulations adopted by the state. These regulatiors
require that heated discharges be diffused through the vertical
water column to the extent that the surface isotherm 4OF above
surface ambient shall not extend more than 1000 ft from the
point of discharge more than 50% of the tidal cycle. Further,
the plus 4 degree isotherm is not permitted to touch the shore-
line or any substrate. The engineering design response to this
requirement is to discharge heated water well offshore in a
considerable depth of water through multipart diffusers. To
obtain separation between intake and discharge, the intake is
located inshore. The net effect of operation is to draw in rel-
atively warm inshore water, together with endemic inshore
planktonic larvae and subject these forms to a long, hot transit
through the extended discharge line where they are subjected to
a sharp thermal gradient when released into the cold, deep, alien
offshore environment. This is the best way that I know of to
insure plankton mortality. Further, the heat is diffused into
the body of the ocean where it becomes a near-conservative prop-
erty. To my way of thinking this is running the system back-
wards. Take water at a low temperature at depth offshore, run
it through the condenser and discharge close inshore. The merits
of this arrangement are that the discharge water is perhaps aboet
6�F (assuming the same AT in the condenser). The transit path
of organisms in the heated water is minimal, and water released
inshore would rapidly radiate heat to the atmosphere and space.
Inshore organisms are generally tolerant of moderate temperature
change. Beside these benefits, California bathing beaches could
stand a little warming!

1V3

Frautschy

Fish are also vulnerable to entrainment. The San Onofre
expansion program calls for installation of equipment to divert
fish from the intake stream and return them to the ocean. A
system of this kind, to ny knowledge, has not previously been
used in connection with a power plant. Its designers anticipate
that is should be 90% effective. If this is the case the fish
kill should not exceed 100 tons per year, 40% of which would be
anchovies. I do not consider this to be a serious environmental
problem.

On the basis of the negative and unknown environment ef-
fects of units two and three, most of which I have covered, the
staff of the Commission has recommended denial of the permit.
Staff further suggests that the requirements of the Coastal Con-
servation Act could be met if a site east of Interstate 5 were
acquired, if more efficient high temperature gas reactors were
substituted for the light water reactors, if intake water were
taken from depth, and if a comprehensive monitoring program were
maintained.

On the surface this appears to be a reasonable compromise
and would save the scenic cliffs. Environmentally there may be
serious flaws, however. The proposed site east of the freeway
would need to be graded down to near sea level. This is neces-
sary to avoid supersaturation of gases caused by pump cavitation.
Supersaturation could be lethal to entrained organisms. Further,
the discharge lines would be greatly lengthened, thus resulting
in added transit time for organisms in the hot effluent and
greater mortality.

While I appreciate the cliffs, I am uncomfortable in
voting on the permit with information presently available as a
commissioner. Some facts that I need before I vote include:

1. Can a site east of I-5 be made available for units
two and three promptly?

2. Can this site be graded down to an elevation no more
than 50 ft. above sea level?

3. Is EPA willing to revise its thermal discharge re-
quirements immediately to permit construction of a
system rational for this site?

4. If a non-coastal site is the only alternative, what
time delays would be involved in getting a plant into
operation?

5. Where would the fresh water come from to cool a non-
coastal plant?

Until I have this additional information I would prefer not to
vote on this issue.

In the present energy situation, one which I view as being
critical for at least 25 years, I believe that it would be ir-
responsible to deny the permit with the assessment of possible
damage to the marine environment as it stands now, unless con-
struction on an alternate site is possible with little deferral
of the planned operating date.

San Onofre is now intimately related to Southern Californ-
ia's health and economy and in turn the success of our environ-
mental programs. A large numer of unemployed and disgruntled
citizens could care less about the cliffs at San Onofre or the
fate of plankton in the area and would surely make their posi-
tion known to the legislators who will be considering the coast-
line plan for adoption in 1976. I am sure that what we are

.J.iq

Frautschy

doing now in processing permits will be viewed by the public as
a sample of the coastline management to follow. Although the
charge of the law is simplistic and specific, I believe that it
is the duty of the Commission to interpret the spirit of the act
toward the end of achieving a net environmental improvement in
the coastal zone and of having a viable coastal management law
after 1976.

In general, environmental issues dealing with living
resources appear to me to be much more difficult to resolve in-
telligently than those that involve the physical environment.

One must recognize that man's presence in increasing
numbers is the basic problem. His population is forcing and
accelerating the natural selection process regardless of what he
may do to attempt to ameliorate the situation. The only very
useful thing that he can do to improve the environment for other
living things in the long run is to limit his own population.
Thus the environmentalist objective of improving human health
and longevity is in reality in contradiction to protecting other
living things.

For myself this is a laudable objective and one that I
subscribe to, selfish though it may be. I think that we clearly
should attempt to maintain viable populations of endangered
species as a hedge against the day when changing activities of
man could again permit these species to assume a role in the
natural plan.

What I am saying is that we can't go back; irresistable
forces are at work and even if man were to abandon his tech-
nology and return to an agrarian or hunting life the situation
would be no better. We can't avoid an adverse impact on other
forms of life; what we can do is to try to manage our popula-
tions and affairs to try to avoid catastrophic change. This will
require much more knowledge and self-restraint than we now
exhibit.

In matters dealing with environmental health problems, it
is amazing how many doctors come forward with profound profes-
sional advice. Unfortunately the podiatrist appears most apt to
give advice on brain surgery. The public and sometimes the
Commission fails to evaluate the source of the advice, thus
being led into unwise decisions. When you as marine scientists
have special knowledge on matters before the Commission, I hope
that you will share your expertise with us.

'415

URBAN MARINE RECREATION: BOAT OWNERSHIP TRENDS
IN THE LOS ANGELES REGION

Phillip J. Symonds
Research Associate, Center for Urban Affairs
University of Southern California

Perhaps a more descriptive title for this talk would be
"some useful information obtainable from an analysis of the
department of Motor Vehicle's master registration file."

But first I would like to place this project within the
context of a set of endeavors undertaken by the Coastal Zone
Management Group at the Center for Urban Affairs at the Univer-
sity of Southern California research group which has had a
considerable amount of financial support from the Sea Grant
Agency under NOAA. The Group has done some studies at U.S.C.
over the last couple of years, and at Washington State before
that. The work has been concerned with studing aspects of
coastal zone management structures from the following theoretical
-if not philosophical-viewpoint which has been nicely expressed
by Peter Harrison who worked on the Puget Sound Study in Wash-
ington State,

"The coastline represents the interface between
two highly different systems of property rights, On
the one hand the rights to land ownership may be bought,
sold, bartered, or exchanged in a quasi-market situation.
The water body on the other hand more nearly represents
a common property system, the ownership of which is vested
in the public-at-large even though possibly controlled
by institutional intervention." (1)

At U.S.C. an initial study by Mitchell Moss and Robert
Warren of the managment structure of Marina Del Rey was contin-
ued and greatly expanded by my associate and colleague Marsha
Rood. In a forthcoming paper "Management and Policy Development
in Marine Del Rey," she notes that:

(The) controversy over control of coastal zone
resources in California centers on the basic question
of whether regulatory powers over these resources
should be retained by local bodies or be transferred
to state or regional levels of authority. Since the
majority of Calitrnia coastal cities have responded
to economic priorities in allocating their coastal
resources, many environmental groups have supported
the creation of these higher-level coastal management
authorities...oriented to the conservation and
preservation of the coast. As a case study of coastal
resource management at the local level, (her paper)
explores Los Angeles County's management and policy
decisions concerning the development of Marina Del Rey,
the largest small-craft harbor in the world. (The)

"/6,

Symonds

study also considers the possible effects the state
and regional California coastal zone commissions could
have on the Marina's future development.

She concludes thats

(An) administrative structure originally designed
to develop and administer a revenue-producing harbor
operation has been faced with an increasingly com-
plicated set of policy questions concerning the conflicts
between boaters and the private operators of anchorages,
the use of the facility by the general public, rental
and taxation policies relating to commercial lessees
who have made multi-million dollar investments, and
finally the future development at the Marina. If
Marina Del Rey is to become a model for other recrea-
tional harbors in Los Angeles County and elsewhere,
the administrative channels through which all affected
and interested citizens can raise issues concerning the
Marina ........... become central considerations. (2)

Within this context, then, it has been useful to concern
ourselves with the relationship between those who benefit from
the use of coastal resource and the governmental management
system responsible for coastal allocation policy. For instance,
strong interurban and interregional recreational patterns would
imply that these bodies might not represent their recreational
constituencies. Consequently, it is important in the analysis
of coastal zone policy to investigate the demand for recreational
uses and to estimate the extent to which non coastal resources
could be substituted for marine-based resources.

Unfortunately, the demand for outdoor recreation, often
provided at no cost to the individual, is usually difficult to
assess. In particular, boating, a popular outdoor activity,
while it requires the use of goods generally provided in the
private market at fairly high prices, also requires public recre-
ational services provided at low costs. Changes in prices of
the use of harbors, boat ramps and slips, or gasoline may affect
the level of demand for such facilities. Clearly it is an
important public policy question to assess the distribution of
benefits resulting from the allocation of coastal resources to
recreational boating.

Especially in the Los Angeles region, boating has become
a major urban recreational activity. Moreover, much of the
boating activity is carried on at the coastal edge of the metro-
polis. Along the southern coast of California from Ventura to
Oceanside, thirteen small-craft harbors provide wet-storage for
about fourteen per cent of the region's registered or Coast-
Guard documented vessels. On the other hand, since most of the
boats are dry-stored and trailerable, urban boat owners may use
a variety of coastal or inland recreational locations near, or
at some distance from, the urban area. Day and weekend trips
are time-constrained so that intensive boat use reaches about
three hundred miles, thereby defining a not inconsiderable
region of influence. Metropolitan Los Angeles, with its
188,000 boaters places demands not only on local recreational
sites but also on sites as far away as Lake Tahoe, the Colorado
River, and the coast of Baja California.

There is little information about the distribution of
access to recreation sites among different classes of boaters
living in a large metropolitan area. The metropolis of Los
Angeles spreads over an area measuring one hundred miles by
seventy miles; time and distance travel costs may preclude im-
portant segments of the boating population from using certain
facilities regularly. Moveover, the facilities at a given

jq7

Symonds

location may be designed--or be constrained by available natural
resources-to be useable only by boaters with adequate equipment.
As an example, relatively few recreational boats are designed or
equipped for safe ocean use; others are too large to be moved to
inland sites.

Now I would like to tell you about how we have been obtain-
ing some information about spatial distribution of boat ownership
in relationship to access to marine and inland recreational
opportunities.

The development of third-generation computers has allowed
the storage of motor-vehicle registration information so that it
may be accessed rapidly by police and other law-enforcement
agencies. Edited versions of motor vehicle registration lists
have been made available to commercial interests and have been
found to be useful in determining market areas for vehicle re-
tailers. Little use has been put to the lists in the analysis
of public policy decisions. In this study it is shown that the
lists constitute a useful set of public information; the study
is concerned with the exploration of the use of the State of
California Boat Registration Master File in defining characteris-
tics of recreational boat ownership.

The remainder of the presentation was concerned with
discussing a series of photographic slides of maps of boat
ownership levels within Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan
area. Each map displayed the level of boat ownership within zip
code base maps copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps. Because the
slides were produced under coypright waiver it is not possible
to display the maps in the conference report. Accordingly it is
possible to give only a brief summary of the concluding remarks;
the maps and other analysis are to be presented in a forthcoming
document. (3).

To attempt to motivate more graphically the usefulness of
the spatial distributions, the first slide to be shown indicated
the geographical distribution of users of the boat ramp at Marira
Del Rey. It was clear that about sixty per cent of those who
used this facility lived within about four miles of the Marina,
the rest living about ten miles away in the San Fernando Valley.
In order to estimate effectively the range of influence or
market area of the Marina and thus obtain an idea of the distri-
bution of benefits of the facility, it is necessary to determine
what proportion of boaters from each subarea of the city travelal
to the boat ramp. The calculation of the proportion is possible
only of maps of urban boat ownership are available at a fairly
disaggregated level. It is also of interest to have some idea
of the family income levels within each section of the city. The
second slide indicated family income levels obtained from the
recent 1970 Census of population and housing.

The rest of the slides displayed levels of boat ownership
within each zip code area of the metropolitan area. The follow-
ing distributions were shown: all boats, trailerable power
boats (less than 20 feet in legth), moored boats (defined as all
boats longer than 20 feet), sail boats and jet boats. Finally
maps showing the distribution of legal ownership for power boats
and sail boats indicated that the use of credit in purchasing
pleasure craft seems to have the same spatial distribution as tie
level of ownership.

Some clear trends could be hypothesised by inspection of
the maps. It was seen that power trailer boats comprise 80 per

I4QF

Symonds

cent of the stock of all boats so the distribution of residences
of owners of this class of boat determined the distribution of
all boat classes added together. It was seen that there were
usually high levels of ownership of power trailer boats in mod-
erate income areas as well as high income sections of the
metropolis. For all classes of boats there was a very low level
of ownership in the low income central city areas of Los Angeles
On the other hand, ownership of moored boats and sail boats is
concentrated sharply along the coastline, with high peaks near
the major recreational harbors (Marina Del Rey and Newport Beac1l
and the upper income coastal places (e.g. Palos Verdes Peninsula
Jet boats, which have a power trailer design and make up a small
percentage of the fleet were seen to have a high concentration
in the moderate income, non-coastal city of Norwalk.

To conclude, these findings were placed within the context
of the current threat of gas rationing. It was suggested, with-
out rigorous statistical testing, that both family income level
and distance to available recreation sites were important
factors in determining the level of boat ownership. In particu-
lar because of the distribution of available recreation opportu-
nities in the Los Angeles region, 80 per cent of all boat owners
have trailerable power boats. Most of these boaters have
moderate income. It was suggested that if gas were rationed or
if the price of gasoline became very high, that many boat owners
would lose their opportunity to enjoy their recreational invest-
ment. On the other hand even if fuel prices remain at the
present level and if fuel remains plentiful, a significant por-
tion of the population of the urban area will remain unable to
purchase the equipment necessary if they are to have access to
the benefits of public recreational boating facilities.

1. Harrison, Peter. "The Land-Water Interface in an Urban
Region: An Analysis of the Nature and Significance of Conflicts
Between Coastal Uses." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Regional Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November
1973. Mimeo, Department of Geography and Regional Planning at
the University of Ottawa.

2. Rood, Marsha. "Management and Policy Development in Marina
Del Rey." Center for Urban Affairs, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, December 1973.

3. Symonds, Phillip J., Rober Warren and Earl L. Cooper.
"Policy Implications of Boat Ownership Distribution in Urban
Areas." Center for Urban Affairs, University of Southern Calif-
ornia, Los Angeles, December 1973.

jqj4

AN INDUSTRY VIEW OF FUTURE TRENDS
IN MARINE RECREATION

Mr. Paul Albrecht
President
Southern California Marine Asssociation

I feel somewhat in the minority being asked to speak at
such a distinguished gathering of speakers and guests.

My position here today is that of President of the
Southern California Marine Association. Our association was
formed In 1956 by a handful of concerned business men, all of
whom were active, in what was then, a very small marine industry
here in Southern California. When our association was formed it
consisted of approximately 45 companies and represented approxi-
mately 150 members.

Today we are somewhat larger. We represent 398 firms who
employ over 45,000 people directly involved in recreational
boating here in Southern California. We are presently the
largest AREA marine trade association in the country.

The purpose of SOMA is simple......to promote boating
and the boating industry In Southern California.

We actively maintain committees in the fields of legisla-
tion, education and Information pertaining to recreational
boating.

We work closely with local, regional and national marine
organizations who are also involved In recreational boating.

We provide a comprehensive year round FULLY STAFFED boat-
ing information center for the public and the Industry with
FREE information on all aspects of boating. Our boating infor-
mation center this past season answered over 1500 requests for
boating Information of all kinds.

We are pleased that you have asked up to participate. So
now, we shall attempt to give you our view of our future.

Let us divide our outlook into two areas.

FIRST, THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE:

1. Looking back over the past 6 months, our Industry
was in the midst of an economic boom.
2. The 1973 model year produced over 4 billion dollars
in sales at the retail level.

3, Over 200,000 people across the country were employed
by companies solely In the marine recreational industiy.

/_10

Albrecht

4. Beginning in late October and early November the boat
business made a noticeable turn downward. HOW MUCH?
Approximately 15 to 20% AFTER A SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT.

5. REASON; OBVIOUS. The UNCERTAINTY of the fuel
situation In the United States today.

6. May of the distributors of small power boats will be
drastically affected. Their sales are to smaller "Mom
and Pop" retailers who, because of their lack of basic
knowledge and know how, have not properly planted for
such a slowdown. This slowdown, coming at a time of
the year when new merchandise had been placed in stock
for sale, and is now not moving, will surely cause
many to fall.

7.As these smaller dealers go out of business, the
market place then becomes glutted by distressed
merchandise, causing an even greater strain on those
dealers which are left in business.

8.THE SHORT TERM OUTLOOK, THEREFORE........very
poor . ....with a loss of many marginal dealers.

SHORT TERM OUTLOOK FOR THOSE WHO REMAIN:

BAD. .....BUT TOLERABLE.

1. The GOOD business men in the marine business who
remain will be hurt, but will find ways to out back
the overhead and maintain a reasonable safe position
while waiting for the market to return to a more
normal position.

2. These retailers will find ways to promote the
product and make It more attractive for the buyer.
More buyers will then return to recreational boating.

3.The SHORT TERM will be rough, but as with any
industry . ....when the going gets tough, the
tough get going.

WHAT ABOUT THE MANUFACTURERS:

THEY FACE SOME REAL TOUGH GOING FOR THE SHORT TERM.

1. They will have fewer dealers to sell to.

2. Those dealers left will DEMAND AND GET better deals
or they won't buy.

3. Shortages of raw materials and higher costs of
those materials will make it difficult to bring
to the market place a good sellable product at a
price at which it will sell.

4. The market place will already be full of boats -
motors and trailers that because of the uncertainty
of fuel, will not be moving.

SO WHAT HAPPENS:

1. Some manufacturers will fail, and the source of
goods that the retail dealer and general public
will have to choose from, will lessen.

2. Competition will decrease.

Albrecht

3. Prices will once again become stable - but at a
more competitive level. This will draw even more
people into recreational boating.

4. And so the weeding out process is once again taking
place in our industry.

Not a particularly pretty picture but one which we have
seen and lived with many times before.

NOW - LET'S LOOK AT THE LONG RANGE:

When uncertainty becomes certainty.

When the smaller retailers regain the confidence they had
only one year ago.

When manufacturers re-align theselves to the new market
place.

Business will once again return to the normal pattern of
healthy, slow, upward growth.

HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:

In Southern California ....... probably more than anywhere
in the United States ....... recreation is not Just something to
do.........it's a part of our way of life.

It's as basic to our needs as food and shelter.

As we look at recreational opportunities here in Southern
California, we focus our attention on the mountains - the
deserts - and certainly the most important of all - the ocean
and its shoreline.

It is because of the ocean's great potential for recrea-
tional development that we in the marine recreation business
predict a very bright future for our industry.

We believe that we have all of the basic ingredients for
healthy upward growth ---the natural resources----the population
to engage in participatory recreation---and the economic factors
which make it possible for vast numbers of the population to
engage themselves in our activity---recreational boating.

It does not take a genius to realize that in order to
become involved, one must first own a boat - any kind of a boat-
large or small - power or sail - a boat kept in the water at a
marina or on a trailer at home.

We have a great need in the marine industry here in
Southern California to make sure that the vast recreational pos-
sibilities of our ocean are continually developed for the
maximum number of people wishing to participate.

The Southern California Marine Association is particularly
pleased to see plans for future development of marinas and other
water oriented areas within the state.

We believe that careful planning of future marinas should
include adequate facilities for the trailer boaters as well as
the larger berthed vessels. The importance of this is more
clearly emphasized when you realize that 84% of the total regis-
tered boats in California are of this type.

Plans should be made to provide more areas where Southern
Californians can store their trailerable boats AT or VERY CLOSE

J62

Albrecht

to marinas and launching ramp sites. This would enable the
apartment and condominium dweller to also share in recreational
boating. This factor, we believe, is becoming increasinly
important as the price of available land increases, causing
builders and contractors to move away from single family homes
towards condominiums and family apartments.

By careful planning by all agencies involved with the
future of our coast, planning that which takes into account the
many various factors which affect each new development, we can
all have a more useable and more beautiful coastline.... one
which many more Californians can more fully enjoy and use......
one which will better serve those people who have choosen boat-
ing as their recreational activity.

The Southern California Marine Association hopes to parti-
cipate by contributing to future planning.

In closing let me say that our industry is now in the
shadow of uncertainty. Uncertainty over the country's present
concern for the conservation of its fuel.

We are more than willing to do our part .... however, we
do not expect anyone to take away OUR RIGHT to continue to
operate and to serve the public's desire for our form of recrea-
tion.

The marine industry is now suffering from a bad case of
acid indigestion ................. more commonly known asgxs patina

Let us all keep in mind, however, there is a vast differ-
ence between gas pains and terminal cancer. The marine industry
of Southern California will continue to be a strong force in our
ever expanding recreational market.

POTENTIALS AND PROBLEMS IN MARINE RECREATION

George W. Webber
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

The theme of the conference covers the future. Yet, also,
we have been told that the program emphasis is on the practical,
and not the abstract. Realistically. one can hardly be very
practical while conjecturing on the course of future trends and
events. None of us can speak very authoritatively on what hasn't
happened. Therefore, the first part of my talk will stress the
practical, namely; What my small agency and some others have
been doing over the past decade along the California coast.
Later on I'll hazard a few guesses on the impulses that will be
dictating directions in marine recreation in the early future.
To go beyond the early future (say the next five to ten years)
essentially would be idle and probably foolhardy.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, in cooperation with the
Calif ornia Department of Parks and Recreation and other echelons
of government, has laid considerable emphasis on coastline
affairs. This has been undertaken through; (1) the 50-50 cost
sharing relationships of the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
(2) in the disposal of Federal surplus property for recreation
purposes, and (3) in large acquisitions of new Federal property.

Lets discuss the projects under the Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund first. Coastline acquisition and development pro-
jects occupy the top line in California recreation priorities,
and the State is in the pivotal position of deciding the direc-
tion of these monies. Since 1966, out of a total of some 300
funded projects, 52 have been marine oriented, i.e. coastal land
acquisition, fishing piers, beaches, marshes, estuarine locations
etc. In other words, about one-sixth of the projects are marine
oriented. Over 6,300 acres have been acquired.

Marine oriented acquisition projects for recreation have
received over $17,167,000 from the Fund. Development projects
have received over $3,311,000. This totals out at a Federal
cost-sharing of over $20,478,000 for marine projects. Of course,
an equal amount, since 1966, was expended by the state or by
local governments in the cost-sharing. All the 300 projects in
California have received about $62,000,000 out of the Fund.
Hence, while only about one-sixth of the total number of Calif or-
ni' projects could be considered marine In nature, they4
represent approximately one-third of the cost of all projects.
The grand total expenditure then, since 1966, has been about
$41,000,000 under the Land and Water Conservation Fund along the
coastline of California, one-half being Federal money and one-
half State or local money. Incidentally, all but a half-dozen
of these 52 projects are located along the southern half of the

Webber

coastline. Moreover, it should be stressed that other public
and private expenditures have made, independent of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund during the same years.

Since the passage in 1970 of the revised Surplus Property
Act, our Bureau has transferred 33 parcels of former Federal
property in California to State or local jurisdiction, nine of
these involved acreages associated with marine environments.
The fair market value of these nine former Federal properties
total over $6,554,000 and they include some 512 acres of coastal
land. Certain of these parcels have rather substantial fair
market values, such as the former Border Field at over $2,377,000
and the Naval Training Center and Marine Recruit Depot at
$2,500,000, both in San Diego County. Also, of course, 5.5
miles of Camp Pendleton beaches have been leased to the Califor-
nia Department of Parks and Recreation at essentially zero cost.

In the category of new and sizeable acquisition of Federal
property at or about marine locations, the results are impres-
sive. I do have certain slight hesitations in dwelling on these
accomplishments, however, because of their concentration in
southern California marine locations. The chagrin (possibly
verging on Jealousy) of this audience, however, hopefully will
be tempered by its intense dedication to marine affairs. In any
event, the State as a whole should benefit by establishment of
the Point Reyes National Seashore, $57,500,000; the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, $61,600,000; South San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge, $9,000,000; and the Redwood National
Park, $92,000,000. These are authorized dollar totals. The
ultimate expenditure will be in greater or lesser amounts.
To recapitulate, we find that since 1966, the Federal in-
vestment alone along the coastline areas in California totals
over $247 million. Also, through cost-sharing, we have posi-
tively identified another $20 million spent by other govern-
mental echelons. Before leaving the Federal area, I should add
that the Bureau of Land Management has a very active acquisition
and land-exchange program in the King Range along the coast
between Eureka and Fort Bragg. Federal lands here will be
increased from 31,000 to 46,000 acres. concentrated along 25
miles of coastline.
Beyond this, of course, State, county and local govern-
mental entities and private concerns and foundations have spent
additional sums in purchasing, developing and managing coastline
acreages. The California Coastline Preservation and Recreation
Plan of 1971 by the Department of Parks and Recreation, tells us
that 408 miles of California's coast were publicly owned at that
time: 145 miles Federal; 200 miles State; 34 miles county; and
29 miles municipal. Of these 408 miles, a total of 137 are
publicly owned in the northern third of the State, 108 miles in
the central, and 163 in the southern. Without judging the
merits, it's necessary to note that perhaps two-thirds of the
Federal mileage is closed to public use.

Whill the most extensive public coastline mileage is found
along the southern California coast, the ratio of usable space
per person is obviously lowest in this area. I've used too many
numbers already, suffice it to say that the California Compre-
hensive Ocean Area Plan (circa 1970) by the Department of Nava-
gation and Ocean Development estimated 127,000.000 recreation
days were spent at the State's shoreline in 1970 and that
I77,000,000 recreation days are anticipated by 1980.

In confronting the subject of potentials in marine recrea-
tion, one feels as if he should simply develop a taste for
classical music or take up Mah-Jongg. So much as been documented
by so many people regarding coastal recreation needs and

Is's

Webber

opportunities that every utterance becomes a redundancy.
Excellent material exists on types of recreation areas and loca-
tions which are required here in California. I've cited a
couple of reports, but there are many others. California's
Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan makes one particularly
simple but (to me) vew sage recommendation, however, namely,
that "Structures and activities along the shoreline must be
limited to those dependent upon the coastline." It goes further
also and states, "Those meeting this requirement should be loca-
ted and constructed to minimize their impact on the shoreline's
natural and recreational resources."

One could go even further and suggest that existing
facilities and activities interfering with essential coastal
uses should be removed. If we will be experiencing growth in
marine recreation comparable to other activities, this removal
procedure will be commonplace and very expensive. Recently, as
some of you may know, we cost-shared with the City of Long Beach
in acquiring 0.32 of a seaside acre. There were several build-
ings on the site containing nine apartments. This one-third of
an acre cost $282,000. The buildings have been destroyed.
Presumably expenses will be incurred in restoring the site.
Based on this rather extreme case, however, we may be envision-
ing million dollar an acre costs, in some instances, for acquir-
ing land. No wonder legal briefs are being prepared on behalf
of establishing public commons or establishing public access
right along the shores.

As the King Ranges, the Redwood Parks, and the Point Reyes
are brought into existence along the somewhat more remote reachs
of coastline, this eases the long-term strain for recreation
acreages for the State as a whole. But for the shorter-term
future, this is of comparatively little benefit to the southern
Californian, especially the crowded inner city resident with
small amounts of disposable income.

One could argue for acquisition of large swatches of coast-
line in the south, similar to the northern acquisitions. Where
are they, however, unless one contemplates acquisition of shore
fringes already developed? Camp Pendleton and the Channel
Island are exceptions to the congestion.

Our Bureau issues a monthly bulletin listing legislative
proposals in the Congress. In the November issue, there were
191 proposals for new National Recreation Areas, National Parks,
National Lakeshores, National Seashores, National Riverways,
Wild and Scenic Rivers, Parkways, Scenic Roads, National Wilder-
ness, etc., or additions to areas. In all, 20 pages of goodies.
Many of these of course, never will be acted upon. But, others
will be added and the potential for expenditures must total in
the billions.

The point I'm trying to make here is that correction of
inadequacies for coastal recreation will be very costly and very
competitive with demands for other investments for outdoor
recreation, to say nothing of demands for other types of legiti-
mate needs.

Some time ago I gave a talk in Tucson in which I discussed
what I believed were the underlying impulses or engines that
were driving this outdoor recreation machine. One of these was
the conservation movement in its old time sense, i.e. the pres-
ervation of unique or special areas (the Yellowstones and
Yosemites). Creation of the Redwood National Park falls in this
category and it's coastal, but there won't be many more of these
except possibly in Alaska. There just aren't many of these
sensational type areas left.

jff6

Webber

The second impulse behind the outdoor recreation movement
I described as sociological. There seemed to be a growing rec-
ognition following such events as the Watts riots that maybe
recreational outlets were more than merely desirable. Perhaps
they were essential. The recognition of this concept resulted
in inner city emphasis and special attention to rather sizeable
Federal acquisition programs, such as the Gateway National Rec-
reation Area in New York City and the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area in San Francisco.

My own notion is that this sociological impulse will
continue to be quite viable, perhaps even looming greater in the
future involving not just disadvantaged areas, but metropolitan
areas generally. There seems to be reason to believe, however,
that for the near future, at least, the funding for coastal
areas will not involve large Federal outlays. More likely the
setting aside of additional public zones along the coast will
emanate from land-use planning decisions, with cost-sharing
among the several governmental echelons. The so-called "new"
Federalism seems to call for this. It's quite interesting,
this matter of funding. If you read Federal reports, you find
quite frequently that the state is described as the pivotal
point for decisions on matters involving a multitude of things,
including recreation. Quite often, however, state reports des-
cribe the local governmental entity as having primary responsi-
bilities.

The third motivation to outdoor recreation investments is
rather new, but promises to continue to move us forward. This
is the interest in the environment. The movement still has much
drive despite ongoing conflicts with the resurgence of demands
to meet energy needs. Some would place this impulse as con-
comitant with the old conservation ethic. I don't believe it is.
Environmental attention often focuses on the commonplace, this
mudflat, that shoreline, this deep fresh marsh, etc. In fact,
it is these two latter concepts--the sociological and the
environmental that appear to be the dominant forces presently
and bode to be in the future.

Finally, in looking at the future, we have to confront the
gyrations that may be engendered by our latest crisis, which is
energy, of course. This fourth item, if perpetuated, and if
profound, will be of great influence. On first examination one
might be forced to conclude that outdoor recreation may be moved
into the back seat again. It appears this may well be true, at
least for the short run, particularly with respect to hinterland
acquisitions and developments. Conceivably,-however, the direct
opposite prospect may emerge for coastal locations. After all,
its less consuming of energy for the Los Angeles resident to
visit Redondo Beach than to tour Yosemite, unless he is a
devotee of power boating. At this writing one cannot be very
optimistic on the continued high levels of use of recreation
vehicles and other energy consuming avocations.

In summary we are confronting, (1) already developed
shorelines in many instances, (2) high recreation demand for
coastal recreation areas, (3) high demand for coastline locations
on the part of other public and private interests, (4) a mixture
of ecologically fragile and ecologically tough areas, (5) high
costs for acquisitions, (6) diffused responsibility for action
on the part of many governmental entities, (7) changing laws
and rules on coastline development, and (8) a general shortage
of funds for moving forward. In other words, the complexities
of human efforts on shoreside areas is seething with activity
and interest. It rivals the many complications one encounters
when trying to understand by biological complications of
estuarine environments.

/57

Webber

Where, then, lies the answer to accommodating the public
interest? Of course, no one knows for certain. It would appear
however, that coastline improvements will come about from a
variety of actions, as follows: (1) probably coastal spending
for recreation will continue to be emphasized over other areas
in the State, (2) doubtless we will continue to see some progress
being made in the use of zoning improvements, (3) new ideas for
expanding private investments serving the recreating public will
be forthcoming, (4) acquisition of travel corridors for the
public to gain entrance will continue, (5) new laws establishing
beaches as public commons will be aired and discussed (if not
passed), (6) a further intensity in coastal planning is foresee-
able at all levels, and (7) the level of public interest in what
transpires along the coast will continue at a high level.
This belief in a continuation of high interest is supported
by the percentage increases in volume of participation for
selected comparable activities on summer vacations during the
period 1965-1972. A national survey was conducted for our Buresa
in 1972 and it revealed the following percentage increases in
participation for this periods camping in developed campgrounds
213 percent; picnicking, 208 percent; swimming, 125 percent;
water skiing, 100 percent; sailing 96 percent; and sightseeing,
71 percent.
Certain activities common to the seashore were not includ-
ed ii the sampling, but given the level of interest and the
inherent complexities and contradictions in managing coastal
areas, it appears to us that lively prospects are ahead.
One futuristic aspect I neglected earlier to touch upon is
the possibility of increased layering of uses along coastal
areas. That is; various uses piggy-backing on one another,
seasonal scheduling of uses, even daily scheduling, and/or joint
uses of property.
Finally, and of course I could be wrong, but I believe
improvements in coastal recreation more likely and more often
will result from institutional changes in laws, governmental
practices, and perhaps even customs, than in simple and single-
purpose acquisition of large lineal acreages. Others, who have
been speaking here, or will be speaking, are better fitted than
I to discuss these aspects.

MARINE RECREATION AND THE PLANNING PROCESS:
PLANNING ANYONE?

By
Francis Dean
Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams
Newport Beach, California

I was prepared this morning to deliver a highly organized
talk on marine recreation, its needs, new innovations such as
hang gliders, soaring, underwater parks and the educational en-
joyment of experiences such as Whale watching, marinelands,
interpretative centers dealing with shoreline, estuaries and
marine life exploration. These all in addition to the natural
magnetism that the ocean holds for all of us for boating, and
swimming, fishing, or just watching. Then--BANG!--we had an-
other bombshell--the energy crisis. I therefore decided to
take the opportunity to focus on some of the difficulties en-
countered in the planning process which must be resolved if
planning is to have a significant role.

However, we seem to respond rather well to crises these
days so it would not be out of character to assume the energy
crunch to be just another impact and build it in to the process.
However, the energy crisis in a society based upon growth and
expansion can have serious ramifications upon our economic
system, but may portend the beginning of understanding of fin-
ite natural resources, much more so than the environmental
issue. Even some forms of the existing and projected marine
recreation activities may well be a moot point.

It used to be easy--if you wanted to build a marina, a
housing project, a recreation facility--no haste --get your
permit and begin. Recreation was vested in a boat, or perhaps
your kick was fishing or surfing. Or you might be a sun bather
and access to the beach was through the no trespassing sign,
down the face of a cliff hand over hand, spilling the lemonade
and finally coming to rest next to an oil pumper or railroad
track. You could walk the tidal pools, learning how sea urchins
coped with oil globs. In one way or another, these recreational
activities will be impacted upon by recent decisions and others
upcoming.

It started in Santa Barbara--they spilled the beans about
an oil spill and we were all in the soup. Everything would have
been OK if the oil companies had Just cleaned up the mess. But
we had to go through a continuing agonizing reappraisal attempt-
ing to determine the culprit who turned out to be a portion of
the industrial complex to whom we owe our growth and expansion.
And now that that has been determined where do we go from here?
The energy crisis will now allow more drilling to go on and with
no better planning than before. Since then we have had the
requirements of EPA, CEQ, and ARB along with the Coastal Commis-
sion and now the Clean Water Program and a State Land Use Policy

/57w

Dean

pending in Sacramento.

You say--yeah, what happened? Well, I know now what I
wouldn't have believed ten years ago. The public is serious,
outraged and fed up and now reponding the best way it knows how
in a democratic society. It is the largest special interest
group with which this legislature has ever had to cope. Perhaps
the greatest contribution by the public-has been the impact on
time honored traditions in the political field and on the staid
and solid institutions of governmental practice. Accountability
for one's actions is now the standing order of the day and there
is no room for rationalization, ignorance or incompetence. In
fact, if the public had a long term track record in terms of
self-expresion relative to land use, it might have psyched out
the energy shortage earlier and used that as a defense against
the missuse of land and finite resources.

There are, of course,- serious-gapsa-probtems- and many non
solutions in the legislation that has been forthcoming. But how
else do you start except on an issue level in a society that is
crisis oriented. However, crises inherently produce short term
solutions on their way to the next crisis. If the State or the
country or the world for that matter ever needed long term goals
and programs with monitoring capability and adaptibility to new
information, it is now. But we will have more crises, shortages
and struggles relative to cDoastal lands, agricultural lands,
open space, recreation lands, natural resources and man's needs
and the capability of our environment to adapt to those needs.
No one would disagree with the premise of an improved quality of
life, but how does one achieve such a high moral purpose in this
society and prevent it from becoming an impaired quality of life.
First of all, awareness on the part of the citizen hopefully
resulting in dedicated leadership through the representatives.

Crisis has proven to be the least desirable method of
achievement. One of the hazards of a crisis is that there is
always someone to exploit it, vis-a-vis the Alaskan pipeline
which will only begin to supply us with a relative low volume
of oil in 8 to 10 years and who know the full price?

But what are the alternatives? The energy crisis rather
than being a permanent negative impact may be a long term
positive impact by causing a renaissance in intellectual
pursuits and stretching mankind beyond his assumed limits. A
word of caution, however, we may very well respond to the crisis
and sacrifice some of the environmental gains, but to over-
react could cause irreparable harm.

It has been our good fortune to be involved in many
projects of late where we have been applying an approach that
allows all issues and factors to be involved in the planning
process including the public advisory groups of users, observers
or concerned individuals. For the purpose of explanation, the
factors or issues are grouped into three general categories:
1. Pysical and biological characteristics of the zone are
combined and referred to as the pysical environment.
2. Attitudinal and demographic characteristics of the
society that occupies, uses, relies upon that envfron-
ment.
3. Political, economic, legal and cultural framework
which defines how the society regulates and orders'its
activities within that environment.

A reasonable means of weaving these interrelationships into the
decision making process is fundamental to establishing and
maintaining an optimum dynamic and symbiotic balance among all
factors.

/6o0

Dean

The conflict between conservation and development is a
clear example of the established system's inability to accomp-
lish this goal. The internecine attitude of the two forces can
only be adjudicated through the understanding that each depends
on the other.

Two factors compound the conflict. First, the existing
political, legal, and economic frameworks involved in a
socially oriented vacuum which assumed the coast environment
unlimited, indestructable and unchanging, and therefore
immaterial. Second, through attitudinal change, the physical
environment becomes a social issue. Now we have a political,
legal, add economic framework unable to reconcile new attitudin-
al changes in a society that has achieved a degree of awareness
of the inescapable relevance of the environment.

Therefore, it is now necessary to develop a unique effort
to create a responsive new governmental framework to cope with
this new awareness.

It must recognize the inexorable, continuous nature of the
physical-biological systems which form the environment and the
equally ingrained, traditional cultural and economic systems
which have become the warp and woof of our society. It is the
incompatibility of the two, when juxataposed, that define the
problem, and it must be a modification of both to a harmonious
end that will solve it.

Information and knowledge concerning the interrelationship
of environmental or social factors is inadequate for any final
determination of the organization of either. Since both are
essentially continuums of change, it is highly unlikely that
such information or knowledge will ever be more than temporarily
adequate even under the best of circumstances and certainly
never complete.

Any procedure for making decisions must therefore be
capable of:
1. Bringing to bear the available information and know-
ledge at the time the decision is to be made;
2. Estimating the ramifications of alternate decisions;
3. Creating and recording new information and knowledge
by monitoring the results of the decisions made.

The social political, and economic forces which help to
determine the physical configuration of the landscape are as
complex as the processes of the land. The diverse interests of
the private sector are the most significant force which governs
land ownership and use in our system. Government bodies have
been established to serve the purpose of insuring that the
private interests of one individual do not conflict with or
destroy the opportunities and interests of the total community.
In terms of long-range planning the role of the government would
appear to be that of protector of the land.

However, it is apparent from the problems and onflicts
which have been outlined that county and city governments are
presently ill prepared for this role. Present methods oflong-
range planning and regulating land use have been unable to forsee
and protect communities from the direct costs which result from
the conflicts between private interest goals and the capacity of
natural systems to absorb the resultant impacts.

\It is assumed that the planning process prescribed by the
Coastal Commission is heading in this direction attempting to
analyze, evaluate and establish criteria in determining land use,
marine recreation, intensity of development etc.

-AI

Dean

The Coastal Commission in dealing with recreation must
examine all other uses as they might relate to recreation.

PROCESS
1. Gathering of all data relative to the natural and
physical political, economic, and social forces;
2. Analysis and determination of the interrelationships
of all natural phenomenon and physical needs along
the coastal areas;
3. Evaluation of all of the above and establishment of
alternative approaches for review or public hearings;
4. Selection of alternatives from input through review;
5. Preparation of final policy and review.

In suismary, it is clearly evident that some planning
processes and land use contro1s are inadequate to deal with the
conflicts arising from the imposition of abstractly conceived
design criteria of various development types upon a highly
dynamic landscape such as the coastal area. The coastal zone is
being subjected to an ever Increasing burden of additional and
unnecessary costs and degradation through the lack of adequate
measures to protect the environment. An essential component of
sound planning whether it be in the establishment of policy,
master planning, or in the review of specific planning applica-
tions, is the availability of critical information on natural
resources against which the consequences of alternative proposals
can be rationally assessed. A continuing public review process
is necessary In order to solicit input as well as to help define
public value and build public support.

I have a half a dozen or so slides take along the coast that I think may
demonstrate some of the things I have been talking about, relative to in-
adequacy of information, exploitation of the landscape, and other factors
in design and planning.

Slide 1 - This is where we all started open, uncluttered landscape along
the coast. If we all understood the need for it's use, the quality of the
space and the absolute continuity of natural processes we would not be
in the mess we are today.

Slide 2 - This is in Southern France near Nice, some of the impacts that
are occurring in Southern France are as critical as are those happening
along our coast or Miami Beach. The walls of apartment structure along
the beach front are beginning to appear almost as dams backing up the
watershed. But the unique thing about this picture is the historical re-
lationship of land and the development in the foothills - the houses fit the
hills because of the acceptance of the natural forms.

Slide 3 - Here is a shot from Hawaii, different in scale, from what we
were talking about along the Southern California reaches but I think this
demonstrates our emotional affair with the ocean. Everyone would like
to live along a beach like this. We always think in these terms then we
are forced to go down to Santa Monica or Redondo Beach area and wonder
what went wrong.

Slide 4 - The same similar types of land form as the slide just before but
lack of understanding of what the land had to offer, and I can't think of
anyone coming down to this beach to get a view of the ocean and live in
one of these condominiums. Erosion itself will wipe out the houses in
time. Fantastic, We have a beach that is minimal in quality and size at
best and we destroy the very essence of the beach by impacting on it with
houses. Only a few people can enjoy this public resource.

Slide 5 -The reason I threw this in is that this is what is normally found
just prior to urbanization. This is a pretty handsome piece of land regard-
less of the fact that we have sewer outfalls, a channelized stream, a free-
way and a railroad. Here we are at least trying to save some of this even
though the natural environment has been impacted upon. But it is still
viable as open space. But you can see the future now, this is just above
San Clemente, the development will be close in, the agricultural lands
will be gone, the stream will be further flood controlled, there will be
houses all along the beach front unless we determine some process that
relates land to need. As I said in my talk there is no question about the
balance necessary between development along the coast and the preser-
vation of unique areas resulting in what we call conservation. We should
be preserving unique areas. But we must begin to understand that when
the pressure of need is involved on a resource like the coast line, we
must develop a process whereby the natural physical functions along the
coast can be modified to accept man and his functions in a graceful, all
encompassing comprehensive planning program.

Slide 6 - This is kind of typical of what happens. This is a storm drain
outfall. It is interesting how people adjust to situations like these. People
actually end up parking and camping adjacent to this outfall and apparently
enjoying a recreation experience on the beach.

Slide 7 - This is an estuary partially impacted upon by oil, streets and
highways, etc. But it's still functioning as an estuary, if only we could
have obtained this land soon enough, we could allow the oil companies
to continue here, and even allow other types of development but it would

/tbS

have been with an understanding of what this marine estuarine life is all
about. The significant relationship between marine life, the estuary and
the coastal land and human needs could have been planned in a total or-
ganized development program.

Slide 8 - This is Santa Monica - not bad for many years ago in which even
then there was evidence of preservation and understanding of the land form.
Not the best but at least an effort. You look for anything when you are
down to zero.

Slide 9 - Somewhere between San Clemente and Laguna, the projection
of land almost completely lost to us. We would have to pay dearly to get
it back.

Slide 10 - But this similar projection on the island of Oahu is what it
could have been. A real observation point to view the ocean, here you
have an 180 degree view both up and down the coast.

Slide 11 - Here we come into an area where foothills meet the ocean. We
chop off the top of the hill sloping to the coast and build houses in this
rigid format to get as many houses per acre as possible. It's very hard
to get excited about the coastline when you approach a desecrated site such
as this.

Slide 12 - More of the same.

Slide 13 - I put this in because I think that Marina Del Rey has solved
some very difficult problem in this area but obviously not enough. What
annoys me about Marina Del Rey is not the fact they have opened up the
estuary and allowed the boats in, what annoys me is that even when we get
into housing boats, we have to line them up like a parking lot thus losing
the whole impact of water. Great imaginative uses could have been made
with that water but economics calls for us to put these things in a row
like a flat land subdivision.

Slide 14 - This is what we are all looking for in use of the beach.

Slide 15 - Not only do we build houses on the beach and invade the beach
but here we locate them at 45 degrees to take excess advantage of the
view for 180 degrees. This is an atrocious development.

Slide 16 - On Balboa Island everyone gets near the water but doesn't
know where it is. They pay dearly for a piece of land on this island.
The whole marine environment of Newport Beach is houses and water
but only if you buy a boat can you see the water.

Slide 17 - More of the same.

Slide 18 - We seem to take advantage of the coastline for almost anything.
I understand the next two increments of the San Onefre plan have been
turned down by the State Coastal Commission. I guess we are going to
have a hassle on our hands between the AEC and the State Commission.
I know we need energy, I know this isn't the place to put but I don't know
what the tradeoffs are. We need a very comprehensive plan to under-
stand what should be done.

Slide 19 - I think one can imagine what the first settlers to the Los Angeles
basin must have thought as they viewed this magnificient stretch of beach
from Santa Monica to Palos Verdes. We have turned it into nothing more
than a sand strip, the whole relationship between that land and the water

have been lost forever. When we built Marina Del Rey we lost the under-
standing of the impact between estuary water and the coastal land and the
marine extension into the channel.

Slide 20 - This is up near Malibu. It would seem to me that despite any
other planning program, the fact that the land of the Santa Monica mountains
is shifting would preclude this kind of cutting and filling for this kind of
development. The land is certainly a desirable piece of land but shouldn't
it be an area preserved because of potential hazards.

Slide 21 - I think there are people who understand the sensitivity about the
relationship between land and water and trying to do something with it.
This is a good example of that relationship in the Venice area.

Slide 24 - If we could all have a view such as this in Southern France the
response that a picture like this engenders, we would all be very careful
how we managed our coastline. The california coastline in it's own
unique way could be planned in a similar way.

SESSION IV: COMMENTS-DISCUSSION
QUESTION & ANSWERS

COMMENTY BYs Bemi DeBus, American Cetacean Society and MTS/LARS
Councilor.

As an addendum to this morning's Series IV sessions, I
would like to append the following:

It appears to me that in all the talk we have heard about
the marine environment, land and people problems legal and other-
wise, the planning for future use and the like, one factor
(minor admittedly, except to those involved) has been completely
overlooked. We should like to call your attention to the view
from the water. From off the beach, as enjoyed by hundreds of
thousands of marine mammals. They too have a vested interest in
water quality, in environmental impact questions, in the life-
styles practiced on the western coast and certainly in the
western states' future. Long live the whales!

(EDITOR'S NOTE. the following words come from the March 1974
"The Whalewatcher" newsletter of the American Cetacean Society
of which Bemi is editor)

"Mr. Isadore Barrett, Deputy Director of the Southwest Fish-
eries Center at La Jolla, California, as a figure to be remember-
ed, and against which to compare future catches, that, at the
present, it is estimated that 3-1/2 dolphin died for every tuna-
ton taken.

Under terms of the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972,
not only are means to be found to reduce dolphin mortality in
the tunafish nets, but also a program of gathering information
about these marine mammals was to be instituted. We will be
happy to see the final results of this section of the program
when it is finally made available, and we will look forward to
welcoming Mr. Barrett again.

IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE at this point to show that there
are other indications of increased efforts at information-gath-
ering along this line. The Coastal Zone Commissions, formed
under Proposition 20, are also to come up with suggestions for
the future, as well as trying to handle the real estate problems
of the present. In a Final Draft Copy, dated February 11, 1974
under Coastal Zone Plan Elementl Marine Environment (Page IV-9)
there is this statement: Many institutions currently utilizing
marine organisms from the water of California are engaged in a
broad spectrum of biomedical research programs ranging from the
use of bacteria to degrade oil spills, to the use of marine
mammals in underseas warfare programs. This broad application
of the biological resource of these waters generally receives
attention in esoteric professional circles, yet it must be rec-
ognized as a very significant use of the resource and one which
must be permitted in future management programs for this coast-
line. (Ed's note--the "amen" is universal)."

/66

Que.~tion6, - Paut Athiecht

Q. Phit Simons made. the &epo)Lt about the LegaZ owneuhip oj boats - the 6act
that so many boat owneew p'oject theiA middte-kigh income, ane not the
tegat ownex6, they tahe out Zoans. Do you jo'Lesee an increased shortage
in the boat Zoan maikat oJ -the zhoxt te/n, and an incneaze in the intean-
est &ate.S

A. No, I do not. I was anticipatiung anothet qLuesltion J9om you. No - I,
this week - paltdon, -tae-t week, the -tattek pa.nt o4 the weekl, I had a meet-
ing with the head peopZe in -%ec'eationaZ Jinance bo& the Baizh o6 Amee.ica.
It might be inte.-sting 6ot& att oa you to know that, in the past six oaL
eight months at a time when inteAeet &ateA wane juLw going out oj sight,
we head the same identical intenast 4Lte o6 boat papeL and boat inanacing
that we have had 4oa -the past two yea-'w. We didn't even 4raise it a 1/4
o6 a pencent. The &eazon Za that moat oj the dea-ena, as I've lte.eined
to as Mom and Pop dea-Cena, ate zmaet bLwsnessmen and They 6aat into a
dijte.ent intaneat &ate catagoly Than do takqegAn boAiowwan. The.-' inte-
eat hate has not been a6e6cted. and it's the seetting uate oj the Matine
)LetaiLe. that deteatunies the intenLe6t &ate. AA you pebabty att know,
the Majtcne AetaiZeA' gene.'atty makes 1% o'. I - 1/2% OIL 2% in some cases on
matLne 6inancing.

Q, How does the evneAgy ctZL'is a66ect aai-boat6?

A. Weet, I have to admit something to you. I'm a dyed-in-.the-wool powan
boatea, and you know how that goe.. We poweit boatevi and saLtboate-s
have owL thing going and I &eatty don't know, except 6&om my own pexw naL
expe.LZence. I can teat you that we'-Le -ocated in the Long Beach Mahina
shipyard in the Long Beach Maxiuna - one o -the dineAn mait~nas on this
coaat, I might add. I have noticed a stow-down o, waPk-Zn ~t'a66ic in my
ptace oj busine.&. I'm a poweL boate.L. I have not noticed this same
.6tow-down in the saitboat peopte next door. Now, this &eaety doesn't
indicate anything. It couctd be that he La adventising mo'e. ol he has a
,peciaZ deaZ ox something. I don't-think you're going to see a dcastic
,switch BJLom powea boate'w -to saitboatanu becawue oj the enangy cAwa. I
think that's what you''Le getting at. I don't -think you'le going to see
that, because once a powan boatan, afways a powen boateA.

Q. Again, The Soathe"n Cati~ol,%nia Maane Assooiation Boat Show, which a sthe
La'gest one in SoutheAn CafidoLnia, just completed about two weeks ago -
ALtom that boat a how which stajted th-'ee days ateAn the enehgy situation,
weae theae any tirends that wene seen 6)Lom that boat Thow, as 6at as
peopee coming thLough, on-the-6tooat sates oal anything that xetated to The
eneirgy situation al otheAn tJend6 in makine )LecAeation?
A. Yea, the.Le wane. This is oWL thi'd boat show in The new Aaciity. By
the new jaciatty, 6ol you peopte who asee out o6 town, I mean the L. A.
Convention CenteAn. We aue the otadeszt and LtatLgest boat Thow in this akea.
We have been putting on that boat Thow Aalt sevAat yea"- at the otd Pan
PacidZc Auditoekum out in Hottywood, and thaee yeahs ago we changed.
When we changed From The Pakh Paci1ic to the new 6aciLity, OuL attendance
inaneased 26%. Now, this cou-Cd be economics - it coutd be the jacaLLity.
We tend to think it was a Ltittte o4 boTh. The second yeaA was up anothan
15%, so we ended up about 40% ovenuwh&-t-we -wane doing at the a-Cd Pan
Pacidic. The show that just ended co-sed down about 10% unden -Cast yea'.
Now, tast yeaL thane weAe othea 4actoas that a64ect the boat show bwZ-
ne-s. IT it Ihain, it's gLeat Yo& uL because peopee can't go boating.
They don't know what to do with themsetves - they came to the boat Thow.
You might not think about that but, ZA you put -t -th-tough YoWL head,
you'l t see it makes a taot oA good sense. Ij we have a jLainy week end -
two &LaZny week ends - we Cove it. That's what happened two yeau ago.
This Thow this yea'L was down a tittfe bit. I don't -think thane was a
co'LLetation with the ene-gy thing and the attendance. The sates, by the
way, wane up veky much. I did about a qualtetA oA a miteaion dot&Cau'& in
tentative chde~tz/

/67

Q. What of yowa development o6 the rotaLy engine and the 4-cycte engine to
reptace the 2-cycte engine?

A. Well, the totaty engine, o6 couase, is an owtboard at this time. The
outboard modet is the one that you're tatking about, and I leet the out-
boatd business several yea's ago to get into big boats; I'm not teatty
up on that 6ield. I don't have as much expertise as I shoutd have on
it. I can tett you this, it suelty is rtaising havoc in the nacing cit-
cees because they have outteawed it now. The.e's nothing to compete with
it, so I would imagine that they'te having vety good success with the
otaony engine. I imagine that we'nre going to see a commercially buitt
and manketed outboatd engine o6 the Wankte type very soon. The tuabine
engine, by the way, in the big boats has not worked at aee.

Q. Is yout indication of brisk sates out of the show - is that in the tahge
powet boat, dieset 6uet?

A. Yes. I'm in the teage powen boat business. The products that we selt
ate $20,000 and up. Most o6 them are in the $100,000 catagoty. Thete
was atso good indication in the smattee boats that sates were up. I
tatked with a manu6actuoe's trepresentative o60 the intemnediate uange -
the nun-aboatd. He had had the best sates in this past show that he
has ever had in any of ouw SMA Shows, and he's one o6 out ex-ditectors.
He has been in a tot o6 show's and he is a good showman. I think it
really gets back to the estabtished dealets, those who are not going to
run scated - who ate not being panicked by the pnresent tatk on radio and
tetevision. As I said before, the deatet4 who ate not going to Let
themselves be panicked in this situation aoe going to be anound, and we
reatly took 6onwatd to a very good Spring, not as good as it has been,
but thee'ltt be a lot o6 product 0sod and I don't think that the boating
business is going to dAy up and blow away.

Q: Is there a bigger probtem concerning avaitabiZity o6 dieset 6uet as
opposed to gasotine?

A. Wett, when we talk about 6uet; you know, I knew that you guys wete going
to get me into thi's uel thing. When we tatk about 6uet, Let me etlate
to you, i6 I may. I'm exttemety concerned. My whoLe ti6e, you know,
come's ight out o6 the end o6 one o6 those hoses you see at the gas pump.
So, I had my 6inger right on it and Il'L repo't to you what happened in
the Long Beach Maaina, which I'm vety closely associated with. Mr. Ken
Lockman, who nuns the Union Oit Dock in the Long Beach Matina, is a vety
good 6riend o6 mine. I went ovet and had a cup o6 cofjee with him right
after the boat show, and we talked about the enetgy situation. I said,
"Ken, how ate things going?" because, obviously, no 6uet and he's out o6
business. He said "Paul, I've had the best Novembet we've even had."
He said, "My God, evetybody came in hete and itteeed their boats up". He
'said. "thene ate more boats in this Long Beach Marina with more 6uet in
them than there's ever been." He said," I'm out o6 Auelt ight now". I
said, "is that going to least", and he said, "no, as a matten o6 dact, to-
movow they're bringing in a 6utL toad. You can check with me". I want-
ed to get my boat 6iteed up. I did check with him, and I did itee up my
boat.
At this moment, when I'm talhing to you, I can honestly tete you there
is more 6uel sitting in the Long Beach Marina than thete has eveh been
at any time, even. Because all the people nan ove'r and iefted theit
boats up, and they have the 6uel in the docks, I don't know what the
hell people ate going to do with ae the 6uet they've got.

Q. What ase most o6 the boats being sold today being manuactuated o6?

A. The answen to that is Fibengeass, but probabty I'm guessing, 90% maybe.

Q. The second paht o6 your question was, is thene going to be a shortage in
this basic raw matehint? Is that right?

160

A. I wtlt tWeZ you onty what I know about it, and I won't teU you that thiA
&s jact; but there have been some Chortages in The basic &aw mate'iat.
The )Law matetiat6 beang useiZn. You see, a F~ibengsz boat is made oj
two partt. It is made o6 Fibeegtass, which iA a cooTh matoleai, and
aesin. The &esins aee what we've experienced a Ahoutage in. The xeas-
on, we betieve, is veity zimpte. Thexe has been a price ixivng on the
pnice o6 tzie.nz at 12-1/2 to 13-1/2 cents a pound. At the same time
that this went on, 6okeign buyext have come into The maeket peace and
ane buying &eeins at 250 a pound. Now, I ash you in aUt honesty, i6 you
we/Le The manudactwuexe o6 &eein, wheee you would zett? You wouLd ob-
viousty setl wheee you could gotthe most money Jao it. This has caused
a tempoeaxy shottage. In owL caee pe#Aonatty, oj oWu own manujactwuete
which is Uni6Zijte Fibetg~tas Boats and buitt in Beftingham, Washington,
these is no shoatage whatsoeve o0j basic xaw mate'iacz. Thio s6 be-
cawue oj two &ea6O=on: NWnbea 1, we aee a very a&vge pkoduceA o6 FibeA-
g9a6s 6o&t the United States governmant. NumbeA 2, we u6e a speciat
&eemn which is made by Hooket ChemicaZ, and it has an additive called
"Hetkon". It Ze a dJi'e-'teto.dant tesin, and I da'e say that you 6oL~k
sitting out hexe a'e going to see The day ve'y soon when aUt Fibe'gta-ss
boato will be made o6 jike-&etojtdant 'esni, by taw. We have been pay-
ing The premium phice oal along and we have no sho'tage at thie time.

Q. Isn't theite a eholtage oj Styxane Monito't?

A. Yes, Stycene, Stycane Monito's a'e some od the pxtoducts which axe now
zho't.

Q. I undex6tand They axe setting a tot o6 Stytene oveuteaa white we have
quite a zhoxtage o6 it hete in U.S.

A. That's co'uect. The pkice, you see - The taw o0 zuppLy and demand 'toees
hete and, as I said bedoke , i6 you weke a manujactuiAe o6 this basic
ptodurt - you cannot condemn these peop~e 4o&t teying to get the best
possib~e price That They can get 4o' it. Now, when The government 'e-
Leasee oy &etaxe6 theit fixing oA cettain p/aces and the p'acee , o at
upward, Thexe wilL no ZongeA be a Ahoxtage.

Q. Has yowu organization made any p'ediction as to shohtagee in avaitabte
beeth seote in Southemn CaLZioornia?

A. This is a majo& peoblem. It's my majox puobtem. Now heep in mind I am
in The boat business. Ij I don have a ptace to put a boat, I can't
ee~t that boat. So, it is my major p'tobtem. We have not done any
statistical antyezis o6 the beith situation because we kenow, quite
41tankty, that Theue just a'ten't enough. And, I would think that you
gentlemen he'e, who aee vety etozeey associated wIth The Jacitities and
ma'tZnas and .thngs tikee that, could do the boating pubtic a great se v-
ice by inctteasing the avaioabte amount oj teipis.

Q. I ague with you. I'm wIth the Coaps oj Engineeu . I'm diaectety n-
votved in studying the expansion 6o,% oceanside makinas and smarl c'adt
hoitboxe. OWL etudieo show night now That by 1980 we witL be short 1,500
beitths 6o' boate'u, and by The yeo' 2,000 we witL he eho'ut 8,000 be'the.
2 wee juet wondevtng ij yout omgantzation had done any wortk othe)L than
what The dedeeLa government and The state government have done.

A. No. We 'ta~led quIte heavily on you' .igures and they sound coreact to
me. Theea'e a beatijuL a/tea Thexe to be developed. We'd ewtety Ieai
to see it developed.

I W1

Francis H. Dean

Questions after Francis Dean's slide presentation

Do you know of any examples of real citizen's input and the follow
through during implementation?

I have one beautiful example right here in Orange County that I can
only refer to in generalities. We did a little concept study of the Santa
Ana River as it passes through Orange County about 2 years ago. All
I can say about that plan is that it was completed and sent to the Board
of Supervisors and accepted by the Board, through the good efforts of a
100 man committee composed of real citizens who owned land in the
area, used the land and were concerned with the ultimate plan. There
were some council representatives, environmentalists as well as the
committee. The process here was very sensitive because the river runs
through several communities in addition to the county unincorporated
areas. Several federal and state agencies were involved as well as many
county districts such as flood control and water districts. All had to
have input into this plan and it was this committee, and I'll say it was a
successful committee operation because of the leadership and a carefully
planned, organized program,that made it possible to be accepted by the
planning commission and the county board of supervisors. The other
program I am aware of was the Bay Area Conservation District Plan in
San Francisco. It also had great community support and one reason
BCDC is operating today is through the same kind of efforts. Community
committees are dependent upon organization and upon its leadership.
QUESTION - We have heard about the 10, 000 acres at Irvine, really
asking what should we do with it. Isn't this a golden opportunity to make
a coastal park or something?
ANSWER - You are absolutely right. Everyone in that community should
have knowledge of what is going on and provide Irvine with their input.
There are many factors relative to that particular piece of land. Many
issues have arisen since the first concept was completed for instance, the
freeway was stopped which made a tremendous impact on how to handle
the traffic through that section of land. I think Irvine would be absolutely
delighted to know what the public is thinking and gaining their input.
They are not sure what they want and they are not sure what the public
wants. Irvine needs someone to tell them what they would like to see
and I believe Irvine will listen. Irvine projects, I believe, are cut above
the normal types of development and we are really beginning to see
improvement by developers and responsiveness to the public interest.
QUESTION - I've heard a great deal of planning about boating and
boating related things and other types of development. I represent the
surfer - what will happen to him?

'70

ANSWER- Let's take the surfer, if it hadn't been for an extreme effort
by various groups along this coastline for preservation of some of the
natural wildlife we would have lost much more of it than we have lost
today. It is only by virtue of these groups getting involved that have
made it possible to allocate many areas for the preservation of wildlife.
I think the same for surfers and surfing. If you think of surfing as 2
recreation activity, that doesn't use energy, a healthful sport enjoyed
by great numbers of people, then there must be a place reserved for
this activity. But only if the surfers get involved and speak for them-
selves. You must all be involved - let your wishes be know. How it
fits and relates to other activities is the job of the planners - but you
must monitor them and participate with them.
QUESTION - Your comment suggests a balance between the public use
and the private use. It seems to me that the emphasis here, however,
has been toward the public use and I'm concerned as an individual
property owner, as I think each of us in the room who owns individual
property should be, and the pendulum at the present time seems to be
swinging in terms of public use and conservation and yet what about
the property rights as guaranteed by the constitution and the numbers of
things which are happening today to pre-empt property rights or by
inverse condemnation, or to tie up property, or to put it into moritorium
what about those considerations.
ANSWER - I'm not a lawyer but I think the public's value, and public
attitude and it's interpretation through legislation is what becomes law.
You have an absolute right to get just compensation for that land if it
is so choosen to be put into public use but I think it is part of the planning
process to determine and to make recommendations in the change of
land use from private to public use. He will make these recommend-
ations in the best interest of the total public but it can only be acceptable
as a result of the democratic processes. The private land owner must
make his position clear and it must be part of the process. We are
moving back on the public's value of its resources. Yes, society is
changing its values relative to the environmental resources. As a
result, the use of private land for public use is a major issue. After
200 years of telling a man he can go out and buy and own a piece of land
American society has begun to change its sense of values and saying
wait a minute, you can no longer do with your land as you please be-
cause of it's impact on the public. I cannot make judgements I can only
plan in the best interest of the public try to develop a balance of con-
servation and development. We are all several different types of public,
we own land, we also drive to and appreciate the national forest, we
work at our place of business, we detest a sewer outfall, we look at the
tanks and the drilling going on in the bay and we detest this, we use
parks and schools. Who are we - what are our interests - can we be
one public at one time and wear a different hat at another. How are we
going to make decisions? We will have conflicts under the best of cir-
cumstances but we can only resolve these with true citizen participation.
Some of the decisions will be made in the courts.

/7/

ENERGY: THE MAD DANCE OF DEMAND

L. Edwin Coate
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region X
Environmental Protection Agency

In mid-november, a Newsweek magazine article said that the
American society--the most affluent and the most intricate
economic mechanism ever know--began to adjust to the new balance
of the energy equation.

What is this new energy equation? What forces have dic-
tated it? What can we do about it--now and in the future?

These are questions that we find we have to answer, and we
find that we cannot procrastinate; we have alarming problems
now, this year, and even more alarming problems to face through
the next several years.

What I sould like to explore with you today are some of
the reasons we have these alarming problems, and rather than try
to give you any pat answers, try to point out some of the alter-
natives that are available to us.

What is the "new energy equation?" Stated simply, it is a
gap--a gap between the available supply of energy and the preselt
demand for energy. I'd like to imagine, if you will, two lines
on a graph. One is supply of energy and one is our demand for
energy. The lines start low on the graph around 1900 and slope
gently upward together until the late 1930's when the upswing
starts. The rate of climbincreases rapidly through the 1940's,
even more rapidly through the 1950's and surges upward through
the 1960's. At the beginning of the decade marked by 1970 the
two lines start to separate--in 1973, the lines are clearly
separated. The demand line has continued up at its same rate,
but the supply line has fallen below--there is our energy gap.

Our natural tendency is to look with alarm at the sagging
supply curve and start looking very closely at that curve to see
why it has fallen off. So intrigued do we become with looking
at that supply curve, and looking for culprits that are weighing
on the curve, we forget entirely to look at the bright, glitter-
ing, whirling mote that drives the demand curve up and up.

Let's forget for a moment, as we all do at first, about
that demand line and continue our search for culprits on the
supply curve.

By now, we are all familiar with the culprits, they are
the mid-east war--the lack of modern refining capabilities in
our country, the exports of raw materials to other world count-
ries, environmental concerns that delay development of new
energy sources and production.

/72

Coate

Since we are here at this conference to talk about envir-
onmental concerns, let me for a moment explore the "energy
culprits" in those concerns.

I beleive there are four major areas where environmental
concerns have been labelled energy culprits--that is, energy
supply culprits. The first has been the problems in approving
and building the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. The second is in
the area of recovering new energy sources, the third concerns
new power plant sitings and the fourth is the new auto emission
control requirements.

I submit that placing the blame for our current energy
supplies on these factors are red herrings--old, tired red her-
rings at that. The herrings take on two basic forms--one is an
irresponsible attitude and the other is simply misplaced blame.

The first, irresponsibility, I call a "Let-the-Bastards-
Freeze-In-the-Dark" syndrome--words from the now famous bumper
stickers produced in our 49th state when delays in the Alaska
pipeline became apparent.

This attitude has been taken with a greater or lesser
degree of sophistication very widely throughout the power-produ-
tion industries--Alaskan's simply said it the most plainly.
Faced with new environmental concerns, many power producers
figured if they simply sat back and did nothing, we would feel
the pinch. They did, and we have.

Many resource gatherers have done the same--and I think we
can agree that this attitude is basically irresponsible, both on
the power production side and the environmental concern side.

The second red herring is misplaced blame, on careful exam-
ination, we can dismiss the arguments about auto emission con-
trols being a major factor in gasoline shortages. Emission con-
trols are the result of a demand--a fundamental demand for clean
air to breathe--and at the very worst, can cause a 13% fuel
penalty. Automatic transmissions and air conditioners on the
other land are a demand and can cause a combined fuel penalty of
about 25%. Which is the greater penalty, and which is the more
basic need to base our demand upon?

EPA administrator Russell Train, in response to a sugges-
tion by General Motors president Edward Cole that a first step
in conserving gasoline could be to remove pollution controls
from autos, called the suggestion "a shocking example of wrong
priorities." Shocking indeed, but a very convenient vehicle to
mislay blame--a very convenient red herring.

Most of the other supply curve culprits fall apart under
examination Just as a red herring does when it has been dragged
to long. Newsweek points out for instance, that"the energy
crisis was shaping up long before the Arabs decided to use their
oil as a policitical weapon, and it will be around long after
the current tensions subside."

After chasing each of the red herrings being drug across
the supply curve then, and coming up with empty answers, we find
that we have been sleuthing the wrong curve all the time.

We have to turn, then, and examine the demand curve. Let's
get out our magnifying glass and look carefully at the bright
mote driving the demand curve skyward. As we bring the mote
into focus, what we might see is a whirling dancer, gyrating in
an ever-changing costume and riding a car that changes its style
fluidly as it moves along.

/73

Coate

The dancer is a magnetic figure and draws us into the
bright, pulsating scene lit by 70 quadrillion British thermal
units--all the energy we are using today in America. The stage
is warmed by heaters, cooled by air conditioners, the scence is
kept alive from below by rivers of oil and gasoline, giant blocls
of coal (very little of which we see because the dance is too
fascinating); the dance somehow promises light and glory and
comfort and warmth in ever growing abundance.

We, however, have the advantage of being too involved in
our interest in the back trail of the dance to be drawn in, and
because that interest keeps us--at the last minute--away from
Joining the dance, we can see the fatal flaw. The dancer is mad
and has no control over his own dance. He is supported and
directed by casts of millions who are forced to keep the dancer
dancing because of their own inability to let the dance stop.

This, then is our energy demand curve, It is a mad dance
that started as a stately minuette and has grown into something
we only hope we can control.

Using our advantage of historical perspective, let us for
a moment leave the dance and walk back along its trail--back
down America's energy demand curve--to see where we have come.
The energy line is not only America's lifeline but has even more
basic connotations. Energy is the essential commonality among
all living things. From the fueling of the minature furnaces
that power living cells to the dynamos of industrial empires, we
advance and survive because of energy. What better place have
we to examine what we are?

To make the trip, let's make ourselves small enough to
walk down the line. First, we have to walk back along the sup-
ply curve to about 1970 where we can jump the energy gap.

Standing on the demand curve, on the empty path of the
dance, we find a burned-out milestone at our feet that says 68.8
quadrillion British termal units. A quick glance over our
shoulder back up the curve shows us a new milestone just begin-
ning to pulse and glow in anticipation of the dance in 1990. We
can just make out the figures--135 quadrillion British Termal
Units.

The path of the dance of 1970 is broad, but hushed. It is
littered with remnants of the dance. We find a pile of 1969
clothing styles, with smaller lines leading away from it like
spiderwebs; energy that was used to grow the cotton, grow the
trees and mine the coal; energy used to make the cotton into
thread, the coal and trees into synthetic fibers. Energy used
to weave the fibers into the cloth--each step had its energy
use and left its own wastes--all lines radiating away from each
step in the process.

On close examination, we find that the entire energy curve
is made up of these radiating, interwoven fibers from each step
in each process. But the end results, like last year's clothes,
were only a flash in the bright dance as it passed through 1970.

Walking on down the curve, we come across a bit of nostal-
gia in 1967. It is a chromed, finned, glass and metal behemoth
that we remember as the ultimate in driving luxury. It had a
high-compression engine that could run an air conditioner, auto-
matic transmission, power windows, power brakes, power steering,
and still do 120 miles per hour on the open road.

But while we are gazing with a certain fondness on the
hulk of what was, our eyes start to burn a little, and we can't
quite hold back a cough. The air around the car has been left

/g4d

Coate

dirty--and the energy and resource use lines radiating away from
the old, rusting car are so strong that they feel like pavement;
about 125,000 square miles of pavement to be exact. The paths
are littered with synthetic rubber production, glass production,
steel and iron production; coal for the furnaces--oil and gas to
run the finished product--and all the sub-energy lines left their
wastes.

The path is now, or course, supported directly by the
energy supply curve. Ghost power plants and even some nuclear
reactors stand as mute testimony to the pillars that supported
the dance as it whirled madly by. We notice, however, that
these too left their marks with hot water changing the natural
balances of the shorelines, and radiation wastes that no one
knows what to do with--wastes that follow the dance like a
remora rides the shark and grow on the scraps of our energy pro-
duction.

Our path is still sharply downhill, and we notice with
some surprise that around 1950 the energy curve is arching over
our heads. We can turn and retrace our steps and find that our
dance of demand arched upward quickly to meet the available
supply.

We realize with some wonder that the roles are reversed.
Supply here is the villian--when the supply arched over our
demands, the mad dance leapt quickly to fill the reverse energy
gap. We even had to invent some demands which we quickly assim-
ilated into our needs so skillfully that we couldn't tell the
difference.

On our walk down the energy demand curve through the years
the same pattern is repeated again and again, a shortage Just
before World War II and an overabundance right after. Low
demand until the huge dams created the super supply--the dance
leapt to meet it. Finally, we might reach the very beginning of
our industrial revolution in America. Where would it be? In
1880? 1890? 1900?

Wherever it was, we can turn back and see on the soaring
curve the tiny, tinsel figure of the dance demand still going
on in the distance of 1973.

Now if we look down at our feet, standing there at the
beginnings of the society we are today, we will find that the
path of demand shows clearly our basic needst water, food and
protection from the natural elements. It is difficult to relate
these basic needs to the terribly complex, bio-social structure
our society has become today, but they are the beginnings.

Other threads are woven in--legal protection in a society
of man,sociological needs, technological threads that are soon
to leap to prominence.

The thread that I am most concerned with here today was
barely visible at the beginnings of the industrial revolution--
the thread of demand for clean air, clean water and a clean land

That small demand curve has been with us throughout the
history of civilization as we know it. The ancient Greeks rec-
ognized three basic elements as necessary for the survival of
everything in their world--air, fire, water. To those three
basic elements, let me add one more--land.

Now turn again and look at our demand and supply curves
soaring away from our feet. We have used the air, water and
land to create our fire--our energy--and we have in turn used
that energy to fit the land, air and water to suit our ever-

/75

Coate

growing demands.

All four elements are basic to our survival, for to re-
move any one of the four would cause a collapse of life as we
know it--no matter how complex and intricate an embroidery we
have made of those four basic threads.

In this time then, in 1973, can it be valid to say that
the ever-expanding demand thread to protect our air, water and
land is at odds with our energy needs? Can one possibly work
against the other when each is tied so inextricably to each of
the others?

Or do we perhaps tend to think and talk in terms of the
mad dance of demand? Are we confusing the glitter and exoitment
of the dance with the realities we are faced with? Do we have,
as administrator Train said, "a shocking case of wrong priori-
ties?"

It is true that many pollution controlling mechanisms
create more energy demand. For instance, primary treatment for
removal of biological oxygen demanding wastes from sewage takes
about 420 kilowatt hours per million gallons of sewage. Secondary
treatment takes about 725 kilowatt hours, and tertiary takes
about 2500 kilowatt hours per million gallons of sewage treated.

Recirculating cooling water in a coal-fired electric power
plant creates a 5 to 7% generating penalty--cooling water treat-
ment creates a one to three percent penalty.

I only wish I could buy life insurance at such rates.

That is what we are doing--buying life insurance for our
land, air and water: and in turn, buying life insurance for
that commodity the ancients called fire--our life-giving energy.

I use the term "life-giving" very deliberately. We have
built the most staggeringly complex bio-social system ever known
to man. But it is still Just that--a bio-social system. We
have built our social, economic, and legal environment of man in
America. We have created, in effect, a synthetic ecology. In
this synthetic ecology, just as in a biological ecology, if a
link of the chain is destroyed it will in turn destroy other
links. We have the advantage over a natural ecology, however,
in that since we created this natonal ecology, we can make our
own adjustments in the chains and links.

However, we tend to forget that we have built this synthe-
tic ecology on the foundation of our natural ecology--we want to
believe that the mad dance of demand can go on and on simply by
its own inertia, even when we know it cannot. The roots of the
foundation are to deep and will pull the dance back. Today, in
1973, we can feel the pull because the dance has tried to soar
away.

Where do we go from her then? Do we stop the dance in
its tracks? Of course not--that is neither a realistic nor
desirable step even if we could do it. Itwould be catastrophic.

Since, however, we created the ecology of America, the
nation, we can change it at will. The first steps are being
taken. We our lowering our thermostats, we will not buy gas on
Sunday, heating oil deliveries are being cut back.

These first steps will probably not last too long, but
they have two distinct values. The first is obvious--these firs
steps will take us through this winter, and the next, and pos-
sibly even the next. The second value can't really be measured,

/%7

Coate

but it is perhaps the most important. It is the value of
awanness--we are becoming very pointedly aware of our energy
problems.

The basic problems still remain with us though. Even in
the field of pollution control we are turning to the very tech-
nologies that gave us pollution to clean up pollution. We are
not really taking advantage of the fact that we have created our
own ecology, and can change it.

What we will have to do in the long term is re-examine our
priorities--our system of values. We have to initiate and pay
for broad research into energy efficient systems of all kinds.
We will have to look for transportation alternatives, make
changes in rate structures of electricity sales, change deple-
tion allowance laws, encourage recycling of energy-intensive
products--the list can go on and on.

An EPA report finished this July as part of EPA's socio-
economic environmental studies series lists three basic
government strategy options for resolving the energy crisis. Th(r
ares
1. Take no action (leaving a gap between supply and
demand).
2. Reduce demand bys
A. modifying energy-wasteful government policies.
B. Internalizing environmental costs to users, and
C. Assisting the market-place on a selective basis.
3. Increase supply be relaxing environmental constraints
and by government funding of research and development.

The report lists the first option as simply undesireable--
impossible really. The third option is dismissed because on
examination of long-term costs, the social and natural structure
cannot bear the load.

The results of this 115-page study are summed up when it
sayss "The basic conclusion is that relatively large fractions
of total energy consumption are being used, not because the
energy is essential or desirable in itself, but because the
energy is slightly cheaper than available energy-saving alterna-
tives. There is no reason to fear that (a National return to
greater efficiency in energy use) will cause major dislocations
in the economy."

The report chooses option 2. Reduce demand. Translating
from the language of economists, the report says that the mad
dancer will expire if allowed to go on at his present whirling
course. It goes on to say that if the pressure of the multitudes
is lifted from the dancer, he can regain his sanity and perform
for us an even more beautiful dance--and the earth can come
dancing with him.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITING

Mr. Frank D. Ducey
Holmes & Narver, Inc.
Anaheim, California

The study I am going to discuss today is one that we con-
ducted at Holmes & Narver several months ago for the State of
California Resources Agency entitled "California Power Plant
Siting Study." The study objectives are:

- analyze the situation in California -
- determine candidate site characteristics -
- develop plant concepts -
- develop concept evaluation formalism -
- compare concept acceptability by evaluation factors -

The basic assumptions, evaluations, and conclusions are summari-
zed below:

Assumed:
- continuing growth in demand (1991) -
- base line 1,100 Mw(e), LWR technology -
- once-through cooling (coastal, offshore) -
- minimal envirnnmental impact -
Evaluated:
- conceptual plant arrangements and locations -
- relative acceptability of each concept -
Concluded:
- more acceptable concepts -
- follow-on effort required -

Projected power demands for California by the State Public
Utilities Commission (March, 1972) are shown in Table 1, toge-
ther with an assumed portion supplied by nuclear power plants
during the next 20 years.

TABLE 1

Power FOrcasts - Annual Peak Loads
(California Public Utilities Commission)

103 MW (e)
1972 1982 1991
SF/Sacto 11.3 20.0 1
LA/San Diego 15.3 29.7 56.1
Others 0.5 0.9 1.6
Total 27.1 50.6 95-5

% Nuclear 19 35

Ducey

Allocation of these increased power requirements to the two
major loss areas (Los Angeles/ San Diego and San Francisco/
Sacramento) indicates that a minimum of ten new 1100 MW (e)
nuclear plants would be required to serve these areas by 1982
with another 20 plants added in the following decade.

It is recognized that final determination of the most
desirable location for these sites can only be made after com-
pletion of more detailed studies of each candidate plant-site
concept. However, the following three general areas can be
identified for obvious reasons:

- Coastal - condenser cooling water and load center
proximity
- Offshore- Same as above plus some degree of seismic
protection
- Inland - much land area available that is not also
demanded for competitive uses. Also farther
away from coastal faults.

The coastal plant-site concepts can be above ground,
underground, or on a floating platform (Offshore Power Systems
Co,), in a lagoon; whereas the offshore plants can be floating,
undersea, or constructed on an island. Seventeen candidate
concepts (including one inland) were identified and evaluated in
this study and tabularized below; six of these are shown in
figures 1 through 6 (at end of paper).

Concept No. Description

1 aboveground coastal
2 " inland
3 " hillside
4 " low profile
5 " floating,lagoon
6 underground massive igneous rock
7 " massive sedimentry rock
8 " unconsolidated materials
beach
9 non-massive poorly cemen-
ted materials
10 r massive rock, faulted
11 offshore floating, shallow
12 " floating, deep
13 i, seabed
14 " undersea
15 " artifical island
16 " natural island
17 " tuned sphere

Early in the study it was decided to derive numerical
values for each concept based on pertinent evaluation factors in
order to delineate the relative acceptability of each when com-
pared with the other sixteen. Four evaluation factor groups
were selected (Table 2) and each was assigned a weight which was
obtained by averaging the judgment values of a panel with regard
to the contribution\that factor should make in deriving the
relative acceptability of each concept. In order to more
closely examine the Significance of environmental impact and
feasibility, subfact rs were identified for each of these factors
and also assigned weighted values to indicate their relative
contribution to the magnitude of the factor weight (Table 3).
The risk factor was chosen to either credit or penalize each
concept according to their relative degree of resistance to
various threat scenarios which might occur during the lifetime
of the plant. As a minimum, all concepts were considered to be
equally safe and licensable according to established standards.
Furthermore, it was recognized that some plants would have

17Q

Ducey

different design requirements, structures, engineering safe-,
guards, etc. to be licensable. Therefore, major events (both
natural and manmade) were postulated, which would subject the'
plant structures and safeguards to conditions beyond the design
limits, and acceptability values according to the resultant con-
sequences were derived for each concept over a severity range
for each event.

TABLE 2
Evaluation Factor Groups

COST
- Capital costs and interest during construction.
- Operation and maintenance costs.
- Taxes, insurance, depreciation, and interim equipment
replacement.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
- Compatibility with existing and planned adjacent land
use.
- Ability to return the site to its natural state at
plant retirement.
- Visual image.
- Operations impact on physical and biological environ-
ment.
- Multiple use of reject heat and facilities.
- Multiple use of site property.
FEASIBILITY
- State of the art.
- Existence of potential sites.
RISK
- Plant exposure.
- Safety.

TABLE 3
Evaluation Factors Weighting

Evaluation Factor Weight Value

Cost 0.287
Environmental Impact 0.301
land use 0.050
land restoration 0.033
visual image 0.055
physical effects 0.075
construction impact 0.015
multiple uses-heat,plant 0.033
multiple uses-site 0.040
Feasibility 0.272
technology 0.119
potential sites 0.153
Risk 0.140

A formalism was developed for evaluating the concepts as
shown below.
OBJECTIVE:
develop relative acceptability values for each concept
and display graphically.
METHODOLOGY:
Identify evaluation factors and subfactors.
Assign relative acceptability weights to factors.
Quantify Factors.
Derive concept acceptability values.

First, the relative importance of each factor and subfactor was
assessed by concept. Then a measure of merit was established by
which a quantitative value could be assigned to each siting
concept for each subfactor. In some cases, such as construction

/so

Ducey

cost or potential cost of damage from hazards, the measure is
more definitive than for feasibility, which is measured in terms
of the state of the art acheived, or for environmental impact
measured in terms of multiple uses of the site. In the latter
cases, concepts are given a relative rating by assigning abso-
lute values.

After an evaluation factor is measured for each siting
concept, the values can be normalized against that of the best
rated concept, considering only that subfactor. The result is
that all measures are eventually reduced to absolute numbers.
These absolute values are multiplied by the weighted value of
the subfactor. When added together for each siting concept,
they result in a measure of over-all acceptability from which a
judgment can be made as to the preferred concepts.

The relative acceptability values of all four factor
groups can be summed and displayed in a number of ways to indi-
cate the most favorable concepts. Factor accessibility values
can be shown in a profile graph for each concept (sum of the
products of weighted value and relative rating of each factor
and/or subfactor), and also shown in a plot of all concepts in-
dicating relative acceptability relationships (as shown on
Figure 7). In the case of the latter plot, an "overall accept-
ability" value derived for each concept from the profile graph
is reduced by the acceptability value of one factor (or sub-
factor) and then plotted against the acceptability value of the
isolated factor. It is seen in these plots that increasing
acceptability is denoted by increasing values along both axes;
therefore, the more favorable zones of acceptability will con-
sistently appear in the upper right hand quadrant of each plot.
Furthermore, the more favorable concepts with respect to the
factor shown on the abscissa (cost in this case) will appear on
the right side of the distribution.

Profile graphs for two concepts and acceptability plots
for two factors are shown in Figures 8 through 11.

A first look at ranking by overall acceptability (total
of all four factors) places all five aboveground concepts, i.e.,
inland, lagoon, hillside, low profile, and coastal plants, at
the top of the group (in that order), with the underground
plant in poorly cemented sedimentry rock in sixth place, the
most favorable underground concept (shown in Table 4).

TABLE 4
Over-All Acceptability
Acceptability
Concept Value
Aboveground-inland 0.779
Aboveground-floating,lagoon 0.761
Aboveground-hillside 0.756
Aboveground-low-profile 0.674
Aboveground-coastal 0.657
Offshore-floating deep 0.649
Underground-nonmassive,poorly cemented materials 0.642
Offshore-artifical island 0.637
Offshore-floating shallow 0.636
Offshore-tuned sphere 0.617
Underground-massive sedimentary rock 0.603
Offshore-natural island 0.581
Offshore-undersea 0.549
Underground-massive igneous rock 0.540
Underground-unconsolidated materials, beach 0.522
Offshore-seabed 0.502
Underground-massive roock, faulted 0.494

is.

Ducey

The reasons for this spread can be traced to the basic
assumptions of factor and subfactor weight and relative applic-
ability values which led to derivation of relative acceptability
values for each concept. However, when the concept acceptabili-
ty-factor acceptability plots are displayed for all 17 candidate
plant-site concepts, the platform mounted plant in a selected
lagoon (coastal, inland bay, or lake) consistently appears in
the most favorable acceptability zone. It is particularly
attractive from a risk aspect due to a degree of seismic isola-
tion (horizontal accelerations).

Therefore, in selecting a nuclear power plants-site
combinations to provide a portion of the power demanded in Cali-
fornia during the next 20 years, the floating platform-lagoon
concept and the inland plants should be more thoroughly evaluate
to fully exploit their potential advantages. The following
conclusions are presented for further consideration.

MOST ACCEPTABLE CONCEPTS:
- land based - inland, coastal/hillside
- ocean based - coastal/lagoon, floating deep.
FOLLOW-ON EFFORT REQUIRED:
- deepwater plant protection systems.
- deepwater transmission system.
- coastal topography study (lagoon/hillside).
- seismic intensity zone maps.
- favorable water supply regions (inland).
- develop detailed, in-depth data for "most acceptable"
concepts.
- floating platform plant supply to west coast.
- platform motion system demonstration tests.

* ** **a *

-w -

-. . 6NA N

- N -)
----- --

_____________________________ ----- --------,-------------, ------ -___________
__ __ - _ -.---------
---- -- - --
-c-�-- .-.- - _________
-- - - r-- --__-.

V \ > '- . - -
FIGURE 1 ABOVEGROUD4D - INLANfl

FIGURE 2 ABOVEGROUND -COASTAL

FIGURE 3 UNDERGROUND -MASSIV IGNEOUS ROCK

ED-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

F~IGuRE 4 ABOVEGROUNJD -FLOATING LAGOON

~~~--I

FIGURE 5 OFFSHORE -FLOATING SHALLOW

Ducay

FIGuRE 6

OFFSHORE- FLOATING DEEP

Ducey

ALL CONCEPTS
0.5j~ /---Most
Favorable
/' r. Zone

/.
-- .1 0I
Overall -- /
Acceptabilily *
(Less Factor 'A')

. . . . . . . , . . ...
I , . , , , i , , , , _

Factor 'A' Acceptability

EACH CONCEPT

1.0o

Factor
Relative --
Rating

I.287l 1 o.3o0 0.2721 L.L.o0.4o
Cost El Feasy Risk
Factor Weight

FIGURE 7

ACCEPTABILITY DISPLAYS

Ducey

1.0-*

Si Acceptability
0.9"
AC 0. 287
AEI 0. 090
0. 8' AF 0. 199
AR 0. 081

Relative 0. 7 0. 657
Rating
0.6 ..

0. 5 -3.

0.4

O. 3 *

0. 2

0.1 ..

aCco elg a D
1. Cost Z. Environ- 3. Feasi- 4. Risk
mental bility
Impact
Evaluation Factors

FIGURE 8

ACCEPTABILITY-ABOVE GROUND COASTAL

o90

Ducey

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0,5

Relative LAcceptability
Rating 0.4 . AC 0.255
AEI 0. 188
0.3 .. AF 0.178
AR 0.140

O0.2 0.761

0.1

abc defg a b
1. Cost 2. Environ- 3. Feasi- 4. Risk
mental bility
Impact
Evaluation Factors

FIGURE 9

ACCEPTABILITY-ABOVE GROUND FLOATING LAGOON

'9!

.700

.600

.500- * 3

.born rod eI

� 400 ~ co.,~z &17 0915
Hillld . 14,
Acceptability t
(Less Cost) M ... *16
7 Mesciredime.nt.ry .c8o

. 30Q - o 0 .For.
11 Fktnpl, Sh.Ill�

I2 Undr..U...* 13

6200 4 6 , . .d� .14 .6 .1 .O .22 .24 .26 .28 .30
.bz .d4 .d6 . 0o .22 .24 .26 .28 .30
Cost Acceptability

FIGURE 10 COST EVALUATION

3 2

.600

1 ,4 4S
e15 11 *12
.9
.17
.500'
e7
A c ceptability
(Less
Environ- ^s.v.d.nd
mental ee 16A

9 Poonly Cameo. d MdaterilI
In tId.FlI.d.Rook

. 30.0 omO..
1 Floang. Sll..
IS So ted

I7 Tao;dSphar.

.200 ; : S .
.02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .2O .22 .24 .26 .28 .30
Environmental Acceptability

FIGURE 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION

Sorensen

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA:
THREE FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE DIRECTION

Jens Sorensen
Institute of Urban and Regional Development
University of California
Berkeley, California

ABSTRACT

The future direction of coastal zone management in California is contin-
gent on numerous factors that are difficult to predict. Three factors that
are particularly pertinent to the direction of coastal management are examined.
The factors are: assessing the cumulative impacts of coastal development, the
effect of land use designations on the value of coastal property, and coastal
governance.

Distinction is made between assessing impact on an incremental basis and
on a cumulative basis. If impacts are assessed on an incremental basis, the
assessment will fail to comprehend the threshold point where many apparently
insignificant impacts will reach a cumulative level that will result in the
irreversable degradation of a coastal system.

If the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan of 1976 designates pri-
ority uses for specific geographic areas, the relative differences between
coastal property values may change radically. Depending on the land use
designations, certain property owners may reap windfall increases in property
value while others may suffer wipeout losses. Means of equalizing the wind-
falls and wipeouts in land values are discussed.

Six factors that will influence the coastal governance are identified
and briefly examined. New organizational arrangements that will follow term-
ination of the present coastal commission system are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Yesterday, coastal zone management was characterized as shooting at a
moving target. I feel the objective of this conference should not only be
"getting to know the target better," but also to predict its movement. There
is obviously great uncertainty in knowing how coastal zone management will be
affected by the interaction of future trends and events. The executive di-
rector of the state coastal commission recommends that Future Shock be read
by anyone seriously interested in coastal zone management. How many people
a year ago would have believed that this year we may be rationing gasoline?

The original objective of the speech and the paper was to identify and
briefly discuss the trends and events that may influence California coastal
zone management in the next five years. Exploration of the topic led to the
conclusion that the objective selected was overly ambitious for presentation
in a conference proceedings paper. Adequate analysis of future trends and
events that may shape California coastal management could run to book length
proportions. To narrow the topic down to manageable size, I have focused on
only three factors: assessing the cumulative impacts of coastal development,
effects of land use designations on the value of coastal property, and coastal

/91

Sorensen

governance. The selection of these three factors and the manner of presenta-
tion are intended to give greater visibility to a number of problems, not
now widely recognized,that will eventually have to be considered by coastal
zone management programs.

The paper is organized into three sections. Cumulative impact is dis-
cussed in the first section, followed by "dealing with windfalls and wipeouts"
in section two, and coastal governance in section three.

FROM INCREMENTAL TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Due to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), environmental impact
assessment is a well known and frequently conducted practice in California.
Impact statements circulate around the state like a paper blizzard. An under-
lying premise of both the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act and the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Act is that the future allocation of coastal lands
and resources will be based on assessing the environmental (and, to some ex-
tent, the socioeconomic) impacts that a coastal use (such as residential
development) may generate.

There are numerous problems associated with impact assessment, including
information gaps, weak administrative structure, and lack of operable method-
ology. (For a full survey of impact assessment problems, see Sorensen, 1972;
Dickert, February, 1974.) The particular problem I wish to touch upon in
this paper is the present failure to assess the cumulative impact that many
individual projects may have on a coastal system (coastal systems include
both environmental processes, such as watershed and infrastructural processes,
such as highways).

Impact assessment is largely an incremental exercise as it is currently
practiced either by the units of governments when preparing impact statements
or by the Coastal Commissions when reviewing a proposed project. Project
review is an incremental exercise in the sense that the assessment is usually
focused on analyzing the added increment of impact that may be generated by a
proposed project (such as a housing development adding 600 more vehicle trips
to a coastal highway's traffic load). The cumulative impact on the coastal
highway system's traffic capacity by permitting past and future housing
projects with similar traffic generation, is usually not considered, or if
considered, given inadequate analysis. Because impact assessment is conducted
as an incremental exercise, the assessment will usually fail to comprehend
the threshold point where many apparently insignificant environmental con-
dition changes will reach a cumulative level that will result in the irre-
versable degradation of a coastal system (or, to say it more simply, we do
not know our capabilities until we have exceeded them). For example, a
housing development of 25 units on ten acres may not cause a significant
change in the sediment load entering an estuary. However, if all property
owners were permitted to construct similar density housing on all lands in
the watershed lands with similar site characteristics (as might be the prop-
erty owners' right under equal protection principles of the law), 10,000
units might be built. The sediment load resulting from the construction of
10,000 units could far exceed the thresholds of estuary water quality and
circulation necessary to maintain oyster production, productive waterfowl
habitats, navigation channels, and fish nursery areas.* The obvious problem
lies in determining how much housing (and consequent sedimentation) is
allowable without exceeding desired thresholds of estuary water quality and
circulation.

The plan and ordinances developed for the Lake Tahoe Basin appear to
provide the only example where cumulative impact assessment has served as the
basis for region-wide land use regulation(Tahoe, 1972). Land use designations
were determined by rating all lands within the Lake Tahoe drainage basin

It should be noted that impact assessment is complicated by the considera-
tion of measures that may be used to mitigate the erosion and sediment im-
pacts, e.g., settling ponds, check dams, recontouring.

'95

Sorensen

according to potential runoff, erosion and sedimentation that could occur as
a result of potential development activities (particularly impervious surfac-
ing). The ratings were set so that the total runoff-erosion sediment from
all lands draining into the basin will not exceed the eutrophication threshold
(thereby turning the lake color from crystal blue to murky blue-green)
(Pepper, 1972).

A current example of assessing cumulative impact is provided by the
various projects proposing to locate on or around Suisun Marsh (San Francisco
Chronicle, January 26, 1974). The marsh covers over 84,000 acres at the head
waters of San Francisco Bay. It is highly valued as a habitat for waterfowl
migrating along the Pacific flyway, a nursery area for sport fish, a habitat
for wildlife, and a vast expanse of open space within the rapidly urbanizing
Bay Area. At the present time proposals for industrial parks, a brewery,
sewage treatment plant, a regional garbage dump, garbage barging, a steel
plant, and a nuclear power plant encircle Suisun Marsh (see Figure 1). The
major concern is that the cumulative impact resulting from all these pro-
posals could exceed the thresholds necessary to maintain waterfowl, fish, and
wildlife populations as well as permanently degrade the open space amenity
of the area.

FIGURE ONE

Developmnfots

Opponsens of a proposed regional Marsh
dump within Suisun Marsh fear that will
lead to widespread eroachment on the wild-
life haven. Projected for development are (I)
Cordelia indutrial village (2) Ama zoned for
industry and manufacturing (3) Anheuser
Busch brewery (4) Fairfield-Suisun sewage
treatment plant (5) Envirool, Inc's regional '
garbage dump(6) Envircoo's baring opera-
tions on Moeteuwna SloUgh 7 3teei plant
site (8) Zoned for manufacturing and (9) Pa-
cific Gas and Electric Co. nuclear power plant
site.2

e9=isor the Ban Fracis an

It is evident that many of the major problems that have lead us to the
imperative need for coastal zone management, derive from our past failure to
recognize that the coast is composed of a number of environmental and infra-
structural systems that are interacting among one another (this conclusion
is shared by a number of studies in coastal zone management: Ketchum, 1972;
California, 1972; Smith, 1970; University of Texas, 1973).

The following list illustrates the relation between coastal systems and
types of impact that can exert a cumulative stress on the system.

Estuary watershed:
Ground water or stream pollution, estuary water quality, and effects
on biota.
Ground or stream water flows, estuary and wetlands salinity, and effects
on biota.
Stream sediment loads, estuary sedimentation, and effects orn biota.
Stream sediment loads and deposition of beach materials on estuary or
open coast shore.

Estuary circulation system:
Direct discharge of wastewater into estuary from all sources, estuary
water quality and effects on biota.

1910

Sorensen

Ocean basins:
Direct discharge of wastewater, oil, solid waste from all sources,
quality of ocean waters and sediments, and effects on biota.
Estuary pollution, quality of ocean waters and sediments, and effects
on biota.

Littoral circulation cells:
Control of coastal erosion and erosion-accretion dynamics within lit-
toral circulation cells.

Air basins:
Atmospheric emissions from all sources, ambient air quality, effects
on biota and human health.

Populations of sport and commercial species:
Degradation of coastal streams and size of anadromous fish populations.
Degradation of estuarine habitats and size of waterfowl, wildlife and
fish populations.
Harvesting of conmmercial or sport species and maintenance of a sus-
tained yield population.

Infrastructure:
Land use within sewage services district and capacity of sewage system.
Land use within water services district and capacity of water supply
system.
Land use within highway service area and highway congestion.

The coastal highways (Routes 1 and 101) and their associated service
areas appear to be the system that will have the most influence on the future
of California coastal zone management. If the public continues to oppose the
construction of new coastal highways or enlargement of existing coastal high-
ways, highway traffic capacity will very likely become the cumulative impact
threshold (limiting factor) for coastal development. For each highway section
and associated service area the margin of additional traffic loading could be
established (margin represents the difference between existing traffic levels
at peak loading times and design capacity). Coastal development (particularly
residential and tourist commercial development) would be evaluated on the
basis of the traffic volume generated relative to other potential developments
within the highway's service area.

There are a number of reasons why cumulative impacts have not been as-
sessed. The two most notable reasons are data gaps and the lack of methods
to predict cumulative impact. Both these problems should diminish over the
next few years. Acts requiring the preparation of impact statements, the
Coastal Zone Management Act, local governments' addition of conservation and
open space elements to their general plans, improvements in the remote sens-
ing and mapping of earth resources, and the eventual passage of a National
Land Use Policy Act should all serve to stimulate the collection of environ-
mental and socioeconomic data applicable to the assessment of cumulative
impacts.

One particularly promising improvement in the data base for impact as-
sessment is the development of region wide data banks. The bank is composed
of maps and other spatially defined data information that exist within a
coastal region. Ideally, maps and spatially defined data would be computer-
ized on a grid or point reference system to enable storage and retrieval
according to geographic coordinates. Our research program has developed a
prototype of such a data bank for the north coast of Santa Cruz County
(Pepper, 1973). The demonstration area covers 14 miles of coast and extends
inland from one to three miles. The maps (presently including: elevation,
vegetation, land use, drainage, infrastructure, and ownership) are computer
automated on 1.4 acre grid cells (approximately 10,000 cells in the study
area).

The data bank should enable us to estimate a number of cumulative im-
pacts. For instance, assume a housing development is proposed within our
study area. The development proposes to build on 0 - 10% slopes at an
average density of three units per acre. The cumulative impact question is:

197

Sorensen

"What trend is this proposal initiating or reinforcing?" What would be the
total number of housing units which might be constructed if all the privately
held lands on the northern Santa Cruz coast, between 0 - 10% slope, were
allowed to build at 1/3 acre density. The data bank can answer this question.
For illustration of this hypothetical case, assume the data bank projects
10,000 housing units. The 10,000 figure would lead to further assessment of
cumulative impact. To what extent would the coastal highway have to be im-
proved to accommodate the traffic generated by 10,000 housing units? To what
extent will sewage services have to be built or expanded?*

Resolving the other major problem of cumulative impact assessment, pre-
dictive methods, largely depends on monitoring the effects of those projects
that are permitted.

One of the remarkable aspects of natural resource
management is that immense stocks of money and time
are expended upon preparation of plans while pitiful-
ly small amounts are spent on finding what actually
happened after the plans were adopted. (White, 1972)

To substantially improve the capability to predict the environmental and
socioeconomic effects, monitoring and analysis of projects hould be conducted
during construction and after completion. Information derived from the moni-
toring programs should provide better bases for analagous comparison techniques,
improve the statistical basis for empirical models, and test the validity of
theoretical models.

Consideration of cumulative impact can ultimately lead to the question
of population growth limits for a geographic area. A number of local juris-
dictions (notably East Marin County, City of Petaluma, City of Santa Barbara)
are in the process of grappling with the problem of setting population growth
limits. It appears that as communities become more concerned about dete-
riorating environmental qualities and overburdening of public services, more
considerations will be given to phasing population growth or setting growth
ceilings. This phenomenon will probably be even more apparent in coastal
communities, since the environmental qualities of the coast are often the
prime attraction for residential location. Coastal residents often seek to
protect the environmental amenities that attract them to the coast from being
degraded by future inmigration of new residents seeking the same amenities.
This exclusion tendency is known as the first-in rule, paraphrased by quips
like, "I've got my toehold in heaven, so close the gate."

Growth limits can be based on the capability of an environmental system
to tolerate cumulative impact or the capacity of public service systems to
handle cumulative demands. However, as Petaluma is presently finding out,
setting population growth limits raises a number of difficult issues. Three
problems are evident.

On January 17, 1974, U.S. District Judge Lloyd Burke (San Francisco
District Court) ruled against Petaluma's growth control program on the grounds
that it "violates the Constitutional right to travel and enter any juris-
diction temporarily or on a permanent basis" (San Francisco Sunday Examiner
and Chronicle, January 27, 1974). Newspaper accounts indicate the decision
will be appealed. Since the Constitutional right to migrate has State and
national implications, it is expected that this precedent-setting case will
eventually reach the Supreme Court.

I
The capability to estimate the impact of various development trends allows
the portrayal of alternative futures. The alternative futures approach in-
volves the presentation of various development and conservation options that
a coastal community could adopt as a planning program (such as preservation
oriented plan or a development oriented plan). Each option presented is
described in terms of socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Public re-
view and comment on the impacts described should assist the selection and
specification of the future coastal planning program. Examples of the alterna-
tive futures approach are Maine, 1972 and Dickert, 1972.

Jq8

Sorensen

Growth limits can create displacement problems. One jurisdiction's
growth limits may have significant displacement effects in other jurisdictions.
Development may be displaced to areas where environmental and social conditions
create greater net adverse impacts than would have occurred if the development
had been allowed to locate in the growth control jurisdiction.

The third problem posed by growth limits is a community's denial to ac-
cept its fair share of social responsibility. One argument against the
Petaluma program reasoned that growth limits, if adopted by many suburban com-
munities, would have the effect of trapping middle and low income groups in
the central city. "It would make suburbs into even worse white enclaves."
To what extent will a community's parochial interests seek to use growth
limits as a means to exclude land uses of regional, state, or national in-
terest (such as low income housing, transportation facilities and essential
industries)?

DEALING WITH WINDFALLS AND WIPEOUTS

Let us assume for the moment that in 1976 the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Plan designates priority uses within specific geographic areas
(as specified in Guidelines of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act). For
example, ranching is designated to be the priority use for all grassland
terraces in Mendocino County that are between U.S. Route 1 and the coastline,
and visible from the highway. The designation of priority use will largely
be based on the assessment of environmental and socioeconomic impact genera-
ted by the different types of coastal use on different types of coastal
environments (wetlands, terraces, etc.). Continuing the Mendocino terrace
example, residential development on grassland terraces may not have been
designated as the priority use because of the adverse changes in coastal
scenery as viewed from Route 1.

It is evident that designation of priority uses for geographic areas will
have a differential effect on the value of coastal property. One property
owner may be restricted to ranching while the land use designation of his
neighbor's property may allow construction of a residential subdivision. The
property owner restricted to ranching may realize little or no profit from
his land (possibly incurring a substantial loss, since the price paid for the
land was based on speculation that the subdivision would be permitted). How-
ever, the neighboring property owner who is allowed to build a subdivision
may reap a profit (particularly if relatively few lands within the region
are designated with a residential subdivision priority use). The change in
land values produced by a new set of land use designations (such as specified
by the coastal plan) has been described as the windfall and wipeout phenomenon
(Hagman, 1973). The real crunch in coastal zone planning will come when the
coastal property owners and investors that have been "wiped out" by the new
land use designations realize the extent of their losses in land value and
potential profits. A clear example of how this crunch may occur is provided
by the experience of the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan. At the present time the
dollar total of claims on property value loss and inverse condemnation filed
by property owners and investors against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
exceeds 160 million dollars.*

Even if the assumption*t is made that most of the land use designations
resulting in wipeout situations are upheld by the courts as a legitimate
exercise of police power, the concept of equal treatment (equity) of property
owners will still be a burning issue. For political and social reasons
(although not so much legal), means may be sought to distribute the benefits
and losses arising from the land use designation among the affected owners

*Personal communication with Michael Heyman, legal consultant to the Lake Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency.
**This may be a gross assumption since the land use designations must be non-
discriminatory, supported by rationally developed information, and demonstrate
net social gain. For further discussions of how these legal principles af-
fect land use regulation see Heyman, 1972 and Bosselman, 1973.

;qcj

Sorensen

of coastal property. At least four different means of distribution deserve
consideration.

Perhaps the most direct approach is to tax the windfall property owners
on the value added to their property by the land use designation. The value
added tax could be applied two ways: tax only, or tax and compensation.
Lands allowed to develop could be taxed so as to reduce their value to the
value of lands with development restriction. Lands with value added could be
taxed and the revenues derived from the tax distributed among owners of de-
velopment restricted property as partial compensation for profits lost by the
land use designations. A tax only approach appears to be far easier to
administer than a tax and compensation system.

A second means of achieving equity among property owners is by compen-
sable regulations. Compensable regulations would require the passage of state
enabling legislation authorizing the coastal management agency to impose com-
pensable regulations on all private land designated by the coastal plan to be
held in open space uses. Following the adoption of such regulations, a
special appraisal would determine the market value of lands prior to and un-
affected by the imposition of the coastal land use designations. This
value would constitute the property owner's guarantee. Upon sale on the open
market of any land subject to compensable regulations, if the price fell be-
low the owner's guarantee, the coastal management agency would pay the seller
the difference between the guarantee and the price received. (For a further
discussion of compensable regulation, see Krasnowiecki, 1963.)

A third means of distribution would be the establishment of density
transfer zones along the coast. The zone boundaries would be based on simi-
larity of environmental and socioeconomic conditions or political juris-
diction limits. Within each zone all property owners would be given approxi-
mately the same development density (such as one dwelling unit per acre). If
one property owner desires a higher density (such as four dwelling units per
acre), he must purchase the additional density from other property owners
within the zone. The land owner who sells the density rights receives a
proportional reduction in the maximum density permissable on his land (such
as a reduction to one dwelling unit per four acres). This approach appears
most applicable to preservation of landmarks and residential development of
rural areas (for further discussion of density transfer zones see Costonis,
1973).

The creation of a coastal land bank presents a fourth means to achieve
equity among coastal property owners. The coastal zone management agency
(or an institution working in conjunction with the coastal zone management
agency) through controlling the supply of coastal land, would control the
rate, density, and direction of development. Land banking would involve both
outright (fee simple) purchase of land and the purchase of easements. The
property acquired by the land bank could be sold or leased to investors who
would then use the land in a manner consistent with the priority use desig-
nations of the coastal plan. The revenues derived from sale or lease of
lands could be used to acquire additional property. The English have used
the land bank concept to acquire and manage greenbelt lands around London
(Hagman, 1971). A regional land bank was one component of a Bay Area Con-
servation and Development Agency proposed by AB 1057 (Knox) during the 1971
session of the California Legislature.

A variant of the coastal land bank approach would be the establishment
of a coastal development authority. The coastal development authority would
have power to both acquire and develop coastal lands and resources. The
New York Urban Development Corporation is a working prototype of the concept
(primary activity is the construction of low income housing). It is assumed
that the coastal development authority would not be in competition with pri-
vate enterprise, but confine its activities to projects with high economic
risks (such as mariculture) or projects with marginal profits and broad
social benefits (such as recreational housing for low income groups). A
study on developing the resources of the coast of Maine recommended the forma-
tion of a Land Development Authority (Maine State Planning Office, 1971).

The land bank and coastal development authority approaches obviously

20o

Sorensen

require the management agency to take an active role in the governance of the
coastal zone. Such an active role goes against the grain of the common as-
sumption that coastal zone management will be a reactive process, mainly in-
volved in the review of proposed projects and not involved in the initiation
of projects.

Before leaving the topic of windfalls and wipeouts, one additional point
is noteworthy. The information requirements necessary to support the land use
designations may be substantially reduced if means can be established to dis-
tribute the benefits and losses arising from the coastal land use designations.
If the implementation of land use designations relies only on police powers,
there will be numerous court cases on the grounds of inverse condemnation.
Litigation will mean that the court will scrutinize the impact assessment in-
formation and findings used to make the land use designations. Obviously, the
information must be of high enough quality to persuasively argue why many
millions of dollars worth of private development should not be permitted.
However, establishing means for distributing the benefits and losses arising
from the land use designation should have two effects on information support
requirements. First, there should be far less litigation since property
owners feel they have been fairly treated. Fewer court cases mean less test-
ing of the adequacy of the impact assessment information used to make the
coastal land use designation. Secondly, in the situations that are litigated,
the courts may look favorably on the land use designation since the property
owners were treated equally, even though the information used for making the
land use designations was inconclusive and could stand further substantiation.

There are high time and dollar costs involved in acquiring data and de-
veloping impact assessment information for designation of land use. To what
extent can these costs be reduced by developing means of distributing the
benefits and losses arising from land use designation?

COASTAL GOVERNANCE

California's coastal management system of state and regional commissions
is scheduled to terminate on January 1, 1977.*: Predicting the organizational
arrangement for coastal zone management after 1976 is contingent on a number
of factors, including:

the regional and state coastal commissions' success in resolving the
issues and gaining political support during their 1973-1976 tenure;

�the nature of the coastal zone management plan recommended by the
coastal commissions in 1976;

'implementation and funding of the Coastal Zone Management Act;

'creation of state and regional land use agencies;

'new state-wide functional planning programs (such as energy, ports,
power plant siting);

'crises (environmental catastrophies and energy supply/demand) and
economic prosperity.

There are evidently other relevent factors which could be listed, but at
least the six identified serve to indicate the complexity and number of vari-
ables involved in predicting a future direction of coastal governance. Each

hAs proposed by AB 2321 of the 1973-74 session. This bill is not expected to
encounter opposition. The current termination date set by the initiative is
the 91st day after the final adjournment of the 1976 regular session of the
Legislature.

210

Sorensen

of the factors listed has enough complexity to warrant its own report-length
analysis.* Since I wish to keep this paper on the level of an overview per-
spective, I shall only touch upon the six factors.

Success in Resolving the Issues and Gaining Political Support

What will the coastal commissions' three and three-quarter year track
record he like in December 1976? Statistics will he tossed about, such as:
number of projects denied, approved, and still pending; dollars of investment
and number of jobs lost by all projects denied; dollars of tax revenues lost
or gained by net changes in property values.

Equity questions will be raised. Which socioeconomic groups, which in-
terest groups received the benefits and which bore the costs of the coastal
commissions' regulations?v* During the campaign on Proposition 20, interest
groups for economic development of the coast (real estate, construction trades,
petroleum industry, tourist commercial developers, port developers) repeatedly
raised the issue that the act would produce socially regressive effects. I
note, after hearing Mr. Peevey's presentation on "Balancing Equities in the
Coastal Zone," that the same arguments are still being posed. Proponents for
economic development of the coast may raise concerns for social equity as a
smokescreen to conceal their real motivations of self-interest. Whether the
motivation to raise social equity questions is genuine or only a political
strategy, the posing of such questions is a very real and effective means of
arguing against a future coastal management authority that would be strongly
pro-environment. (For a further discussion of social equity and coastal
planning, see Dickert, 1974).

The acid test of equity is the recognition by individuals, special inter-
est organizations, and socioeconomic groups of how they have been affected by
the coastal commissions over the years and how they may be affected by the
management program recommended by the coastal commissions. To what extent
will individuals, organizations, and socioeconomic groups supporting or op-
posing the coastal management program proposed in 1976 be able to influence
the Legislature, the governor's office, and the public? (Influence on the
public will be necessary in the eventthe proposed management program is not
passed by the Legislature or signed by the governor, and the initiative pro-
cess is again instituted).

Questions of cost effectiveness will be posed in 1976. What has Califor-
nia received for its seven plus million dollar investment in coastal zone man-
agement*** (plus whatever additional dollar costs may be tacked on by opposi-
tion groups). To what extent have the issues that led to the passage of Pro-
position 20 been resolved by the coastal commissions over the three and three-
quarter year period? If these issues are still not resolved, will the coastal
management program proposed in 1976 lay out an effective means for resolution?

TAs proposed by AB 2321 of the 1973-74 session. This bill is not expected to
encounter opposition. The current termination date set by the initiative is
the 91st day after the final adjournment of the 1976 regular session of the
Legislature.

**Equity can be distinguished from social equity in that the former refers to
both interest groups (e.g. labor, oil, conservation) and socioeconomic groups
(e.g., upper income whites, low income blacks), whereas the latter refers only
to socioeconomic groups.

***Estimate based on: five million appropriated by the initiative from the
Bagley Conservation Fund, $750,000 in appropriations to reimburse legal costs
incurred by the Attorney General's office over a three year period. Depending
on the size and timing of grants from the Coastal Zone Management Act, addi-
tional state funds may be sought to cover an anticipated deficit. A 1.6 mil-
lion application for a supplemental appropriation has been submitted to the
California Legislature (SB1656, 1973-74-session). Cost estimates based on per-
sonal communication with Dan Gomes of the State Coastal Commission.

211

Sorensen

The 1976 Coastal Zone Management Plan

The type of organizational arrangement that emerges in 1977 will obvious-
ly depend on whether the coastal zone management plan proposed by the Commis-
sion in 1976 is passed into law by either the legislative or initiative pro-
cess. If the management plan is passed into law, the organizational arrange-
ment for implementation will be contingent on the nature of the plan itself.

The influence that the nature of the plan has upon the design of organi-
zational arrangement for implementation hinges on the degree of prestatement
in the plan. To what degree will the plan lay out explicit policies and
measurable standards for evaluating the type and density of uses that will be
allowed to locate and operate within the coastal zone? To what degree will
the coastal plan designate priority uses for specific geographic areas within
the coastal zone (as specified by CZMA)? The more prestatement in the plan,
the less discretionary latitude the implementing agency will have in its de-
cision making. It appears that reducing the discretionary latitude of the
coastal management authority by increasing the degree of prestatement in the
plan would reduce both the total number of proposed projects and the delibera-
tion time spent on each project that is proposed. The reasoning is that a
plan with strong prestatement would eliminate outright many potential coastal
projects (on the grounds of incompatibility with the plan). Strong pre-
statement would focus the project review to those considerations not specifi-
cally addressed by adopted policies.

The staff size, budget, and discretionary powers of the organizational
arrangement proposed in 1976 will depend on the extent to which the plan is
a strong prestatement of explicit policies, measurable standards, and desig-
nated land uses.

Coastal Zone Management Act

After a year and a half delay, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) has finally been funded and California hopes to receive approximately
$700,000 for fiscal 1973-74. Under the law the state may receive up to three
annual grants for developing a management program (or $2,100,000 if the
$700,000 figure holds for three years . CZMA also provides for grants to ad-
minister the coastal zone management program once it has been developed (the
potential size of grants for administration are unknown since total funds for
the program have not been appropriated).

CZMA's program development grants are particularly important to California
since the current planning program has been severely limited by the diversion
of funds to meet the high costs incurred by the commission's review of pro-
posed projects. The CZMA grants should allow considerable development of the
information base necessary to support the Coastal Zone Conservation Plan of
1976. To a great extent the success of the coastal plan will depend on having
the environmental and socioeconomic information to pose, test, substantiate
and implement the policies recommended by the plan. Without the CZMA funds,
it may prove difficult to develop a strong and well supported coastal plan
that can be implemented in 1977 by the successor to the coastal commissions.

Land Use and Functional Planning Programs

There is still reason to believe that passage of a National Land Use
Policy Act (NLUPA) will be signed into law during this session of Congress.
The law should give considerable impetus to the creation of a state-wide
land use planning program. Support for the creation of region and state-wide
land use control agencies may come from a new administration in Sacramento.
The current administration has been a strong believer in home rule control of
land use. Election of a new administration this fall should improve the
chances of passing legislation establishing regional and state-wide land use
control agencies. Economic development interests may lobby for state-wide
land use control (Mr. Peevey hinted at this position in his presentation). It
appears that the potential proliferation of regional land use control agencies
in California (a trend already set in motion by BCDC, Lake Tahoe Regional

2-1?

Sorensen

Planning Agency, and the California Coastal Zone Commission) is a matter of
concern to the business and labor community. The apparent cause for alarm is
the difficulty state-wide interest groups may have in effectively dealing with
numerous regional land use authorities. Centralization of land use control in
one state agency enables interest groups to concentrate their efforts at a
point in the governance system ("one stop shopping").

In the long run it does not appear unreasonable to expect that the
coastal zone management authority will become one component of a state-wide
land use control agency. The political interaction now occurring between
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and a
Bay Area Regional Planning Agency (as proposed by Assembly Bill 2040 of the
1973-74 legislative session) may serve as a precedent for any future combi-
nation of a coastal zone management authority with a state-wide land use
agency. AB 2040 does not propose to integrate BCDC with the Bay Area Regional
Planning Authority. Supporters of BCDC argue that combination with a newly
created regional planning agency may weaken and set back the successful
program now managing San Francisco Bay. They pose the question: Why not let
the Bay Area Regional Planning Agency get on its feet and demonstrate that
it can resolve regional environmental issues as well as BCDC before consider-
ing a combination of the two agencies? The same argument may be posed when
consideration is given to combining a newly formed state land use agency with
an existing coastal zone management authority. The argument assumes that the
coastal zone authority will be operating a reasonably successful management
program. If this is not the case, there may be wide spread desire for termi-
nating the coastal zone management authority in hopes that a state-wide land
use control agency may offer a better management program for both the coast
and the entire State.

One of the stronger arguments against the coastal zone management pro-
gram in California should be responded to by a state-wide land use planning
program. Opponents of the present coastal commission approach argue that the
present regulatory activities have the effect of displacing uses (such as
housing developments, industries, power plants) that seek coastal locations to
an inland site. The net adverse impact (socioeconomic as well as environmen-
tal) generated by the use displaced to an inland site may be greater than the
net adverse impact if the use had been allowed to locate in the coastal zone.
A state or region-wide land use planning authority should examine the benefit/
cost of coastal zone location versus the benefit/cost of alternative inland
locations. It is evident that confrontation may occur on those occasions when
a state or region-wide land use authority recommends a coastal site for a pro-
posed project based on inland and coastal comparison of net adverse impacts,
and the coastal management authority concludes that the proposed project
should not be located in the coastal zone.

The debate over inland versus coastal zone location may be further com-
plicated by the creation of new state-wide functional planning programs. Last
year the Governor vetoed a bill (SB 283) to create a state power plant siting
commission. Given the hysteria of the energy crisis, it is a distinct possi-
bility that federal or state legislation will be enacted to vest authority
for power plant siting (as well as siting of other energy related facilities
such as offshore ports and oil development) in one agency. It is likely that
the federal and/or state agency, if created, would have the power to override
the decisions of both the coastal zone management authority and the state or
region-wide land use authority.

Crisis and Prosperity

The energy crisis has served to underscore the fact that we are a
society that rarely takes innovative action without prior provocation by
events of crisis proportion. The great Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 may
have been the single most important factor contributing to the passage of
Proposition 20. A catastrophy arising from a nuclear power plant malfunction
may turn the controversy surrounding coastal location of nuclear power plants
into a moot point. A recession in California's economy and consequent high
unemployment may require revision of environmental protection policies and
result in larger representation of the business and labor community within

2/3

Sorensen

the organizational arrangement that manages the coastal zone.

CONCLUSION

The extent to which cumulative impact assessment, equity among property
owners and trends in coastal governance influence the direction of coastal
zone management remains to be seen. Coastal zone management is shooting at a
moving target. It is evident that the three factors only partially explain
the nature and movement of the target, since other variables such as new
technology, energy demand, and international relations will also have to be
considered.

Collectively the three factors do serve to illustrate that coastal zone
management is both a complex and evolving process. A report written during
the infancy period of the coastal zone management movement summed up the
situation in one sentence.

Given the constantly changing physical, biological,
and economic systems, the changes in values and tech-
nology over time and the imperfect state of knowledge
concerning the full range of cause and effects and the
relations between those who benefit and those who lose
from given patterns of resource use require that planning
for resource use be established as a continuing process.
(Wise, 1969)

REFERENCES

Bosselman, Fred, et. al., 1973. The Taking Issue -- An Analysis of Consti-
tutional Limits of Land Use Control. U.S. Government Printing Office.

California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, 1972. California
Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, Sacramento.

Costonis, John, 1973. "Development Rights Transfer: An Exploratory Essay,"
The Yale Law Journal, Volume 83, Number 1, November.

Dickert, Thomas, 1972. "Land Use and Growth Alternatives for Tomales Bay,"
in Tomales Bay Environmental Study. Conservation Foundation, Washington,
D.C.

Dickert, Thomas (editor), February 1974. Environmental Impact Assessment:
Guidelines and Commentary, University Extension, University of California,
Berkeley.

Dickert, Thomas and Jens Sorensen, 1974. "Social Equity and Coastal Zone
Planning," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. I, No. 2.

Hagman, Donald, 1971. Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law.
West Publishing Company.

Hagman, Donald, 1973. "Windfalls for Wipeouts," research grant funded by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Planning
Grant, CAL PD 13.

Ketchum, Bostwick (editor), 1972. The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the
Coastal Zone. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.

Krasnowiecki, Jan, 1963. "Compensable Regulations for Open Space; A Means of
Controlling Urban Growth," Journal of the American Institute of Planners.
May.

21q

Sorensen

Lee, Eugene and Stanley Scott, 1973. "Organizational Arrangements for Coastal
Management," University of California Sea Grant Proposal, 1973-74.

Maine State Planning Office, 1971. Marine Coastal Resources Renewal, Augusta.

Maine State Planning Office, 1972. The Penobscot Bay Plan, Augusta.

Pepper, James, 1972. An Approach to Environmental Impact Evaluation of Land
Use Plans and Policies: The Tahoe Basin Planning Information System.
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley.

Pepper, James, 1973. "Design of a Computer Automated Map-Intersection Method-
ology for Project Review, Plan Development, and Policy Testing," Universi-
ty of California Sea Grant Proposal 1973-74.

Smith, Frank, et. al, 1970. Fourteen Selected Marine Resource Problems on
Long Island, New York, Descriptive Evaluations. Regional Marine Resources
Council, Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.

Sorensen, Jens and Mitchell Moss, 1973. Procedures and Programs to Assist in
the Environmental Impact Statement Process, Sea Grant Publication #27,
University of California, Berkeley.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1972. "Land Use Districts Map," "Land Use
Ordinance." South Lake Tahoe California.

University of Texas, Division of Natural Resources and the Environment, 1973.
Bay and Estuarine System Management in the Texas Coastal Zone. Texas
Coastal Resources Management Program.

White, Gilbert, 1972. "Environmental Impact Statements," The Professional
Geographer, Vol. XXIV, Number 4, November.

Wise, Harold F. and Associates, 1969. Intergovernmental Relations and the
National Interest in the Coastal Zone of the United States. Interagency
Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone, National Council on
Marine Resources and Engineering Development. NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.

BALANCING EQUITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Michael R. Peevey
California Council for
Environmental and Economic Balance

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to speak to you a bit
today about the subject in the program, which is Balancing
Equities in the Coastal Zone. This is a difficult question to
grapple with. The previous speaker made some references to it,
in fact, I think he could have spoken two hours on it if left
to his own devices and the chairman had not rung the gong.

It seems to me that the question of balancing equities
really translates into how to be fair. The coastal commission,
the six regional commissions and the state commission in
California attempt to wrestle with the question of balancing
equities on a daily basis -- or at least should be doing so.
I say in principle because that still gives us a lot of room
for differences of opinion.

In the case of the coast here in California, balancing
equities comes down to discussing a number of issues -- a
couple of which were touched on already. One of them, the
issue of private property rights vs. public needs, revolves
around the takings clause of the U. S. Constitution and there
was a lengthy discussion of this in one of the morning sessions.

Another one of the questions one comes up with in talking
about balancing equities is, who is to have coastal access --
is it to be all of the people, or a relative few? This was one
of the causes for Proposition 20 in the first place. The con-
cern of the many people who did not own coastal property them-
selves was that the coast would be walled off from public
access. A case in point was the Sea Ranch development on the
Sonoma County coast. Regarding the Marin County coast, which
was mentioned here earlier, Marin County has pursued what can
only be characterized fairly as a no growth posture - in the
western part of the county. The Board of Supervisors, which
controls the unincorporated areas of the county last year
declared by resolution that the western one-third of Marin
County was an agricultural preserve and then proceeded to zone
it to what is called A-60, that is one home per 60 acres, as a
means of reducing population pressures and obviously never
having to deal with social problems or population density. And
most of western Marin today is zoned for A-60.

Mention was made that Petaluma in Sonoma county has pursu-
ed in the last year and a half a policy of limiting new resi-
dential construction to 500 units a year. The difference
between the Petaluma situation in my view and the Ramapo situa-
tion in New York, is that in Ramapo the city council --- the
government --- said and was sustained in the courts, that you

216

Peevey

can limit residential development to a prescribed number of
houses over a period of time as long as it is tied in, in
effect, to availability of public services such as sewage,
water, and what have you.

Petaluma has pursued a different course. What makes
Petaluma unique is that its limitation on housing construction
is not tied directly to the provision for public services. And
for that reason, some groups, basically developers, are in the
federal courts today trying to get the Petaluma plan thrown out
on the basis that it is a violation of constitutional guaran-
tees of freedom of movement of people.

Now another one of the 'balance of equity' questions is of
course the vested developmental rights issue which is being
litigated as a result of the Proposition 20 success. In the
Supreme Court, 4-3 decision, a couple of months ago in a case
called See-the-Sea in San Diego County it was judged that some-
one has vested developmental rights if substantial, lawful
construction had been done prior to February 1, 1973.

The Coastal commissions in California operate under a
statute that, the only fair way to describe it, is tough. I
think the Chairman of the regional commission here would agree.
It's a tough statute -- it was a tough initiative. The intent
basically, I think it's also fair to say, of those who sponsor-
ed it, and secured its enactment by the people of California,
was not to balance all the equities, not to balance social and
economic factors with environmental factors, but rather to put
environmental factors first. This, of course, makes things
difficult for those who think there should be parity between
social, economic and environmental concerns. It makes it
particularly difficult for even the coastal commissions them-
selves and for the commissioners who try in varying degrees,
and with varying degrees of success, looking in part toward
1976 and a report to the state legislature on the plan, to try
to balance some of these considerations.

Last month the state commission decided, and this was a
social decision including social values, and they labeled it as
such, that they were expressing, at least tentatively, a pref-
erence for land uses on the coast that will allow the most
people to use the coastal zone. This was in a case for a
recreational vehicle campground at Malibu which was appealed to
the State Coastal Commission. They approved it.

Likewise, the same state commission last month denied a
permit for an over 600 unit apartment and condominium develop-
ment in Santa Monica, sponsored by the Redevelopment Agency of
Santa Monica on the grounds that it would force older people,
the elderly, many of them low income who were long time resi-
dents of this part of the south coast area where the air is
clear, to have to get up and move out in favor of a more
affluent group.

So, despite some of the things in Proposition 20, I think
it's fair to say that there was an attempt to try to balance
equities by both the regional and state commissions in a way
perhaps, that goes beyond or at least is not explicitly stated
in great detail in Proposition 20.

Another one of the problems in trying to balance equities
in the Coastal zone is that there is a problem with the loss
of value or reduction in value of unimproved properties with
the passage of Proposition 20, vacant lots and so forth where
developmental opportunities have been diminished by the passage
of Proposition 20 versus the appreciation, rapid appreciation
in many cases, of the existing developed land. Now this has

.2/?

Peevey

led a friend of mine,whohappens to be a lobbyist in Sacramento
and is relatively affluent, to say that "Gee, I might have been
wrong in opposing Proposition 20 in '72, because since its
passage, the value of my home in Sea Ranch has more than
doubled." And this is one of those interesting consequences.

A couple of other points in trying to balance equities
that need to be stated is that they really overlook the ques-
tion of job needs. When Proposition 20 was on the ballot last
year, one of the major opponents of it was organized labor in
California, not all of it but most of it, and largely within
organized labor, the building trades unions. The building
trades unions said they opposed it because whatever else may be
desirable in terms of Proposition 20, one consequence would
mean job losses for their members. And you could see that
clearly when matters come before regional or state commissions
such as the San Onofre addition to the Southern California
Edison facility which would provide 7,500 man-years of construc-
tion labor.

Also, the final overall point on trying to balance equi-
ties, is of course, the competing needs of a general society,
which I want to speak a little bit more of in a moment, for
energy, which means power plant siting, refinery expansion in a
period where we are in an energy crunch, for the construction
of deep water ports, obviously for the preservaton of fishing,
and so forth, versus the need to preserve what is an irreplac-
able resource here in California.

I can give you two examples of how difficult these issues
become in a very specific way. Turning first to the property
rights issue -- the private property rights versus public needs
issue --- I'll use on example in Marin county. A fellow by the
name of Herbert Angress had for four years tried within the
county to get approval of a condominium development of some 70
units on the shore of Tomales Bay, He finally secured approval
of the county planning commission, and the county Board of
Supervisors. His proposal was environmentally sound by the
standards of 1971 and the summer of '72, and it was in accord-
ance with the county's general plan and in accordance with the
plan for the Point Reyes National Seashore which called for
some recreational facilities for people to stay overnight to
make use of the seashore.

By the time he had gotten all the necessary permits, but
had never done any construction, along came the qualification
of Proposition 20 for the ballot in early summer '72. He could
not borrow money until this matter was resolved one way or
another and in November '72 we know what the outcome was in
terms of voter preference. Mr. Angess then went to the region-
al coastal commission and asked for a claim of exemption, he
was denied. He asked for a permit, he was denied. Now he is
practically bankrupt. It is obviously a tough equity question.

Another example, this one in Sonoma County, was the
Schreffler case. This was an individual who was retired, who
owned some property near Bodega Bay, in Sonoma County. He had
lived in Santa Rosa. He sold his Santa Rosa home and he and
his wife planned to build their dream retirement cottage near
Bodega Bay.

It just so happened that the construction of that house
would interfere with the line of sight from Highway 1 to the
ocean, so the regional coastal commission denied him a permit
to build. That is it technically provided him with a permit
to build provided the state did not purchase the land within
one year. This action was affirmed by the state coastal commi-
ssion. So now the man is waiting to find out whethei the land

asr

Peevey

is going to be purchased by the state. He's now in court. He
has suffered great personal hardship although the public weal
may very well have been served.

Obviously in both these cases the equity question was made
more difficult because to date we have not provided the mechan-
ism for the purchase of land or some other things, density
rights, and so forth.

The third case I'd like to discuss as an example of the
difficulty of balancing equities is here in southern California
This is not the private rights versus public rights question so
much as it is the general welfare of the people versus environ-
mental needs in the Coastal zone. What I'm talking about is
the proposed San Onofre power plant addition that Southern
California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric Company wish
to build. This is a 1.3 billion dollar addition to the nuclear
facility that was shown to you on slides earlier this afternoon.
The San Diego regional coastal commission approved the applica-
tion by a vote of 9 to 1. Those of you who saw the L.A. TIMES
yesterday know that this has been appealed by a number of
groups including those who are concerned about radiation safety
and other factors, to the state coastal commission. The staff
of the state coastal commission has recommended denial of the
permit to build the addition to the nuclear facility at San
Onofre. This matter will be decided tomorrow by the coastal
commission meeting right down the street here.

The San Onofre question is particularly difficult because,
among other things 1) we are in the midst of an energy short-
age, 2) the staff recommendation goes to the question of the
environmental impact on the bluffs whose picture you saw.
Actually there are some 17 or 18 miles of such bluffs. There
is no doubt that the building of an addition to the power plant
will cut into those bluffs. However, how do you balance that
against the general society's needs?

I would like to read to you as an example of the reasoning
of the commission staff, a couple of paragraphs from its recom-
mendations regarding San Onofre. They say, "The proposed
expansion of the San Onofre nuclear power plant would destroy
more than one-half mile of coastal bluffs and canyons that,
although little known to the public, have a beauty and grandeur
deserving of protection. Motorists speeding by San Onofre on
Interstate 5 may not know the bluffs even exist, but the San
Onofre expansion would level them (52 acres of bluffs would be
taken, about 2.5 million cubic yards of material would be truck-
ed to 125-acre dump site adjacent to the freeway.)

From the beach below, however, these are the towering
bluffs carved and patterned by wind and water, 'the sound of
the surf,' and the silent twisting canyons. This combination
provides an experience virtually unique along the Southern
California coast. And, just as nobody would propose to carve
a power plant into Yosemite's Half Dome, the staff does not
believe that anyone should destroy the bluffs and canyons of
San Onofre. Our society is not yet so poor that we must chop
down our cathedrals for firewood.

That's the staff recommendation. It gives you a bit of a
feeling for how strongly environmental concernsare being taken
by the staff. Now the staff proposal, is that instead of being
denied, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas 7 Electric
move the power plants to the other side of the Interstate 5
freeway. In other words, move it a half a mile or so the other
side. This may sound reasonable at first, but it took an act
of Congress to get the land for the present San Onofre power
plant. To do re-engineering and get agency approvals and all

d2 j

Peevey

the other needed things could take three or four more years
during a period of time when we are already deficient in energy.

In fact, as the staff does point out, the applicant con-
tends that any delay would cause more reliance on fossil fuels.
We know that they are of great concern, in terms of air pollu-
tion.

Personally, my own view is, in the case of San Onofre the
staff did not adequately balance equities and needs. While
there is a desire and need for us to preserve as much of the
California coastline as possible, when you have competing
demands, and in this case, very serious competing demands, the
general welfare must come first.

Well, let me conclude by saying that equity questions are
obviously though to handle. For example, the battle over gas
rationing vs. increasing gas prices, which contributed to the
firing only yesterday of Governor Love just five months after
he resigned as Governor of Colorado. Or the limitless debate
we have in this country over tax reform. And what is a fair
tax system?

Equity questions are made even more difficult in terms of
the coastal zone when there is no money for compensation of
those whose property is diminished or taken.

My own personal view is that in the end what you have to
come down to is an acceptance that single purpose planning,
whether it's done in terms of coastal preservation or it's done
as EPA has done under the Clean Air Act with the one standard
being clean air, is not adequate. A better balancing of
equities is necessary.

That better balance can only come through an approach
such as state land use planning that's overall and multipurpose
That says the policy of the state is to consider equally social,
economic, environmental considerations. That sets out areas of
critical state concern, that sets out areas of statewide signi-
ficance and that defines "key facilities." I think this is
where we are headed; that it's proper; andI think it will
happen sooner than the three to four years the previous speaker
indicated. I see a developing consensus for it. Thank you.

Question: Are you going to use the same attitude towards pre-
servation and conservation of the environment when there's only
15 miles of these lands left, then 10 miles, 5 miles, 2 miles
and 1 mile?

Peevey: Are you talking about the San Onofre situation?

Question: Yes.

Peevey: I think your question is a red herring. You know
you're talking about 52 acres when there are 18 miles of bluffs,
and we're in an energy shortage situation, we've already done
all the plans, and everything else for that site. It would
mean cutting out a little bit of the bluffs, equal to, or a
little bit bigger than what was shown. I don't take the view
that this means that you then take the next piece of beach and
then the next piece of beach and so on. I think the first
speaker this afternoon indicated that on any kind of relative
point scale, the best place to put a nuclear power plant was
inland. It was done in Rancho Seco up in the San Joaquin
Valley. But we're not at that point at San Onofre. We're at
the here and now -- the decision has to be made at this moment
and I don't think that suggesting that if you take 52 acres

220

Peevey

of bluffs now means that you are in support of taking another
52 acres tomorrow and the next day, and the next day and the
next. But you have a very immediate situation.

One of the Other Panelists: May I say something?
That's a good question but, I don't know if there's anybody here
from the Sierra Club -- (laughter) -- I asked that question
first. Larry Moss is not actively opposing the San Onofre Two
and Three additions. That doesn't mean he's for it, if I can
speak for him (I will anyway because he isn't here). He appear-
ed before a group of us last Spring in a course at UCLA on this
subject and we asked the question. He said, no, he's not
against it. He said that he'd appear at AEC hearings to talk
about their concern for the thermal effluent and the monitoring
systems and the safeguards to make sure that everything is done
right but as long as, and this is kind of the context that he
put it, as long as you've already screwed up the site anyway
with one plant, you might as well put two more in the same
place. Because once you get the plant licensed, the area
licensed, it's very difficult to go elsewhere. Also once you
get transmission lines in there, you've got to get a corridor
built first, so unless you do go inland which is a different
ballgame, because its a different design -- and on this,
Dr. Bright can confirm this, but once they change this, or
change the location or type of plant, they may have to go
through all the other appeals again. All the other roads to
the licensing. But, this is the part that occurred to me when
you asked the question was that this isn't going to take all of
the coast. This is one instance and it is probably one of the
last few places on the coast that there'll ever be a plant like
this.

Peevey: I think the basic point I'm trying to make is that you
have to have a mechanism to balance these equities and you
can't have it on a single purpose planning basis because that
agency is going to consider its best interest, whether it be
fish and game or the coast or whatever. And you have to have
a mechanism that balances all these things. Sometimes you're
right and sometimes you're wrong... Yes?

Question: Larry Moss isn't here. His statement was made, by
the way, prior to the adoption of the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Act and while he was also in his individual capa-
city. I would just like to add that that was before the adop-
tion of the section of the act that points out that any irrev-
ersible -- that the commission may not approve any irreversible
commitment of coastal resources. Some us feel that trucking
52 acres of bluff to Japanese Mesa constitutes somewhat of an
irreversible commitment.

Peevey: I won't argue that it isn't going to do some damage to
the bluffs -- there's no doubt about it. Thatis the question
of balancing equities, you know, which one has to come first in
this kind of question. People lay awake nights trying to
decide. And I'm sure there'll be a lot of anguish by the
coastal commissioners who have to vote on this, before they
vote, tomorrow and afterwards too. (Laughter)

Question: Just one more statement ... do you or any of these
other fellows live within twenty miles of San Onofre?

Peevey: No, but the President of the United States does on
occasion.

LOCAL LAND USE:
MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS AND PROPLEMS

Dr. Donald B. Bright
Chairman
South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Commission
Chairman, Dept. of Biological Science
California State University, Fullerton

The blind forces of urbanization, flowing along lines of
least resistance, have not shown an aptitude for creating an
urban and industrial environment that will be stable, self-sus-
taining and self-renewing. Rather, as congestion expands and
the rate of expansion increases, the environment has undergone
tragic defacement. Also substantial dollars have been expended
on unsuccessful remedies for congestion and expansion, such as
more transportation corridors for cars and more distant sources
of potable watere yet, these efforts have all too often merely
increased the economic burden and also promoted the "more of the
same" blight and disorder. This frustration is aptly summed up
in an early Environmental Impact Statement printed in TRUE
magazine, 1959, namely: The "impact is critical, but nS unas-
sailable, potentially negative, but not unconquerable as long as
we address ourselves souarely to its full implications, and
proceed resolutely on a program of mitigation and amelioration
of negative influences."

Armed with evidence of this confusion environmentalists
have pressed hard for blanket prohibitions, moratoria, where all
changes are precluded except to carry out "desirable" restora-
tion. Yet, such prohibitions are not a viable solution. They
would be just as destructive because of direct disturbance of
economic stability, general cultural customs and governmental
management protection procedures.

If we are to emerge from this dilemma with reasonable
success, it is obvious that the thrust must be centered around
a "common sense" balance between: use and disuse, conservation
and exploitation and need and desire. Such a thrust is not new,
and there is already indication that we are working toward such
a "common goal" approach at several levels. Unfortunately, much
of our activity is still "wheel spinning" because we have not
been able to separate our process of identification of problems
from vested interests and customs of the past. With this as a
backdrop, lets turn our attention now to management concepts and
problems.

First, considering management concepts, the issues are
complex and the means of adjustment expensive in terms of time,
talent and dollars. Here, we shall only consider three (3)
concepts: ethical changes, land as a resource and a commodity,
and a cross-matching scheme.

An ethic is a self-imposed limitation on the freedom of
action aimed at survival. Technology tells us what we can do
while our ethic tells us what we may not do. This is a far-

222

Bright

reaching issue, and the variations of "environmental concern"
point up the difficulties of determining eithical attitudes.
Earl Cook, in his article on "Ecoethics and Environmental
Politics" identifies three (3) major ethical positions in todays
environmental controversies. First, the Development Ethic,
which states that good comes from the management and mastery of
nature; second, the Preservation Ethic, which forbids alteration
by man of natural areas deemed to have special aesthetic, recrea-
tional, scientific, therapeutic or ecologic values; and third,
the Equilibrium Ethic, which requires all to work to achieve a
relatively stable equilibrium between man's needs and his envir-
onment.

It seems essential that we must at the very least move
toward an equilibrium ethic if we are to prevail and enjoy a
degree of ecological stability. Thus good viable, management
will only emerge when we are all more capable of straddling the
fence between total development and total preservation, with a
strong view toward measuring alternative uses versus overall
goals and policies.

Second, what about land? does it have value? and will it
become scarce in the years to come? At the present, our view of
land use is centered still around the Real Estate mode of
"regulate land use to maximize land values." Yet, the value of
land is beginning to change, for example, mudflats associated
with estuaries were once characterized as "useless" but today
they are thought to have "value." Also, land is beginning to be
viewed using interrelatedness rather than on a It by lot basis.
Further, scarcity of land is highlighted by increasing limita-
tions put on land use by local governments. Thus, to some, land
is a commodity, there to be sold, while to others it is soley a
resource, to be preserved. However, it is essential that land
be treated as both a resource and a commodity. Conservationists
who view land only as a resource are ignoring the social and
economic impact that would parallel restrictions on the right to
buy and sell land. Yet, also, the land speculators who view
land only as a commodity are ignoring the problem of our finite
supply of land. As self-evident as the idea of land as a re-
source and a commodity may be, it is clear that the evolution of
management concepts to achieve a change in the market place will
not be easy or quick. This is a futuristic concept which war-
rants much of our time and conern.

Third, a suggestion as to how we may approach the problem
of land use management so as to gather viable data or informa-
tion, that is, a system of comparison or cross-matching.
Although the comparisons can be variously packaged, there seem
to be four (4) essential ones:

1. Environmental Sensitivity vs. State of the Art - this
will point out areas where improvement is needed and
also help to establish priorities.

2. Cultural Environment vs State of the Art - this will
aid in determining why we are where we are, and serve
as a basis for evolving mechanisms to resolve the
problems.

3. Planned Future Changes vs. Envirnomental Sensitivity -
this will serve as a base for identifying future
environmental impact.

4. Planned Future Changes vs. Socio-Economic Base - this
will allow a determination of the realistic aspect of
current general planning or where development "roll
back" may be most appropriate.

223

Bright

These comparisons or cross-matchings are achievable, and if put
into operation would provide needed data from which to evolve
viable decisions. The success of such an approach would dictate,
of course, that many present governmental procedures and Juris-
dictions be violated.

So much for a "scratching of the surface" regarding manage
ment concepts. Now, let us consider for a brief period the
present problems--actually the bag of problems is bulging, so
much so that is would be presumptive to attempt to cover all
aspects at this time. Accordingly, I will restrict myself to
four (4) issues: Property Rights, Shifting of the Burden of
Proof to Developers, Vested Interests, and Communication.

Property rights, the right of an individual to dispose of
the land he owns AND the right to use his land, are at the very
crux of the issue of land use. Since the 17th Century these two
aspects of property rights have been gradually eroded. The loss
of an owner's "absolute right" to dispose of his land was aptly
described by Walter Lippmann in 1963:
"Private property is, in fact, the creation of the laws
of the land----it is a primitive, naive and false
view of private property to urge that it is not sub-
Ject to the laws which express the national purpose
and the national conscience....... "

Now, what about the "absolute right" to use your land!
Precedents are numerous, but I will only review three key con-
cepts.

First, the use of singular police power to acquire or
change the use of property. This was established in 1915, the
Hadacheck Case, where the U. S. Supreme Court stated--"there
must be progress, and if in its march private interests are in
the way, they must yield to the good of the community."

Second, as exemplified by the Euclid Case, 1926, the court
ruled that land-use regulation was constitutionally valid, and
thus approved comprehensive zoning regulations.

Third, the concept that the "management" of property rights
is subject always to "reasonableness." This embraces four (4)
principles,

a. Does the regulation relate to a proper legislative
goal?
b. Regulations must not unfairly discriminate against
similarly situated property owners.
c. Consideration should be given to the impact of a
regulation on the market value of the property.
d. "Just compensation" should be provided by spreading
to the public the costs of acquiring public benefits.

It is clear with even this brief account, that property
rights are not static, that the issues are not always clear; yet
somehow the ethic of equilibrium must prevail--coupled with a
means of incentive to insure appropriate land use and just comp-
ensation. Always at the heart of the matter should be reason-
ableness-remembering that what is reasonable to one is unjust to
another. Until this issue is managed effectively, land use
management will not achieve maturity.

Until recently the initiative for change has been vested
with the developer and the burden of proof of environmental
degradation was left for others to consider, and usually too
late. The trend is clear that the burden of proof is shifting
to the developer. The flury around the character, quality and
use of EIS's clearly demonstrates this point as does the

229

Bright

increasing number of class action suits based on such issues as
esthetic deterioration of the environment. The importance of
this shift of burden is enormous. It demonstrates the public's
unwillingness to let experts in the government continue to make
environmental decisions, as well as a degree of impatience with
existing mechanisms for resolution of problems. However, this
is not to imply that the development eithic lacks a conscience.
There is increasing evidence: 1) that developers in general
recognize the need for new mechanisms which will allow an evalu-
ation of physical, economic and social costs and benefits before
development; and 2) that the final decision should be made on a
best-alternative basis. This is a new approach by developers
and it must be encouraged by local, state and federal incentives

Vested interests are not new, but near total exposure to
public review is new. Perhaps we can see this easiest by con-
sidering two general statements which are presently very common:
First, can a group of appointed officals have power to rule on
decisions evolved by duly elected officials? Note that the
concern here is not for the substance of a particular issue, but
rather a matter of vested control. Second, can regional govern-
mental bodies determine the destiny of any given city? Note,
this is not an analysis of the pro's and con's of the worth of a
regional government, but rather a matter of vested interest.
Also crucial here is the number of governmental regulatory
bodies, many with overlapping boundaries and oftimes conflicting
and confusing regulations.

Obviously this issue is clouded by past precedents and the
"cry at the trough today"--but unless we can evolve some land
use management concepts which are pervasive, the issue will be
mute in the distant future. The burden is totally vested in a
need for change in governmental procedures--at all levels. Since
law tens to be a bailiff for the ruling power of the moment, it
will not solve this problem, even though it is called on with
increasing frequency to regulate conflicting constituencies.

Communication is a perpetual problem. Yet, re land use,
it is compounded becase the two extremes, proponents of develop-
ment and preservation ethics, are not attempting to communicate
and even if they did, neither side would listen with clear ob-
jectivity. Oh hes, they do on occasion listen to each other,
but usually through a judge during a trial; and the judge is
most often lacking in the needed background, to say nothing of
time, to be an effective interpreter. If this lack of what may
be called "lateral communication" continues it can only result
in more severe problems with a concomitant reduction in the rate
of achievement of needed changes. Accordingly, if we wan viable
land use concepts in the immediate future, we must increase
effective communication. We need more groups and organizations
which can provide "reasonable" and "appropriate" griss for the
decision mill. An excellent example of this approach was begun
in the San Francisco area by a group called EIC (Environmental
Information Clearinghouse). EIC's goals were directly to my
point, namely:

1. To serve as a central service for environmental
information.
2. To establish a communication link between groups
concerned with environmental issues.
3. To provide a mechanism to bring businessment and
environmentalists together on projects of mutual
interest.

Although EIC was a public venture, there is no reason why
local and regional governments can not now so enjoin themselves.

22~5

Bright

In conclusion, where are we today, re land use. We are on
the cutting edge off a new adventure. This chapter of American
History will be as a hinge of fate. We can more forward with an
ethic of equilibrium which provides adequate balance between
natural things, man-made things, economics, social need and
governmental concerns. But we must also remember to avoid the
bureaucratic trap that regulation is desirable In Itself, and
strive for a mode of operation that affords a planning process
which measures alternative uses versus overall goals and
policies.

SUPERPORT ECONOMICS: THE NEED FOR DEEPWATER PORTS ON THE WEST COAST

Walter Yep
Chief, Economics Branch, South Pacific Division
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

In my remarks, the term superport will be used in a very narrow sense.
More specifically, I will be referring to deepwater port facilities (DWP)
for transfer of crude petroleum. These DWP facilities may be private or
public terminals and are not necessarily complete ports. On economics,
I will be using the term in its broadest sense. Galbraith simply defines
economic efficiency as "getting the most for the least". Both qualif-
ications are important in addressing the West Coast need for DWP facilities.

In beginning, it may be apropos to describe our current situation,
nationally and for the West Coast. At present, no U.S. harbor can accomo-
date a fully loaded tanker greater than 200,000 dwt. The world tanker
fleet already numbers more than 300 ships too large to enter any U.S. port.
Most U.S. ports have channel depths between 35 to 45 feet. The maximum
channel capacities on the West Coast are at Long Beach and Puget Sound where
150,000 dwt, tankers can be accommodated.

The Corps probably perceived this situation at an earlier stage than
others. In the late sixties, the Corps initiated a number of port studies,
culminating in our latest effort - Deepwater Port Studies for the North
Atlantic, Gulf and West Coast. Listed below are several of the published
studies:

a. Foreign Deep Water Port Developments, A Selective Overview of
Economics, Engineering and Environmental Factors, by A.D. Little, Inc.,
1970.

b. U.S. Deepwater Port Study, by R.A. Nathan Associates, Inc., 1972.

c. Japan: A Survey of Ports, Deepwater Terminals and Vessels, by
Walter Yep, South Pacific Division, 1973.

d. North Atlantic Deepwater Port Facilities Study, North Atlantic
Division, 1973.

e. Gulf Deepwater Port Facilities Study, Lower Mississippi Valley
Division, June 1973.

f. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study, by South Pacific
Division and North Pacific Division, June 1973.

The West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study was in response to a
resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the U.S. House of Represent-
atives. This resolution was adopted on 12 October 1972 and was sponsored
by Congressman Glenn Anderson and Don Clausen. The study commenced in
January 1973 when funds were made available and was completed in June 1973.

YEP

The objectives of the study were (1) determine the need for DWP
facilities along the West Coast; (2) if the need exist, evaluate the advant-
ages and disadvantages of the most likely locations and the most appropriate
facilities.

To accomplish our study objectives, the scope of the study was divided
into six interrelated elements. These were:

1. Petroleum Consumption and Supply

2. Refinery Capacity, Location and Impact

3. Transportation Economics

4. Engineering

5. Environment

6. Public Participation

The study was based on three conditions: (1) the "without" deepwater
condition which considered the utilization of existing navigation channels
to handle projected petroleum volumes; (2) the "with" deepwater port condi-
tion which considered the utilization of DWP facilities to handle projected
petroleum volumes; and finally, (3) all DWP facilities would be on a common
use basis. Also, our study analyzed more than 50 alternative schemes for
vessel movements of crude petroleum whether from the North Slope or Middle
East.

The findings of our study resulted in no Corps recommendation for
construction of DWP facilities. This was not the intent of our study.
Highlights of the study findings were:

(a) The need for DWP facilities is a comparative need and
not an absolute need.

(b) After considering more than 21 potential sites, the
most likely sites are Ferndale, Anacortes, Port Angeles,
Central San Francisco Bay, offshore Golden Gate, offshore
Point Fermin, Los Angeles Harbor or Long Beach Harbor.

(d) Using a smaller number of large ships or supertankers
would reduce congestion in shipping lanes and decrease
the probability of oil spills.

The completion of the Corps West Coast DWP study provided a reference
document for some policy considerations. One response to our study was a
policy position by the Resources Agency of the State of California. The
Resources Agency acknowlecges the "....need for a deepwater port somewhere
on the West Coast." It is interesting to note that the stated DWP need is
used in a singular context, implying no more than one DWP. Our findings
indicated that up to three DWP facilities could be economically feasible
along the West Coast.

In terms of a Federal policy, there is no precedent for Federal
development of DWP facilities. DWP facilities, if constructed, should be
financed and built by non-Federal interests. Federal authority will prob-
ably focus only on the licensing and permitting aspects of DEP development.

*Mr. Yep was one of the principal study managers for the West Coast
Deepwater Port Facilities Study. The views presented here are not
necessarily those of the Corps.

228

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER PORT SITES
WEST COAST

FERNDALE ~ CANADA
EVERETT
NEAH BAY VANCOUVER
ANACORTES
PORT ANGELES SEATTLE
DISCOVERY BAY/
GRAYS HARBOR- /WASHINGTON'

OFFSHORE COLUMBIA RIVER/ PORTLAND -~i

COOS BAY OREGON ,/

CRESCENT CITY
HUMBOLDT BAY i-.-

RICHMOND NEVADA /
CENTRAL SAN FRANCISCO BAY- SAN FRANCISCO
OFFSHORE GOLDEN GATE
OFFSHORE MOSS LANDING /

ESTERO BAY I--'

PORT HUENEME
EL SEGUNDO LOS ANGELES \
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH ES
SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND ---- V

SAN DIEGO - SAN DI$GO

~~~'SAN.__DIG

Editors Note

EDITORS NOTEs This material was extracted by the editor from
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers report "West
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study" dated June 1973, to add
a few interesting facts. Because it is out of context, this
material may not now represent the views of the Corps of Eng-
ineers.

During the 1940's the standard tankers was a ship of
16,000 deadweight ton capacity, which drew 30 feet of water. In
the 1950's the largest tanker in the world was 30,000 dwt, draw-
ing more than 50 feet. By 1968, the largest vessel afloat was a
325,000 dwt tanker. In early 1973, a 477,000 dwt tanker was
launched, and currently a 706,000 dwt tanker is on order and a
one-million-ton behemoth is being designed.

Tankers require significantly deeper drafts as their dead-
weight tonnage increases. For example, a loaded 100,000 ton
tanker draws about 47 feet, and a vessel carrying 300,000 tons
requires 73 feet. The coming 500,000 ton ship will need about
90 feet of draft and the draft requirements of a million ton ship
would be approximately 110 feet.

The deepest ports in the nation are in Puget Sound and at
Long Beach. Existing port facilities in Puget Sound can handle
up to 150,000 dwt. Channel depths in Long Beach Harbor can
serve vessels up to 130,000 dwt. More and More large tankers
are Joining the world fleet. At the beginning of 1973 there
were over 300 tankers of 150,000 dwt or larger in operation and
over 400 or more on order for construction.

The reason for the larger size is economy. It costs less
per barrel of oil to move petroleum in a large ship. As an
example, where it might cost about $10 a ton to move oil from
the Persian Gulf to California in a 50,000 dwt tanker, it might
only be $5 a ton in a 200,000 dwt tanker. Eventually, the cost
differential curve flattens out, but as tankers get bigger even
a small saving in transportation cost per ton becomes a large
saving on the total cargo. The use of supercarriers for the
delivery of crude petroleum imports to the west coast would re-
sult in considerable cost savings per ton.

Deep=Draft Ports Considered: At the outset of the study,
22 potentially suitable deepwater port sites on the west coast
were identified for review (as shown on Mr. Yep's figure). The
study eliminated a number of sites from detailed consideration
for a variety of reasons.

Assuming construction of the Alaska pipeline to Valdez,
the study identifies three alternatives which would have the
greatest potential economic value and cause the least change to
existing conditions.
1) - Three deepwater ports. One deepwater port would be
located in each of the Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay
and Los Angeles/Long Beach areas.
2) - Two deepwater ports. One deepwater port would be in
the San Francisco Bay area and one in Los Angles/Long
Beach areas. Puget Sound would continue to receive
crude oil at its existing ship terminals and through
the trans-mountain pipeline from Canada.
3) - A single deepwater port. Deepwater port facilities
would be provided at either San Francisco Bay or Los
Angeles/Long Beach for tankers up to 475,000 dwt, with
transhipment by sea in smaller vessels to other ports.

230.

REGULATION, TAKING AND PLANNING
IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE

by Lindell L. Marsh

Partner, Nossaman, Waters, Scott, Krueger & Riordan
Los Angeles, California

I. Introduction

A. The Problem Urbanization.

The increasing urbanization of the California coastal
zone1 has placed an unprecedented strain on our present system of
land-use planning and regulation. Communities have been destroy-
ed by their merger into expanding megalopoli. The pollution of
the ocean environment has increased. Sludge accumulates offshore
population centers such as New York and Los Angeles. Air pollu-
tion is increasing. Population and structural density is in-
creasing while open-space lands for agriculture, outdoor recrea-
tion and wildlife are disappearing. While many of the problems
associated with urbanization are commonly experienced throughout
the United States, their impact is particularly acute in the
coastal zone because of its high population density,2 the rela-
tively complex and sensitive nature of the environment and the
extensive overlapping and fragmentation of government regulatory
schemes.3

B. Governmental Response.

Government agencies and concerned groups at all levels
have reacted by conducting extensive studies of governmental
policies and programs relating to the problems arising from ur-
banization and its impingement on the natural environment, and
by seeking to refashion and expand existing regulatory tools and
schemes and to develop new schemes where the existing schemes are
inadequate.

New regulatory schemes with respect to air and water
quality and noise have been established on the Federal level.5
There is a trend among coastal states, generally to effect new
regulatory schemes with respect to wetlands, other coastal areas
and the problems of urbanization.5a In California regional reg-
ulatory schemes wi h respect to water quality and land-use w~thin
San Francisco Bay, the coastal zone and the Lake Tahoe Area
have been developed.9 Legislation has also bisn enacted to
promote the conservation of open-space lands. Several commun-
ities have also moved to develop regulatory schemes to limit or
control population and structural density.ll Legislation has
been enacted and court decisions rendered preserving and enhanc-
ing public interests and rights in coastal areas, including
rights of access and use and the preservation and enhancement of
wildlife resources.12 Far-reaching State and Federal land use
legislation is now being considered.13

231

Marsh

This article will discuss (i) the limits of non-
compensatory land-use regulation; (ii) recent innovations in
various land-use regulatory schemes in California; and (iii)
considerations with respect to the further revision of such
regulatory schemes in order to make them more efficient and
equitable in dealing with the problems attendant to urbanization
in the California Coastal Zone.

II. The Limits of Non-Compensatory Land-Use Regulation.

A. Introduction.

Many of the recent innovations in land-use regulation
raise questions which go to the basic principles upon which the
system of land-use in this country and its regulation is based.
One of these principles, which is found in the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution (and applied to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment)14 and many state constitutionsl5 is that
private property may not be taken for public use without the
payment of just compensation. Commonly, it is argued that a
particular regulatory scheme or tool fashioned to deal with the
problem of urbanization has passed beyond the limit of permis-
sible regulation and violates these constitutional prohibitions,
constituting a "taking" for which compensation must be paid.

In order to understand this distinction between consti-
tutionally permitted non-compensatory regulation and prohibited
takings, it is important to understand the historic concepts of
property and regulation in United States jurisprudence.

The existing system of land-use regulation and the
principles upon which it is based have their roots in England.
The historic English regulatory scheme which consisted of a
combination of the feudal system of multi-tiered land tenures
with incidental services and obligations and the relatively
unrestricted authority of the Crown and Parliament, provided a
relatively adequate solution to the land-use problems of an
agrarian economy with minor but-growing trade centers. This
English precedent was substantially affected when transmitted to
the colonies by the vast abundance of land within the colonies
and the desire to promote their settlement and development, to-
gether with a desire to cast off the feudal system aswell as the
"foreign" centralized authority. The result was -an increase in
the assumed magnitude of the interests and rights of the private
individual as "owner" of lands and a corresponding decrease in
the assumed "rights and interests" of the public in such lands.
Further, the authority which was retained by government with
respect to land-use was delegated to the lowest levels.

Concurrently with the decline of "public rights and
interests" in property, the Federal and state governments under-
took major programs to divest themselves of lands in which they
held title in order to provide revenues and to encourage settle-
ment and development (and to compensate veterans).16 In Cali-
fornia, this divestiture of lands was exacerbated by the confir-
mation in private ownership of large tracts of coastal lands
comprising Mexican and Spanish ranchos pursuant to the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo which concluded the war between the United
States and Mexico in 1848.17

While the confirmation of the ownership of ranchos
generally excluded tide and submerged and swamp and overflowed
lands, either by restrictive court decisionsl8 or by the prac-
tices of the surveyors employed to establish the rancho boun-
daries,19 the Federal and State governments proceeded to dispose
of such lands with widespread sales.20 The "State Lands Com-
mission estimates that there are approximately 80,000 acres (125
square miles) of patented tidelands within the state of Califor-

232

Marsh

nia."21 Had it not been for restrictive court decisions with
respect to these conveyances,22 it is predictable that, for
example, a substantial portion of San Francisco Bay would now be
filled and appropriated to private use.

The practical result of these two trends was to in-
crease the lands in private ownership, particularly in the
coastal zone, and to decrease the amount of government regulation
which was exercised over these lands. It has only been recently
with the urbanization of the country generally, and in particular
the coastal zone,that regulatory schemes have begun to impinge
significantly on the assumed domain of private property, thereby
raising the question of the limits of non-compensatory regula-
tion.

A number of recent articles have reflected a growing
concern with respect to this question generally, and as it re-
lates to land-use within the coastal zone.2

B. The "Taking" Concept.

(1) The Requirement of "Just Compensation".
The strengthening and emphasis of the concept of "pri-
vate property" within the United States discussed above is re-
flected in the final version of the Fifth Amendment as incorpo-
rated into the Constitution. Prior to the Revolution and the
drafting of the Constitution, the only limitations with respect
to a "taking" pursuant to governmental authority under English
law were procedural in nature; that is, a taking could not occur
except in accordance with laws established by Parliament. The
payment of "just compensation" was not an incident of such a
taking and was added to United States jurisprudence by the Con-
stitution and prior state constitutional provisions. Compensa-
tion, therefore, under English law was a legislative prerogative
and not a matter of right. The harshness of the legislative act
or any mitigation of its effect on the private owner of land was
left to the discretion of Parliament.24a Without the "just
compensation" provision in the Constitution, the private owner of
land subjected to a "taking" by the Federal government would be,
in similar fashion, left to the compensation, if any, provided by
legislative prerogative and to the protection afforded by other
provisions of the Constitution (such as the procedural "due
process" and "equal protection of the laws" requirements).

For a substantial period following the ratification of
the Constitution, the conceptual underpinnings of this particular
clause were largely irrelevant. Land was plentiful and govern-
mental restrictions on land-use were comparatively few. Govern-
mental takings consisted primarily of the acquisition of the
title to or possession of lands for public facilities such as
roads and government buildings. It was only when governmental
schemes to restrict and regulate land-use began to significantly
increase that serious problems relating to the distinction be-
tween "regulation" and "taking" became significant. Accordingly,
until shortly after 1900 a compensable taking would occur only
where government took title to, or at least possession of, lands
in private ownership. The "taking" clause was interpreted to
define property in a physical sense as land, not as a bundle of
rights and interests. Government regulation which was negative
in nature generally did not fall into the category of a taking.
For example, where land by contract was limited to use as a
cemetary, a city was permitted to prohibit the erection of a
cemetary because of the "evil vapors" that would result.25 Te
covering of creeks could be prohibited for sanitary reasons.
The removal of stones, sand and gravel from certain lands could
be prohibited.27 The establishment of harbor lines was permitted,
beyond which structures were prohibited.2� The prohibition of
the production of liquor was held to be a permissible exercise of

233

Marsh

the police power by the United States Supreme Court even though
it resulted in the closing of a brewery. 9 However, the Supreme
Court stopped short of allowing the damming of water which re-
sulted in the inundation of privately-owned lands.30 This, the
Court reasoned, constituted a physical "taking."31

In 1922 during the period when a concept of "real
property" as a bundle of rights and interests was being developed
(to better reflect the manner in which real property interests
were being fractionalized) and at a time when regulation was on
the increase,32 Justice Holmes wrote the historic decision in the
case of Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon.33 In that case,
Holmes found that a "taking" had occurred where the state had
enacted legislation to prohibit mining in certain areas, arguing
that a physical invasion of the property was not necessary and
that a restriction on use would be sufficient. It is significant
that this change in the law, which flowed in large part from the
view of real property as a bundle of rights and interests, should
rest on a case which involved the fractionalization of interests
in the land. In Mahon, the surface of the land had been sold
with a reservation of the right to mine coal. Holmes argued that
even if the restriction on mining was for public health purposes,
the effect with respect to the real property interests consisting
of the mineral rights and interests, would be the same as if the
physical possession and use of the land had been taken. Accord-
ingly, Holmes postulated that it is not a question of whether a
physical taking had occurred, but, rather, whether regulation has
gone "too far."

The Mahon decision in defining "property" as a bundle
or rights and interests, rather than land for purposes of the
Fifth Amendment, was part of an attempt to reconcile the regu-
latory power of government with the rights and interests of the
private landowner into a single comprehensive scheme, or bundle
of rights and interests, whereby adjustments could be made in the
"rules of the game," but subject to certain equitable limitations.
This approach is analogous to the relationship of the concepts of
jus publicum and jus privatum with respect to tide and submerged
lands; that is, the recognition of public as well as private
property rights and interests existing concurrently in the same
lands.34 The problem is, that while Holmes unified the concepts
of land-use regulation and public rights and interests in land,
he failed to define the limits of existing public rights and
interests, suggesting, instead, that in each case the "question
depends upon the particular facts."35

From the time of the Mahon decision and the decision in
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.,36 which upheld a compre-
hensive zoning scheme as being an exercise of one of those un-
asserted but inherent rights of the sovereign, until relatively
recently, little has been done to further define the limits of
such unasserted rights and interests which when asserted would
not constitute a "taking." There is general concurrence that
this issue "is still at a point of development where it is more
readily amendable to ad hoc pragmatic analysis than to concep-
tionally symmetrical generalization."37 In large part, this lack
of concern may be attributable to the lack of government interest
in the area of land-use regulation except to promote and encour-
age the development of land (except in certain exceptional cases
such as tide and submerged and even then with questionable ef-
fectiveness). The use of land was virtually unregulated except
by local zoning schemes which have proven to be inadequate to
deal with the problems of urbanization.38

With the recent and growing concern of governmental
agencies on all levels to curb the excesses of urbanization,
there has been a recognition of the need for a further definition
of the limits of these unasserted rights and interests of the

234

Marsh

public in privately-owned lands, either by establishing princi-I
ples for the application of the Holmesian concept which would
permit an accepted and understood line between public rights
(including the right to regulate) and private rights to be es-
tablished or by throwing out the Holmesian concept and returning
to the earlier line of cases which found a taking only when the
title to or possession of land in a-physical sense was taken for
public use, thereby permitting the limits of governmental regu-
latory authority to be established by the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Constitution.

Under either approach, the actual taking of property in
a physical sense would constitute a taking for which compensation
is required, although some minor questions would exist as to the~,
circumstances which would constitute a "physical taking". Under
either approach, regulations to clearly prevent an external harm-
from occurring would generally not constitute a compensable tak-
ing, although the definition of external harm would be open to
discussion. Further, the limitations with respect to the denial
of equal protection and the due process clauses would still be
applicable assuming that the objectives are within the constitu-
tional bounds of government authority and the ways and means
adopted bear a rational relationship to those objectives. The
development of other issues becomes significant only if the
Holmesian concept is followed. These issues include, among
others, the following., what constitutes a public use; to what
extent may the lands be diminished in value as a result of the
regulation; whether the regulation is appropriate or suitable to
the lands involved; and to what extent will the courts balance
the detriment suffered against the benefits received. These
issues together with other considerations are discussed in
greater detail below.

(2) Public Use.

It is clear that where property, in the physical sense,
is taken to be used for a public use, such as a road or a post
office, a taking has occurred. This is the case even where the
public use has been assured by only a negative restriction, such
as in the case of open-space. In this regard where the courts
have found the purpose to be the provision of land for a pub~ic
use they have held that a compensable "taking" has occurred. 0

(3) Prevention of External Harm.

The prevention of external harm resulting from the use
regulated is a widely accepted basis for determining that the
particular regulation in question does not constitute a taking.
This criterion is derived from the nuisance concept; that is, the
accepted principle that one may not use his land in an unreason-
able manner so as to unreasonably interfere with the use of the
lands of others. -In accord with this principle, the City of
Manhattan Beach, California, was permitted to refuse to zone
beach lands for residential uses on the basis that, among others,
the construction of housing on pilings might create police prob-
lems. (e.g., problems connected whth the use of areas under the
residences for immoral purposes). IThe United States Supreme
Court upheld the destruction of cedar trees bearing cedar rust in
order to protect nearby apple trees as a non-compensable tak-
ing 2 The de struction of hous es to prevent the spread of con-
flagration has been condoned.43 Gravel mining and brickyards
have been excluded by governmental regulation on the basis of
potential external harm.44 The extent of this criteria, in large
part, depends on the willingness of the courts to recognize the
harmful nature of a particular activity. In this regard, recent-
ly, courts have exhibited a willingness to expand this criterion
to include the concept of the "internalization" of costs; that
is, requiring that the land owner to pay all of the costs (in-

235

Marsh

cluding those to the community) resulting from the use of this
land. 45

This distinction is not always clear. Accordingly, the
more that the regulation appears to provide for public benefits,
that is, for uses which are generally beneficial to the public
rather than to prevent harm from a particular use of the partic-
ular property, the more likely it is that a court will find that a
compensable taking has occurred. In this regard, Professor
Freund of Harvard, in 1904, drew the distinction between eminent
domain and the police power, stating,

"It may be said that the state takes
property by eminent domain because it
is useful. . . . From this results the
difference between the power of eminent
domain and the police power, that the
former recognizes a right to compensa-
tion while the latter on principle does
not. "46

With respect to the changing nature of the harm to be prevented,
Holmes in Euclid 7 acknowledged the ability of the legislative
body to change the scope of its regulations to meet new and
changing conditions. This problem is particularly acute in the
case of coastal wetlands. Where regulations prohibit such filling,
can it be said that the purpose is primarily the prevention of
harm or the promotion of a public benefit? The case has been
made that fisheries are dependent on coastal wetland habitats and
would predictably be damaged by their filling. There is also an
increasing acceptance of the importance of wildlife to man gen-
erally, although perhaps not in an immediate commercial sense.
The acceptance by the court of the importance of the regulatory
objective as one which is harm-preventing is often determinative.
In turn, the significance given to a regulatory objective by the
court is dependent upon its acceptance by the society at large.
For example, the California Supreme Court recently exhibited its
willingness to reverse established law in order to'promote the
public right of beach-access because of, in part, of the demon-
strated public interest, 47a) and to expand the accepted pur-
poses of the public trust in tidelands based on changing public
concerns.(47b)

The harm prevention concept involves the recognition of
a duty on the part of the landowner to restrict the use of his
land in order to prevent harm from resulting to others. Using
the Holmesian concept, the extent of this duty may be redefined
from time to time on the basis of equitable considerations.

Some writers have gone so far as to suggest that in
defining this duty the inter-relatedness of land should be taken
into consideration; that is, the law should reflect the fact that
one parcel of land may be used in connection with another parcel
or in connection with another activity, such as for drainage, to
provide a view, or as nurseries or breeding grounds for commer-
cial fishery. Thus, in changing the character of his land the
owner would be under a duty to recognize the dependence of others
on the use of his land. Accordingly, where a regulatory scheme
prevents or ameliorates the burden which would otherwise be placed
on another or another's land (by preventing the development of a
wetlands area for example), no compensable taking would result.48

Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court49 suggested a
further extension of this approach by holding that the owner of
certain lands which were in their natural state had no inherent
right to change the topography of those lands. Care should be
taken, however, not to interpret the case too broadly in that the

236

Marsh

lands involved involved were adjacent to a lake and the court
emphasized their special character in this regard.50

This approach would be particularly relevant to the
natural undeveloped portions of the California coast -- the
estuarine areas of Southern California, the offshore islands,
the rugged northern coast and other unique areas such as San
Francisco Bay. There are, however, a number of limitations to
this concept which should be considered.

First, implicit in the original government sales of
certain types of lands with respect to which this concept might
be applicable or which were Mexican or Spanish rancho lands con-
firmed in private ownership by the Federal government pursuant
to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,51 was the implied, and in
some cases, express understanding that the lands could be devel-
oped and used. In these cases, it would appear unfair for the
government or others to now contend that a restriction on the use
of the land existed at the time of the conveyance contrary to
such express or implied understanding.

In this regard the California experience with respect
to the sale of its tide and submerged lands is relevant. During
the last half of the 19th century and immediately following 1900,
the State of Californa and its agents sold many acres of the 5
tide and submerged lands of the state into private ownership.5
The legislation under which these patents were issued expressly
contemplated that the lands would be reclaimed for agricultural
purposes.53 The California Suppeme Court decision of 1913 in
People v. California Fish Co.,~ has been interpreted to state
that such conveyances of tide and submerged lands, at most,
passed only the naked fee title to the lands subject to the
public trust for commerce, navigation and fishery.55 The concept
of the public trust, however, which has its roots in Roman law,
was clearly part of the jurisprudence of the United States and
California at the time of the conveyances, and, therefore, it can
be argued that the restrictions in use under the law could be
anticipated. On the other hand, while this distinction between
tide and submerged lands and other lands is major, the courts
appear particularly willing to override previously established
judicial precedent to promote and provide for public rights with
respect to lands of particular public concern, such as beach and
coastal lands.5S

Nevertheless, to the extent that lands were sold and
conveyed or confirmed into private ownership with the express or
implied understanding that they could or would be developed, it
clearly appears that a change in the rules of the game would be
occurring if this approach were to be applied and in the final
analysis it is irrelevant whether the change is articulated as an
assertion of previously unasserted but existing public rights or
as the expansion of existing regulatory authority. The question
simply put is who should bear the burden of such change, the
private owner or the public. Where the lands have been previous-
ly conveyed or confirmed into private ownership with full knowl-
edge by the governmental agency of their character, it would
appear appropriate that the burden should primarily be borne by
the public. This, of course, does not in any way depreciate the
importance or need for a program to protect wetlands or to pro-
vide for the amelioration of the adverse impact of urbanization.
In this regard, it should be clearly acknowledged that there are
simply not sufficient funds available to acquire all of the
valuable wetlands or other significant natural areas immediately.
However, this problem should be squarely faced and a program
should be developed which will recognize both the principle that
compensation should be provided (perhaps in forms other than a
monetary consideration) and the principle that the destruction of
wetlands and other sensitive natural areas cannot be permitted.

237

Marsh

Incidentally, to the extent that subsequent purchasers acquire
these sensitive areas with the understanding that they may not be
able to develop them, it can be anticipated that the courts will
be more amenable to more restrictive regulations and will be less
likely to find that a compensable "taking" has occurred.57

Where the character of lands does not indicate a spe-
cial relationship to other lands or interests, there is even less
justification to find that restrictive regulations will not con-
stitute a taking, as for example, where the particular lands
constitute a mere undeveloped remnant of lands which have other-
wise been developed or where the proposed development or use is
in accordance with a previously understood arrangement or ulan
for the area and where the development will only now result in an
adverse effect on other lands because of circumstances which have
arisen since the arrangement or understanding was arrived at.
For example, the development might consist of the last phase of a
planned project, as to which there is a question raised by the
then existing homeowners as to whether the last phase should be
developed or held as open-space. Assuming that there are no
other factors present, it would appear fair for the public or the
particular homeowners which will be benefited by such a change to
bear the burden. With respect to the California Coastal Zone,
this approach would be applicable to historically established
land-use development arrangements (not including recent up-
zoning however) with respect to Malibu or Palos Verdes where the
owners of already developed lands are attempting to restrict
further development of undeveloped lands even though development
was originally contemplated under a plan pursuant to which their
own lands were developed.

As suggested above this is not to deny that the origi-
nal devel opme nt pl an m ay have been inappr opriate or provided for
the over-urbanizatio an of an area when taking into consideration
its natural beauty or value for open space purposes. It is to
suggest, however, that a change in the rules has taken place and
should be acknowledged. Further, the burden may be borne in many
different ways, not only by the payment of money. The develop-
ment of such alternative mechanisms for the provision of compen-
sation in these situations is one of the most challenging pob-
lems which coastal zone planners and attorneys face today.

(4) The Appropriateness of the Regulatory Scheme to
the Land.

Courts will consider whether the scheme of uses contem-
plated is appropriate or adapted to the particular land taking
into consideration the present or prospective use of other lands
within the agencies jurisdiction, the region and beyond.59

If land requested is in fact unusable for the purposes
permitted, a taking may have occurred.60

The courts will also consider the scheme of uses in
light of other public policies and considerations. In this re-
gard, some planners have suggested that local agencies should
explore zoning and other regulatory schemes to curb undesired
urbanization, including restrictions based on lot size, lot
coverage by structures, height,61 structural bulk, number of
rooms, floor area, and parking spaces per unit; however, courts
are becoming increasingly suspect of these restrictions as being
exclusionary; that is, as being schemes to exclude additional
residents from migrating into the area.62

The courts have historically articulated this suspicion
primarily with respect to the exclusion of racial minority groups
and the poor.63 More recently, however, the courts have articu-
lated a more generalized concern that local regulatory schemes

238

Marsh

should be in accord with the "general welfare" of areas outside
of the local jurisdiction (thus establishing the "general wel-
fare" provision as a limitation as well as a grant of authority).
For example, although the court in Steel Hill Development Inc.
v. Town of Sanborton64 upheld 6-acre large lot zoning on the
basis that basic value judgments should be left to legislative
determination, it indicated that

"[W]e are faced with 'a local legislative
determination that the general welfare
will be promoted by exclusion of an un-
wanted use from a non-metropolitan com-
munity [which exclusion] is not likely to
conflict with a regional need for local
space for that use.'"'05

In California, the courts have upheld the regulatory
scheme of the Town of Los Altos Hills which eliminated virtually
all commercial uses of property from the city on the basis that
the general welfare of the "community or region" will not suffer
and suggesting that such uses are adequately provided outside of
the city.

Further, courts have begun to articulate a requirement
that zoning and other similar regulatory schemes must be "bal-
anced;" 7 that is, a city may not include only uses, such as
industry, which will increase its tax base and expect other
cities to assume the accompanying by6den of providing residences
for the employees of that industry.

Courts have, however, upheld regulatory schemes pro-
viding for phased development, provided that it meets the general
tests set forth above. 0a

(5) Diminution of Value.

The diminution in the value of the lands regulated is
an often discussed factor. Generally, other than in instances
where the only economic use for which the particular lands are
suited would constitute a nuisance, a court will find that a
taking has occurred when the owner has been deprived of sub-
stantially all of the value of his lands.69

Further, when assessing the constitutionality of a
zoning or similar regulatory scheme, the courts will also take
into consideration the economic effect of the zoning restrictions
on the landowner, even though the restrictions may not deny the
owner of all economic use of his property.70 In particular, the
actual investment return of the landowner may be considered.71
The diminution of value test appears, however, to be only one
element of the balancing test discussed below.72

In determining value, however, it is extremely impor-
tant to note that some recent decisions suggest that there may
be no assumed right of developability with respect to certain
types of land.73

(6) The Balancing Test.

Courts and writers have often articulated a balancing
test which is employed in the determination of whether a parti-
cular regulatory scheme is confiscatory which consists of balanc-
ing the burden upon the private landowner against the benefit
provided to the society.74 Thus, where the individual's house is
blown up ("taken") in order to prevent the spread of a confla-
gration, it is constitutionally condoned.75 Some writers have
suggested that even in the case of great acknowledged public
need, other than nuisance type cases, any taking of private prop-

239

Marsh

erty should be compensated.76

The balancing test, in this regard, recognizes that
each member of society should be willing to bear a burden in
order to receive the the advantages of the association. Accord-
ingly, it would seem appropriate that the individual should be
willing to bear a burden without compensation which may vary in
magnitude depending upon the public need or the benefit which he
will indirectly receive as a member pf the public.77 In this
regard, the Supreme Court in Euclid7o upheld a comprehensive
zoning scheme which restricted land generally and in turn bene-
fited the group of landowners affected as a group. The courts
acknowledge that the balance does not have to be effected in each
instance, but rather may be reflected in the effect of an entire
program or scheme.79

As a regulatory scheme becomes more complex and the
balancing of burdens and benefits involves values for which there
is no readily common denominator, the courts are more willing to
find that the scheme is the result of a political process whereby
such values are reconciled and less susceptible to judicial
review,80 except in cases where the objective is improper or the
provisions glearly do not bear a rationale relationship to such
objectives.

III. Regulatory Innovation in the California Coastal Zone To
Combat Increasing Urbanization.

As described generally above, governmental agencies
on all levels have taken steps to combat the increasing urbaniza-
tion of the California coastal zone. Cities, in some cases with
the urging of the State, have attempted to limit an increase in
their population and structural densities; more stringent re-
strictions have been placed on the development of shoreline areas
and wetlands; and programs to increase public access to the
shoreline have proliferated. While it is difficult to describe
a process which has been and is now the subject of rapid change,
the following examples of regulatory innovation in the California
Coastal Zone will provide some insights.

A. Restrictions on Population and Structural Density and
the Protection and Enhancement of Open Space.

The regulatory schemes which deal most directly with
the root causes of the urbanization problem are those which re-
strict population and structural density and protect or enhance
open-space.

(1) Population and Structural Density.

While some local governmental agencies, such as the City
of Palo Alto, have simply attempted to limit population and
structural density by revising the permissible zoning downward,
others such as the cities of Irvine, Petaluma, Livermore, Mil-
pitasSla, Pleasantonblb and San Jose have attempted to establish
schemes providing for the phasing of or limitation on development
in accordance with the provision of public services.81c

By initiative, the City of Livermore sought to limit
the issuance of residential building permits until certain public
facilities (educational, sewage treatment and water) were ade-
quate to provide for the additional residences. This ordinance
was held invalid, because it failed to provide a positive program
for the provision of such facilities and was not adopted in
accordance with the procedure mandated by State enabling act.81d

In April, 1973,'San Jose by initiative prohibited zone
changes for residential development for two years in areas where

240

Marsh

schools were overcrowded based upon an adopted schedule unless
the developer of the particular land had made arrangements to
provide a "satisfactory temporary alternative to permanent school
construction." The validity of this scheme is now being tested
in the Courts.81e

The City of Irvine has adopted a residential develop-
ment permit scheme which requires that a developer obtain a
permit before developing new subdivisions within the City. The
permit will be issued only upon the finding by the Planning
Commission that certain public facilities (utilities, sewer
facilities, water, drainage, police protection, fire protection,
park and recreation facilities, roads and other local transpor-
tation) are adequate to provide services to the new development.
The finding is required to be made if the developer has suffi-
cient points in accordance with a schedule which provides a
certain number of points for each type of service available.82
Concurrently with the establishment of this system, the City
adopted a capital improvements program to provide such services
on a fixed schedule. The scheme is based on a similar scheme
which was judicially upheld in Golden v. Planning Board of Town
of Ramapo. 3

The City of Petaluma adopted a similar point scheme
with a significant further embellishment which restricted the
number of new units for which points would be issued to 500 per
year and providing that the permits would be issued for these
500 units to those with the largest number of points. Points
were awarded in various categories (water, sewers, drainage, fire
protection, schools, streets, public facilities such as parks and
playgrounds, design quality with respect to relationship to the
surrounding neighborhood, landscaping and screening, circulation,
safety of ingress and egress, privacy, provision of open space,
and contribution to greenbelts and bicycle, foot and equestrian
paths).83a

A lower court has held that the Petaluma scheme vio-
lates the right to travel -- the right to migrate and settle,
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.84 While all of the
above-mentioned schemes are susceptible to such an attack, it can
be anticipated that the courts will draw the distinction between
planned growth such as it provided for in the Irvine scheme and
which was upheld in Ramapo and the Petaluma scheme.

In Marin County and Malibu (Los Angeles County), the
residents have attempted to restrict growth by preventing the
development of required water supply and waste water disposal
facilities. In Marin, the Marin Municipal Water District enacted
a moratorium on the most ngw hookups. The moratorium has been
challenged in the courts. a Whether the refusal of the Dis-
trict to take action to provide such facilities constitutes a
taking is a difficult question. One writer has suggested that
it may depend on the availability of such services and whether
any reasonable use is allowed which would not depend on such
services. In other words, a taking may occur through the re-
fusal to provide such services where an agency has authority to
do so which frustrates "any reasonable use" of the land.85

(2) Open Space.

The concept of open space has been developed and has
become increasingly relevant in connection with increasing
urbanization. "Open space" is a catch-all term that generally
refers to lands which are used for purposes which prevent or
ameliorate the adverse effects of urbanization: lands for rec-
reation, wildlife, agriculture or which provide a release from
the pressures of urban living.86 The lands involved may be a
small green space in the center of a city or vast acreage devoted

241

Marsh

to agriculture. The need and concern for open space, as with
the control of population density, is at the heart of the urbani-
zation problem.

Prior to the enactment of the Open Space Lands Act in
1970,87 State programs to preserve or enhance open space con-
sisted primarily of the provision of tax incentives with respect
to lands placed in agricultural preserves or burdened with open-
space easements or scenic restrictions.8o Since 1970, each city
and county has been required by Stat law to include in its
general plan an open-space element,�oa to adopt an open-space
plan by December 31, 1973,88b and to adopt open-space zoning
ordinances consistent with its open-space plan and element by
January 1, 1974. 9

The California Supreme Court has recently held that,
generally, the provisions of a general plan are not regulatory
in nature.90 However, notwithstanding this decision, the pro-
visions of the open-space element may be found to be regulatory.91

In this regard an open-space element of a general plan
is the "local open-space plan."92 Once an open-space plan is
adopted, unlike the other provisions of the general plan, it in
fact does establish restrictions on land-use, including, among
others, the following:

(a) "Any action by a county or city by
which open-space land or any interest therein
is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted
or requested . . . must be consistent with the
local open-space plan."93

(b) "No building permit may be issued, no
subdivision map approved, and no open-space
zoning ordinance adopted unless the proposed
construction, subdivision or ordinance is con-
sistent with the local open-space plan."94

(c) "Every city and county by December 31,
1973, shall prepare and adopt an open-space
zoning ordinance consistent with the local open-
space plan . . . . "95

Such an interpretation would require city and county
planners to consider the effect of the restrictive provisions
P of the plan on private property in light of the constitutional
restrictions on taking. On the other hand, and more signifi-
cantly, these provisions of the Open Space Lands Act and the
provision for the development of a local action program provide
the seeds of a new revitalized approach for local land-use plan-
ning and regulation in that it provides an opportunity for the
combining of land-use planning and programs to implement the
planning, all as part of a single visable and comprehensively
articulated plan.

The need for such a comprehensive action plan was com-
mented on by the Joint Committee on Open Space Lands of the Cali-
fornia Legislature in its Final Report of February, 1970, as
follows:

"There is currently [1970] no requirement
that local plans contain a description of
the program which the legislative body in-
tends to promulgate for the implementation
of the plan. The result is to perpetuate
the dichotomy between the plan and the
control measures which should carry it out.
This in turn tends to result in two paral-

242

Marsh

lel plans. One plan is the official general
plan. The other is a de-facto plan drawn
by the local legislative body as it admin-
isters zoning and other land use programs.

"Ideally, there should be a unity be-
tween those two plans. The first step to-
ward that objective is to require that each
open space plan contain an action program
setting forth the various means by which
the planning body proposes to achieve its
planning objectives. Only in this way will
the various entities concerned with plan-
ning matters be placed on potice of the
entire planning pattern.t"9o

A number of cities and counties have adopted restric-
tive open-space zoning ordinances. For example, Palo Alto has
zoned large portions of the foothills within the City as open-
space. The validity of those regulations is now being tested in
the courts.97

B. Resource Management and Sensitive Areas.

(1) Generally.

Innovation in land-use regulatory schemes has begun in
California, as in other states, with areas of special concern --
flood plains,98 hillsides,99 and natural and scenic areas, in-
cluding tide and submerged lands.10l The County of Los Angeles
has established provisions for Resource Management Areas to pro-
tect and preserve to the maximum extent possible certain scenic,
ecological, cultural and natural resources within the Areas so
designated.102 The Malibu coastline and portions of the Palos
Verdes coastline have been designated Resource Management Areas.
It has been reported that suit has been brought by landowners in
Palos Verdes claiming that this classification of their proper-
ties has resulted in a taking of their property for which com-
pensation should be paid and that the Los Angeles Superior Court
has held that the mere classification of the property as such in
the Environmental Development Guide of the General Plan did not
constitute such a taking. Orange County has considered a more
comprehensive scheme for the management areas important for their
natural resources.104

(2) Tide and Submerged Lands.

Tide and submerged lands and navigable waters generally
have historically been the subject of special regulatory schemes
which have provided to governmental agencies and the public far
more discretion and authority in regulating permissible uses with
respect to these lands than with respect to uplands.105 The re-
strictions and regulatory authority are in many cases constitu-
tionall06 or common law in nature.107 The primary regulatory
scheme in this regard is the tidelands trust for commerce, navi-
gation and fisheryl08 with the public as beneficiary, the State
as trustee (the State Lands Commission is the administrative
agency in California which has been delegated this authority),l09
and with the courts standing ready to assure that the trust is
properly administered.ll0

The United State Constitution assures to the Federal
government parallel and superior authority in the navigable waters
of the United States for navigational and other purposeslll which
may be exercised without deference to the prohibition on non-
compensable takings with respect to the ownership of the jus
privatum (private property interests) in or with respect to such
waters (although it is generally acknowledged that if in exercis-
ing those rights privately owned improvements are taken, compen-

243

Marsh

sation must be paid).ll2

The nature and incidents of these constitutional and
common law restrictions and their implementation by governmental
agencies has been subject to the same rapid evolution experienced
by land-use regulatory schemes generally. For example, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in exercising its jurisdiction under the
Harbor and Rivers Act of 1899113 now acknowledges, as the result
of the decision in Zabel v. Tabbll4 that is must consider envi-
ronmental factors in addition to navigational considerations in
reviewing applications for permits for work in navigable waters.
Further, the Corps now asserts that its jurisdiction extends to
the mean of the higher high-tides along the California coast.ll5
Previously, the Corps asserted jurisdiction only to the mean of
all the high tides along the Pacific Coast. Further by virtue
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958,116 as imple-
mented by the 1967 memorandum between the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Interior, the Corps presently will issue a
permit for work in navigable waters on the regional level only
with approval of the regional office of the Bureau of Sport Fish-
eries and Wildlife, Department of Interior. In the event that an
unresolvable conflict arises on the regional level, the matter
must be submitted to Washington. The practical result is that
the Bureau generally has a veto with respect to the issuance of
such permits.

California governmental agencies and the courts have
also been instrumental in expanding the incidents of the public
trust in navigable waters to contemplate preservation as a proper
trust purpose,ll7 and in liberalizing the interpretation of the
law to promote the public rights in the coastal zone.ll8

The Gion decision was very controversial in that it
changed the existing understanding of the law so that those land-
owners which hadallowed the public to use their lands for access
to beach areas were held to have dedicated a right to the public
for this purpose forever although the earlier Hihn decision of
the Supreme Court expressly held that no such dedication would
be effected without evidence that the owner actually intended
such a dedication to occur and that the presumption was in fact
that the owner intended to provide the public only with a revo-
cable license to use his property. Legislation has been enacted
changing the Gion Rule.ll9

The Upper Newport Bay Exchange which was the subject of
the Helm decisionl20 is another example of the changing attitudes
of the public, the courts and administrative agencies. Generally,
the exchange of tide and submerged lands for uplands between the
Irvine Company and the County of Orange as the trustee of the
tide and submerged lands would have resulted in the conversion to
a residential marina of a large portion of a natural estuarine
area surrounded by but separated from the urbanized areas of New-
port Beach and the City of Irvine by steep cliffs. Over a period
of 10 years, the citizens in the area, then the agencies involved,
and finally the courts moved to the position of aggresively pre-
serving the natural character of the area over its use for recre-
ational and residential purposes.

Other evidence of this trend includes the enactment of
the California Environmental Bill of Rights which, among other
things, authorized the Attorney General on his own initiative to
intervene in any case where facts were alleged "concerning pol-
lution or adverse environmental effects which could affect the
public generally"l21 and authorizing him to maintain an action
for equitable relief "against any person for the protection of
the natural resources of the State from pollution, impairment or
destruction.l22 The Attorney General has used this authority to
threaten litigation in order to prevent private landowners from
filling an artificial non-tidal water area within the coastal

244

Marsh

zone. While this assertion of authority is highly suspect on
Constitutional grounds, it does evidence the willingness of the
legislature and administrative agencies to move in this direction.
The Attorney General has also established an Environmental Task
Force of citizens to advise his office with respect to environ-
mental concerns and a special section within the office to handle
such matters. Among its other duties, this section provides le-
gal counsel to the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.

C. Local Planning and Regulatory Schemes Generally.

In order to complete the picture of land-use regulation
with respect to the coastal zone, it is necessary to review gen-
erally the recent trends with respect to the evolution of local
zoning and similar schemes. As discussed above, historically in
this country, land-use regulation has been delegated to the low-
est levels of government and articulated in the form of zoning
schemes such as that considered in Euclid.123 Underlying these
zoning schemes are a number of assumptions and factors which in-
hibit their effectiveness in dealing with the problems of urban-
ization, including, among others, the following:

(i) Zoning as historically applied
is based on an unstated but generally ac-
cepted assumption that land can be devel-
oped and used for at least the purpose
zoned and if the market indicates a higher
use, the zoning designation of the land
will be changed accordingly; that gener-
ally zoning will not be reduced or rolled
back; and that any increase in the value
of the land as a result of a zone change
will flow to the landowner.

(ii) Zoning is based on end-state
planning, that is, the distribution of
uses provided for is articulated as if
all might be developed simultaneously;
it does not expressly provide for change
in use as time passes.

(iii) Zoning is rigid in that it gen-
erally does not contemplate administrative
discretion in its application to specific
situations. This rigidity has been dissi-
pated somewhat by the development of ancil-
lary schemes and arrangements, for example,
schemes which provide for the issuance of
conditional zoning, expansion of the use of
variances and the development of special
zones which contemplate the exercise of
broad administrative discretion such as
planned unit development zones. There is
a tendancy, however, for these ancillary
schemes to be administered on an ad hoc
basis without adequate consideration or
articulation of underlying objectives in
a comprehensive fashion. This ad hoc ap-
proach is particularly inappropriate in
the coastal zone where the great number
of concerned governmental agencies and
diverse interests demand that each agency
and group be able to understand the ob-
jectives and predict the actions of the
other.

(iv) Zoning is passive in nature.
It contemplates that the landowner will

245

Marsh

determine the sequence of development and,
in many cases, the zone designation.

(v) The distribution of uses contem-
plated by the scheme tends to be arbitrary
in that it ends with the local agency bound-
aries . Historically, while legislative
bodies are authorized to consider planning
factors relating to lands beyond their jur-
isdiction, they generally have not. The
result has been a highly fragmented patch-
work of regulations.

(vi) The aspects of land-use expressly
controlled by zoning (including the use of
buildings, structures and land as between
industry, business, residences, open-space,
including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment
of scenic beauty and use of natural resources,
and other purposes; signs and billboards, lo-
cation, height, bulk, number of stories and
size of buildings and structures; the size
and use of lots, yards, courts and other
open spaces; the percentage of a lot which
may be occupied by a building or structure;
the intensity of land-use; offstreet parking
and loading; setback lines; and provisions
for the creation of civic districts around
civic centers, public parks, public build-
ings or public grounds and the establishment
of regulations therefor)124 are grossly in-
sufficient to regulate the many aspects of
land-use which are now of concern.

The result has been the addition of other regulatory
schemes, such as those discussed above, which has resulted in a
patchwork of overlapping and fragmented regulation to obtain ob-
jectives which are generally not articulated in a comprehensive
manner.

In summary, historically, the entire land-use regulatory
scheme in California, which has its foundation in the local zon-
ing ordinance, can be characterized as fragmented, overlapping,
inefficient, intended to provide assurances necessary to promote
the development of land for the benefit of private landowners,
passive, rigid and inarticulate with respect to the objectives
which it is designed to meet125 and unable to adequately meet
the needs of a society which is presently subject to rapid and
extensive change.

D. Developing Trends Toward the Integration and
Coordination of Planning and Implementation
Programs.

As discussed above, innovation in land-use regulatory
schemes in order to deal with the inadequacy of the zoning
has been on an ad hoc basis resulting in a proliferation
of narrow purpose schemes dealing with distinctive areas and
problems--e.g., open-space and wetlands. Recently, however,
with the increasing awareness of the urbanization problem, the
inadequacy of local zoning schemes, the proliferation of such
schemes, and the resulting inefficiency and inequities, a trend
is developing which is supported by both the development oriented
interests as well as others toward the reconciliation of diver-
gent schemes on the local, state and Federal level into a coher-
ent system. This trend is bifold. There is a growing consensus
that first, the planning and regulatory and other programs of
each government body should be more integrated than they have

246

Marsh

been in the past;126 and second, that the programs of govern-
mental agencies on various levels should be more adequately co-
ordinated and in certain instances integrated.

(1) Intra-Agency Integration of Planning and
Implementation Programs.

The growing trend toward the articulation of an inte-
grated program of planning and implementation is due in large
part to the encouragement of the Federal government. Probably
the single, most significant factor in encouraging governmental
agencies to articulate the objectives and effects of proposed
actions and programs has been the environmental impact report
and statement requirements contained in the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act of 1969127 and the California Environmental Qual-
ity Act.12B While some have argued that the requirements for
such statements and reports are unduly burdensome, inefficient
and without benefit, it is clear that they do require the gov-
ernmental agency and those commenting on such reports and state-
ments to articulate the relationship between a proposed action
or program and its objectives and anticipated effects in a manner
not previously required.

Another example of the significant role of the Federal
government in this regard, are the requirements of the Federal
government in connection with the provision of housing and local
assistance. For example, pursuant to the Housing Act of 1949, as
amended,l29 the Federal government has required generally that
local agencies develop a "workable program" for community improve-
ment including an "official plan of action . . . for effectively
dealing with the problems of urban slums and blight and for the
establishment and preservation of a well planned community. .. ."
The program requirements include land-use regulatory schemes in-
cluding, among others, building, housing and related codes and an
effective action-oriented planning and programming process for
community development. Further, under the A-95 review process130
regional, state and metropolitan reviewing agencies are designated
to determine whether the assistance requested is in accordance
with a plan for the region, metropolitan area and the state. As
a result of these requirements, cities in California seeking such
assistance have developed general plans and budget-oriented action
programs. The general plans developed pursuant to this require-
ment, however, tended to be vague and generally were adopted only
for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements for obtain-
ing assistance. The State, however, in 1965 further encouraged
this trend toward the articulation of planning objectives by
requiring that all cities and counties adopt a general plan
containing certain required elements.131 Since that time the
list of required elements has increased.132

Further, in 1970,133 as discussed above, the State re-
quired that all zoning of cities and counties be consistent with
the general plan by a specified date which has since been desig-
nated as January 1, 1974. The increasing importance of the gen-
eral plan as a repository of the principles upon which local land-
use regulation is based together with the requirement that the
zoning regulatory scheme be consistent with the general plan has
raised the question of whether the general plan is regulatory in
nature; that is, whether the general plan when taken together
with the zoning scheme is in fact a single regulatory scheme.
The California Supreme Court in Selby Realty Co. v. City of San
Buenaventura, generally held that the general plan is not regu-
latory in nature.134

As discussed above,135 in 1970, the State required lo-
cal agencies to adopt an open-space action program, which is part
of the open-space element and plan. This requirement further evi-
dences the trend toward the integration of planning and imple-

247

Marsh

mentation programs into a single comprehensive scheme. Recently,
there has been discussion for establishing a similar action pro-
gram requirement with respect to community development general-
ly.136

Probably the single most promising step in this trend
is the recent California legislation permitting cities and coun-
ties to adopt a specific plan containing "all detailed regula-
tions, conditions, programs and proposed legislation which shall
be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of
each element of the general plan .. . "137 The specific plan
scheme provides a complete alternative to the zoning scheme and
one which may be far more comprehensive in nature. The City of
Cerritos has already implemented an entire land-use regulatory
scheme for that city based on the specific plan concept.138 At
the time of the writing of this article, the coastal city of
Carlsbad in San Diego County, is considering the adoption of an
ordinance to establish a Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone139 and
a Coastal and Lagoon Resources Management Overly Zone District.
Both proposed ordinances contemplate the development of specific
plans for various portions of the city as part of the regulatory
scheme provided for. A proposal for a scheme to control growth
has also been proposed for the City of Livermore utilizing spe-
cific plans.140 The value of the specific plan scheme is dis-
cussed in greater detail below.

(2) Inter-Agency Planning and Implementation Programs.

(a) The Fragmentation and Proliferation of
Regulatory Schemes.

The fragmentation and structuring of government which
has occurred in the past generally was designed to promote the
industrialization and economic development of this country. It
is now difficult for the government so structured to respond to
the problems of urbanization on the basis of presently evolving
principles which give greater recognition to man as being a part
of nature. For example, as discussed above,l141 prior to 1970,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took the position that the sole
criterion for the issuance of permits to perform work in navi-
gable waters was the effect of the work on navigation and not
environmental considerations. In a similar manner, the Atomic
Energy Commission took the position that is had no statutory duty
to concern itself with the adverse environmental effects of its
actions. Even after the enactment of the National Environmental
Quality Act of 1969, it took the position that its duties in this
regard were severely limited.142 On the local level, county
flood control districts have argued in the past, for example, that
they did not have the authority to expend funds to generally land-
scape their facilities to make them more aesthetic or to generally
provide such facilities for open-space uses. School districts
have argued that they cannot consider population density or open-
space needs of their community when deciding whether to dispose
of lands no longer needed for educational purposes.143 Corpora-
tions, which are creatures of the State, argue that their sole
criteria for making decisions is profit.

Historically, the result has been that each agency in
turn has tended to abdicate responsibility for problems which
touch upon but transcend its jurisdiction. Smog, urban sprawl
and water pollution were ignored by local agencies as problems
for which they were not concerned because their historic respon-
siblilty did not specifically contemplate such problems. The
National EnVironmental Policy Act of 1969144 and the California
Environmental Quality Actl44a were intended to change this pat-
tern by requiring all agencies to consider environmental factors
in their decision-making process.145 As a result of these acts
and the court decisions which have flowed from them, an enormous

248

Marsh

shift is taking place in the land-use regulatory scheme in this
country. Unfortunately but predictably this shift has been made
up of the disjointed and inconsistent responses of the individual
governmental agencies which has resulted in many inequities and
inefficiencies.

The impact of this shift has been the greatest within
the coastal zone because of the large number of governmental
agencies asserting jurisdiction and because of the complex nature
of the coastal environment. For example, a proposed land use in
the coastal zone may require the obtaining of local zoning and
other regulatory approvals, a permit from a Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board, a permit from a Regional Coastal Zone Conser-
vation Commission, a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and a permit or lease from the State Lands Commission. Further,
these agencies will normally not grant their approval unless the
approval of a number of other agencies is obtained, including such
agencies as the Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
the State Departments of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation,
Navigation and Ocean Development, and Conservation, and the Fed-
eral Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, as well as others. Further,
in lart part as the result of the environmental impact report
and statement process these agencies have generally adopted the
position that they will take no action if any other governmental
agency objects to the project on environmental grounds. In ef-
fect, as an interim de facto arrangement for the resolution of
these environmental and ecological value questions, vetoes have
been disbursed to all governmental agencies.

This process has been made even more complex as the re-
sult of the requirement that each agency consider the "environ-
mental" or "ecological" effects of the proposed use. What is the
value of a least tern nesting site as compared with a beach area
for recreational purposes? Is it better to have deep channels
for navigation or mud flats for bird feeding areas? Are sloughs
beautiful? What happens if agencies disagree on such values?
Who is to decide?

The process of resolving conflicts in value judgments
and trade-offs has also been made more difficult by the fact that
applications for approval are considered by each agency in turn,
in seriatum. For example, many of the regional coastal commis-
sions refuse to even discuss a proposed development until the
local agency has approved the project in concept.146 Thus, an
applicant may process his proposal through the local agencies,
then the Corps of Engineers and the State Lands Commission (which
permit concurrent applications) and finally the Regional Coastal
Commission. The result in may cases is that each agency tends to
consider the application separately from its own parochial view
point with little opportunity to consider trade-offs; that is,
whether taking into consideration the economics of the project,
that it would be preferable to have open-space, additional rec-
reation facilities or a more adequate sewage disposal system.
For example, one agency may prefer that residential units to be
developed be clustered while another agency may prefer that the
units be dispersed. In some instances, an agency with a spe-
cialized function which has not historically exercised regulatory
authority may have little appreciation for the power which it in
fact holds and may establish requirements that may be of rela-
tively minor benefit to their interests while they may be ex-
tremely costly to the applicant or to the objectives of other
governmental agencies.147 Yet, the applicant may be faced with
either complying with the requirements or not obtaining a neces-
sary permit or approval. Thus, in some cases, a landowner may be
precluded from using his land for a particular purpose or may be
required to bear an unreasonable burden, not because he is re-
quired by law to do so, but because the cost of asserting his
rights and interests would be greater than those which would be

249

Marsh

incurred in acceding to the demand.

The foregoing is not intended to refute the need for
government regulation to halt the excesses of urbanization, par-
ticularly in the costal zone. It is, however, intended to point
out the need for a more integrated, efficient and equitable
regulatory scheme for these purposes -- a scheme which will permit
conflicting values and interests to be fully recognized, recon-
ciled and balanced in an efficient and equitable manner.

Cb) Intra-agency Integration of Planning and
Implementation Programs.

The evidence of the trend toward inter-agency integra-
tion of planning and implementation programs within the various
agencies has been discussed above. There is also evidence, how-
ever, of a growing trend toward the integration and coordination
of planning and implementation programs among governmental agen-
cies on various levels. For example, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality Act,
in addition to promoting the articulation of objectives and
effects with respect to a proposed program or action as discussed
above, has also had a significant effect with respect to inter-
agency integration and coordination of programs and actions.148
For example, by burdening the agencies with the requirement of
preparing separate environmental impact reports or statements for
each individual proposed project or action the acts are stimu-
lating agencies to cooperate in the preparation of base-line
reports and information resources for entire areas, thus permit-
ting future individual reports and statements to incorporate such
information by reference. The result of course is a bank of base-
line information and guidelines which transcend and incorporate
the planning information of each individual agency. This, in
turn, suggests the further formalization of this trend in the
establishment of a permanent repository for such planning infor-
mation and policy guidelines -- perhaps in the form of a regional
land-use planning agency.

There is other evidence of this trend in the form of an
increased number of cooperative inter-agency planning efforts.
In this regard, as discussed at the beginning of this article, a
number of planning efforts which transcend individual regulatory
agencies pave been undertaken with respect to the urbanization
problem.1l49 It is significant, however, that only the planning
efforts of those agencies which possess regulatory authority have
been effective. This recognizes the political nature of planning;
that is, the need for planning to reflect the values of the agen-
* cy's "constituency" -- those who are able to influence decisions
with respect to the particular area or matter. Thus, the plan-
* ning efforts of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-
ment Cormmission have proved to be effective while those of the
Inter-agency Council for Ocean Resources in preparing the Cali-
fornia Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan150 and the Lake Tahoe Re-
gional Planning Agency with respect to its plan for the Lake
Tahoe Area have been ineffective. To the extent that the South-
ern California Association of Governments and the Association of
Bay Area Governments have been able to assert their A-95 review-
ing authority, their plans have been effective. In the same
manner, it can be anticipated that the planning efforts of the
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission will also prove to be effec-
tive. In summary, where the planning agency possesses regula-
tory authority, it can be anticipated those affected will par-
ticipate in the planning process if permitted to do so, thereby
permitting the plan to reflect a reconciliation of interests
necessary to permit it to be implemented. The regional coastal
cossmissions might well recognize their potential role in this
regard and actively pursue the development of a series of plans
for areas of the coastal zone which reflect and, to the extent

250

Marsh

practicable, reconcile conflicting interests.

There is precedent for the development of such coopera-
tive planning efforts. For example, in resolving conflicting
public and private interests with respect to approximately 2,000
acres of coastal lands in Orange County within the historic Rancho
La Bolsa Chica, a task group of State governmental agencies was
formed including representatives of The Resources Agency, the
State Lands Division, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the
Department of Fish and Game and the Attorney General to develop
a plan for land uses within the area in consultation with the
private landowner, the local agencies involved and concerned
citizens and conservation groups. The result was the establish-
ment of a plan for the area that provided for the reconciliation
of private interests favoring the development of the area for oil
production and residential uses and public interests which fa-
vored recreational and wildlife uses. It includes provision for
a large (in excess of 300 acres) consolidated ecological reserve
area where tidal influence will be re-introduced after an absence
of over 70 years, and provision for a future small-boat marina,
as well as an arrangement for the continued production of petro-
leum from the area and for future residential uses. A similar
task force approach is now being used in Corona Del Mar and in
the Upper Newport Bay area in Orange County. The task group,
with respect to Upper Newport Bay, includes in addition to those
who participated in the Bolsa Chica settlement, representatives
of the local agencies and the federal Department of Interior.
Some precedent with respect to such arrangements also exists in
an agreement between the City of San Francisco and the Department
of Defense with respect to the historic Presidio grounds within
the city; between the State Department of Fish and Game and the
federal Department of Defense with respect to the preservation
of the marsh area within the Seal Beach Weapons Station in Orange
County and between the California Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion and the federal Department of Defense with respect to the
beaches within Camp Pendleton in San Diego County.

Precedent for on-going multi-level governmental planning
and regulatory agencies is also provided in the form of the Lake
Tahoe Area Regional Planning Agencyl51 and the existing regional
river basin authorities.l52

State and Federal legislation is now being considered
which would provide for the integration and coordination of the
various general planning and regulatory schemes. Generally, this
legislation would provide for the establishment of a state regu-
latory agency which would develop statewide priorities and prin-
ciples upon which local regulatory systems would be based. The
state agency would retain sufficient authority to revise local
plans to assure their conformity with statewide priorities and
principles either directly or through regional agencies and
would retain the authority to review specific land-use decisions
of statewide concern, such as decisions with respect to key
facilities (for example, power plants, transportation facilities,
etc.), regional and large-scale developments (for example, re-
gional shopping centers and large residential tracts), and sensi-
tive, significant or critical envioronmental areas (for example,
wetlands, timberlands, etc.). It is predictable that such legis-
lation will be enacted, although certainly not this year.153

(i) Concurrent Processing of Proposals

With respect to making the regulatory
process more efficient, it would be helpful if agencies consid-

251

Marsh

ering the same land-use proposal would do so concurrently rather
than in seriatum. This approach is being followed in San Fran-
cisco with respect to applications for dredging permits which
are submitted and processed concurrently by the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
State Lands Commission.154

(ii) Specific Plan Approach

An approach to provide for the integra-
tion of inter-agency planning and its implementation and for the
reconciliation of conflicting interests and values which merits
further consideration is the use on an inter-agency basis of the
specific plan concept discussed above with respect to local land-
use regulation.155

A "specific plan" in this context, as provided for with
respect to local planning, would be more than simply a map show-
ing permissible land-uses or zones. It would be an action-program.
It would set forth programs in the plan including proposals for
additional studies, programs and legislation. It would provide
regulations as well as specifying permit procedures to be fol-
lowed in its implementation. It might include a capital improve-
ments program or an acquisition program to acquire, for example,
wetlands.156 It could evidence a multi-agency program, providing
a data bank of information,157 and evidencing agreements between
governmental agencies and others with respect to various matters
covered by the plan.158

A major opportunity provided by the use of this mecha-
nism would be its usefulness in reconciling private and public
interests and the interest of the various governmental agencies.
As discussed above, while it may be difficult, if not impossible,
to find a common denominator with respect to the planning con-
siderations for a specific area. The specific plan approach
would permit, however, a reconciliation of such considerations,
recognizing as it does that the process for resolving otherwise
unrelated values is political in nature.159 For example, such a
plan while providing for the preservation of certain wetlands
might avoid the taking issue by permitting the private landowner
to develop other lands more densely.160 It might provide for a
bonus system whereby the private landowner is compensated for
providing certain public benefits.1lbl It might provide tax in-
centives. It might reconcile, for example, conflicting demands
that a particular area be used for wildlife or for recreation.
While such a planning process does not assure that a court will
determine that a taking has not occurred, it would offer an
opportunity to provide a strong defense to such an attack. It
offers the opportunity to evidence widespread support for a
particular regulatory scheme,162 to effect an "average reci-
procity of advantage"163 so that it can truly be said that to
the extent practicable each individual has received a benefit as
well as suffered a burden, and to provide evidence that the in-
terests of all concerned were equitably considered.

Once such a specific plan, together with ancillary agree-
ments and arrangements, such as those discussed above, were to be
adopted, it would provide a visible and established set of guide-
lines for the development and use of that area which, in turn,
could be reconciled with plans for larger areas on a regional,
state and nation-wide basis, which plans could be implemented in
an efficient and predictable fashion.

This approach would be especially effective in the
development of the plan for the coastal zone which is now being
prepared by the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and could
be implemented by the regional and state commissions on an ad-

252

Marsh

hoc or comprehensive basis,155

In summary, the specific plan approach recognizes the
need to have a clearly articulated action-plan which includes
all of the regulations and programs necessary to its implementa-
tion and which reflects, to the extent practicable, a reconcilia-
tion of conflicting public and private rights and interests in
the lands covered by it. It further recognizes that such a
comprehensive plan can only be the product of a carefully de-
veloped political process which provides to all interested and
concerned public and private agencies, groups and irjdividuals
the opportunity to participate in its development.1O4

253

Marsh

FOOTNOTES

1. The term "coastal zone" has various definitions.
The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 defines it
as: "that land and water area . . . extending seaward to the outer
limit of the state jurisdiction, including all islands . . . and
extending inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal
mountain range, except that in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego
Counties, the inland boundary of the coastal zone shall be the
highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range or five
*miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is the shorter
distance." Cal. Pub. Rles. Code � 27100. The Comprehensive Ocean
Area Plan prepared by the State of California in 1972 (page I-2)
defines the coastal zone for the purpose of inventorying coastal
*zone resources "to extend from the seaward limits of the State's
jurisdiction to approximately one-half mile inland of the ordin-
ary high water mark." The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, 16 u.S.C. 1456, Pub. L 92-583 86 Stat. 1280, Section 3041
defines the coastal zone as "the coastal waters (including the
lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (inclu-
ding the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by
each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several
coastal states, and includes transitional and intertidal areas,
salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends. . .sea-
*ward to the other outer limit of the United States territorial
sea. . . . [and] inland . . . only to the extent necessary to
control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and signifi-
cant impact on the coastal waters." It is used in this article
in a general sense.

2. For example, in California, "[W]ith over two-thirds
of the state's population residing in the San Francisco Bay and
Los Angeles basin regions, over 80% of the people in the state
are within one hour's time of the coast. Three people living
within thirty miles of the coast compete for every foot of shore-
line." ECKBO, DEAN, AUSTIN & WILLIAMS, STATE OPEN SPACE AND
RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CALIFORNIA, prepared for the
California Legislature Joint Committee on Open-Space Lands, p. 29
(April, 1972).

3. The fragmentation of government has resulted in the
lack of consideration of many of the emerging problems related to
urbanization because the problems are beyond the historic limits
of responsibility or authority of already established agencies as
applied in practice. See footnote 1411 et seq. and the accompany-
ing text.

4. PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION, ONE-THIRD OF THE
NATION'S LAND, a Report to the President and Congress' (June,
1970); COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND RESOURCES,
OUR NATION AND THE SEA (1969); U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY (1970); U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, NATIONAL ESTUARY STUDY
(1970); STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN AREA PLAN (1972).
See also in this regard, CALIFORNIA ADVISORY COMMISSION ON MARINE
AND COASTAL RESOURCES, THE REVIEW OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE
OCEAN AREA PLAN (December, 1972). CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS
AND RECREATION, CALIFORNIA COASTLINE, PRESERVATION AND RECREATION
PLAN (1971); ECEBO, DEAN, AUSTIN & WILLIAMS, STATE OPEN SPACE AND
RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CALIFORNIA, prepared for the
California Legislative Joint Committee on Open-Space Lands (April,
1972); SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION,
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN (1969), particularly see, the back-
ground report prepared by HEYMAN, entitled POWERS, Volume I,

F ~~~~~~~~~~254

Marsh

REGULATION-LEGAL QUESTIONS (1968); FEDERAL COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMEN-
TAL QUALITY ANNUAL REPORTS FOR 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973, particu-
larly, see, the FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT, BOSSELMAN, F., and CALLIES,
D., THE QUIET REVOLUTION IN LAND USE CONTROL, prepared for the
Council on Environmental Quality (1971); BOSSELMAN, F., CALLIES,
D., and BANTA, J., THE TAKING ISSUE, prepared for the Council on
Environmental Quality (1973); TASK FORCE ON LAND USE AND URBAN
GROWTH, THE USE OF LAND, A CITIZENS' POLICY GUIDE TO URBAN GROWTH
sponsored by The Rockefeller Brother's Fund (1973); and, THE
CALIFORNIA TOMORROW PLAN, Revised Edition, prepared by California
Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational organization (Heller, A., ed.
1972).

5. See generally, Rosenthal, The Federal Power to
Protect The Environment: Available Devices to Compel or Induce
Desired Conduct, 45 So. Calif. L. Rev. 397 (1972); The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. ��4321 et seq.; The
Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. ��4371
et seq., establishing the Office of Environmental Quality;
Executive Order No. 11514, 35 Fed. Reg. 4247, Mar. 5, 1970,
Executive Order No. 11574, 35 Fed. Reg. 19627, Dec. 23, 1970,
with respect to administration of the Refuse Act; Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 15623, 84 Stat. 2086, Dec. 2,
1970, establishing the Environmental Protection Agency; Reorgani-
zation Plan No. 4 of 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 15627, 84 Stat. 2090,
Oct. 3, 1970, establishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Executive Order No. 11507, 35 Fed. Reg. 2573,
Feb. 4, 1970, with respect to prevention, control and abatement
of air and water pollution at Federal facilities; the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, footnote 1, supra; the Marine Protec-
tion, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-532, 86
Stat. 1052; the Estuary Protection Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-454;
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, 42 U.S.C. ��1857 et seq.,
see generally, Mandelker and Rothchild, The Role of Land Use
Controls in Combating Air Pollution under the Clean Air Act of
1970, 3 Eco. L.Q. 235 (1973); Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, 33 U.S.C. ��1151 et seq.; Noise Pollution and Abatement Act,
42 U.S.C. ��1858-1858a; Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C.
��4901 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. �1431; and the Federal Disaster
Prevention Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-234, providing for the strict
regulation of flood plains and providing in this regard for a ban
on further residential development below the 100 year flood
elevation level.

5a. See, generally, Binder, D., Taking Versus Reason-
able Regulation; A Reappraisal in Light of Regional Planning and
Wetlands, 25 Univ. of Fla. L. Rev. 1 (1972); BOSSELMAN, F., and
CALLIES, D., THE QUIET REVOLUTION IN LAND USE CONTROL, footnote
4, supra; BOSSELMAN, F., et al., THE TAKING ISSUE, footnote 4,
supra; Heath, Estuarine Conservation Legislation in the States,
5 Land & Water L. Rev. 351 (1970); Crooks, G., The Washington
Shoreline Management Act of 1971, 49 Wash. L. Rev. 423 (1974);
NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY LEGISLATION, 93D CONGRESS, AN
ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS AND STATE LAWS, prepared
by the Environmental Policy Division, Congressional Resource
Service, Library of Congress, at the request of the Senate Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 93d Congress, April,
1973, and LAND USE POLICY AND PLANNING ACT, REPORT OF THE COM-
MITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES SENATE,
TOGETHER WITH MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS TO ACCOMPANY S. 268,
June, 1973.

6. Cal. Gov. Code ��66600 et seq., establishing the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; see,
generally, Student Note, Saving San Francisco Bay: A Case Study
in Environmental Legislation, 23 Stan. L. Rev. 349 (1971).

255

Marsh

7. The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of
1972, enacted by initiative, Cal. Pub. Res. Code ��21000 et seq.

8. Cal. Gov. Code ��66800 et seq.; Student Comment,
Regional Government for Lake Tahoe, 22 Hast. L. Journ. 705
(1971); see also, Muys, Interstate Compacts and Water Resources
Planning and Management, 4 Nat. Res. L. 153 (1973).

9. See also, Cal. Pub. Res. Code ��22000 et seq.,
establishing the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study
Commission.

10. E.g., the California Land Conservation Act of 1965,
Cal. Gov. Code ��51200 et seq.; and Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code ��402.1
and 421-425, with respect to the taxation of agricultural lands;
and The Open-Space Lands Act of 1970, Cal. Gov. Code ��65560 et
seq. See also footnotes 86 et seq. and accompanying text.

11. See footnotes 82 et seq. and the accompanying text.

12. See footnotes 98 et seq. below and the accompanying
text.

13. Legislation is presently before Congress to est-
ablish a national land use policy. See, NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY
LEGISLATION, footnote 5a, supra. California Assemblyman Paul
Priolo has also introduced a pre-print of a proposed State Land
Use Bill as Assembly Bill Number 1 in the 1973-1974 California
Legislature.

14. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S.
266 (1897).

15. Section 14 of Article I of the California Con-
stitution provides that "Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without Just compensation having first
been made. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

16. See, generally, PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION,
HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT, Chapters IV, VII-XI
(1968), prepared in connection with the Commission's Report, ONE-
THIRD OF THE NATION'S LAND, footnote 4, supra.

17. See, e.g., GILLINGHAM, THE RANCHO SAN PEDRO (1961).

18. See, e.g. Cal. Civ. Code ��830 and 1069; and, e.g.,
Los Angeles v. San Pedro Railroad Co., 182 Cal. 652 (1920), cert.
denied 245 U.S. 636 (1920); and People v. California Fish Co.,
6TCal1. 576 (1913).

19. See, e.g., the survey of Rancho San Pedro as
reproduced in GILLINGHAM, THE RANCHO SAN PEDRO (1961), p. 208,
showing the exclusion of the "Inner Bay" and the islands therein
from the survey and thereby from the confirmatory patent although
the Decree of Confirmation provided that the boundary extended
"along the sea."

20. In excess of 65,000 acres of swamp and overflowed
lands were sold pursuant to the Swamp Lands Acts of 1849, 1850
and 1860, SHAW, S., and FREIDINE, WETLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
5 (1956). See, also, HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT,
p. 325, footnote 16, supra.

21. Taylor, N., Patented Tidelands: A Naked Fee?
Marks v. Whitney and The Public Trust Easement, 47 Calif. St. B.
Journ. 420, 421 (1972).

256

Marsh

22. See, e.g., People v. California Fish Co., 1966 Cal.
576 (1913); and Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251 (1973).

24. See, e.g., BOSSELMAN, F., et al., THE TAKING ISSUE,
footnote 4, supra; BOSSELMAN, F., and CALLIES, D., THE QUIET
REVOLUTION IN LAND USE CONTROL, footnote 5, supra; Dunham,
A Legal and Economic Basis for City Planning, 58Colum. L. Rev.
650 (1958); Dunham, Property, City Planning, and Liberty, in LAW
AND LAND 28 (HAAR, C, ed., 1964); Michaelman, Property, Utility
and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of "Just
Compensation" Law, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1165 (1967); Sax, Takings
and the Police Power, 74 Yale L. Journ. 36 (1964); Sax, Takings,
Private Property and Public Rights, 81 Yale L. Journ. 149 (1971);
Van Alstyne, A., Taking or Damaging by Police Power: The Search
for Inverse Condemnation Criteria 44 So. Calif. L. Rev. 39 (1971);
Van Alstyne, A. Modernizing Inverse Condemnation, A Legislative
Prospectus, 8 Santa Clara Lawyer (1967); Heyman, I., Innovative
Land Use Regulation and Comprehensive Planning, 13 Santa Clare
Lawyer 183 (1972); Harris, C., Environmental Regulations, Zoning
and Withheld Municipal Services: Takings of Property by Multi-
Government Action, 4 Univ. of Fla. L. Rev. 635 (1973); Ausness,
R., Land Use Controls in Coastal Areas, 9 Cal. Western L. Rev.
391 (1973); Netherton, Implementation of Land Use Policy: Police
Power v. Eminent Domain, 3 Land & Water L. Rev. 33 (1968); Kratovil
& Harrison, Eminent Domain -- Policy and Concept, 42 Calif. L.
Rev. 596 (1954); Binder, D., Taking Versus Reasonable Regulation:
A Reappraisal in Light of Regional Planning and Wetlands, footnote
5a, supra; Student Note, State and Local Wetlands Regulation: The
Problem of Taking Without Just Compensation, 58 Va. L. Rev. 876
(1972); OPEN SPACE AND THE LAW (HERRING, F., ed., 1965); Kusler, J.,
Open Space Zoning: Valid Regulation or Invalid Taking, 57 Minn.
L. Rev. 1 (1972).

24a. BOSSELMAN, et al., THE TAKING ISSUE, p. 53 et seq.,
footnote 4, supra.

25. Brice Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, 5
Law. 537 (N.Y., 1826).

26. Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick. 183 (Mass., 1831).

27. Commonwealth v. Tewkesbury, 11 Mete. 55 (Mass.,
1846).

28. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 (Mass., 1853).

29. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).

30. Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. 166 (1871).

31. With respect to the foregoing generally, see
BOSSELMAN, et al., THE TAKING ISSUE, p. 105 et seq., footnote 4,
supra.

32. In this regard, see the contemporaneous decision in
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 386-387
(1926). "Building zone laws are of modern origin. They began in
this country about twenty-five years ago. Until recent years,
urban life was comparatively simple; but with the great increase
and concentration of population, problems have developed, and
constantly are developing, which require, and will continue to
require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupa-
tion of private lands in urban communities. Regulations, the
wisdom, necessity and validity of which, as applied to existing
conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained,

257

Marsh

a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have
been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive."

33. 260 U.S. 393 (1922).

34. See, Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural
Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 63 Mich. L. Rev.
471, 478 et seq. (1970). Interestingly, the question has been
recently raised as to whether the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in navigable waters is based on the concept of
jus publicum -- property rights and interests, or regulatory
authority. In this regard the Corps recently asserted juris-
diction to the mean of the higher high tidal waters along the
Pacific Coast, 33 C.F.R., Part 209, �209.260; 37 Fed. Reg. 18289,
September 9, 1972, although historically it had asserted juris-
diction only to the mean of the high tidal waters. The question
of whether the basis of the Corps' additional assertion of
authority is in the nature of a property right or based on regu-
latory authority is important, particularly with respect to title
insurance coverage. Standard title insurance coverage does not
insure against loss-as the result of assertion of governmental
regulatory authority and therefore if the assertion of the Corps
is regulatory in nature, there is no compensation for any re-
sulting loss. This question has come up specifically with respect
to the Corps' assertion of authority in San Francisco Bay and in
San Diego County.

35. 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922). Holmes did suggest that
"One fact for consideration in determining such limits is the
extent of the diminution. When it reaches a certain magnitude,
in most cases if not all cases there must be an exercise of
eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act."

36. 272 U.S. 365 (1926).

37. Van Alstyne, A., Modernizing Inverse Condemnation:
A Legislative Prospectus, p. 25, footnote 24, supra; "There is no
set formula to determine where regulation ends and taking begins."
Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594 (1962).

38. See footnote 125, below and accompanying text.

39. For example, the flooding from the erection of a
dam. See footnote 30, supra.

40. E.g., see Vernon Park Realty, Inc. v. City of
Mount Vernon, 121 N.E. 2d 517 (1954), where a city zoned as
"parking" certain land which a railroad intended to develop, in
order to assure that the city would have it available for that
use. Also see, Morris County Land Improvement Co. v. Township
of Parsipanny-Troy Hills, 193 A.2d 232 (N.J., 1963), where the
court found that the purpose of certain regulations was to pro-
vide a flood water detention basin and open space; Dooley v.
Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Fairfield, 197 A.2d
770 (Conn., 1964), where the court found that lands consisting
primarily of tidal marsh and the regulations restricted permis-
sible uses to parks, playgrounds, marinas, clubhouses and wild-
life sanctuaries operated by governmental agencies or non-profit
organizations, and farming and gardening; that 170 out of 404
acres was privately owned, a portion of which had been assessed
for sewer improvements; that the private owners were left with no
economic uses; and that permitted uses were limited to those
normally thought of as public uses. Also see, State v. Johnson,
265 A.2d 711 (Me., 1970) held denial of permit to fill invalid;
Bartlett v. Zoning Commission of Town of Old Lyme, 282 A.2d 907
(Conn., 1971); and Commissioner of Natural Resources v. S. Volpe
& Co., 206 N.E. 2d 666 (Mass., 1965), which involved a State

258

Marsh

statute establishing permit procedure for dredging and filling of
tidal marsh under which the owner of a portion of the tidal marsh
was denied permit to construct marina; the court remanded the
case for further proceedings noting that while the protection of
fisheries was a proper purpose, it could not be used to completely
deny the owner of any economic use of his property. But see,
Golden v. Board of Selectmen of Falmouth, 265 N.E. 2d 573 (Mass.,
1970), upholding local regulation of Wetlands; Candlestick Prop-
erties, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, 11 Cal. App. 3d 557, 572 (lst Dist., 1970), upholding
the denial of a permit to fill, stating that "[t]he purpose of
the regulations and restrictions. . . is not merely to provide
open spaces. Rather, they are designed to preserve the existing
character of the bay while it is determined how the bay should be
developed in the future." A recent Maryland court of appeals
case upheld state wetlands legislation partially based upon the
ecological importance of the wetlands involved. Potomac Sand
& Gravel Co. v. Gov. of Maryland, 293 A.2d 241 (1972). See also,
Board of Public Works v. Lamar, 2 E.R.C. 1544 (Md., 1971)
and Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962), in which
the court upheld a local ordinance terminating certain sand and
gravel operations on basis of the potential harm to persons in
the area from the deep pools created.

41. McCarthy v. City of Manhattan Beach, 4 Cal. 2d 879
(1953).

42. Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928).

43. Sorocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853).

44. Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. The City of
Los Angeles, 57 Cal. 2d 515 (1962); Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239
U.S. 394 (1915).

45. See, Heyman, I. & Gilhool, T., The Constitutionality
of Imposing Increased Community Costs on New Suburban Residents
Through Subdivision Exactions, 73 Yale L. Journ. 1119 (1964); and
Johnston, The Constitutionality of Subdivision Control Exactions:
The Quest for a Rationale, 52 Cornell L. Q. 871 (1967).

46. FREUND, E., THE POLICE POWER �511, at 546-47 (1904).
Sometimes it is difficult, however, to distinguish whether a
benefit is being conferred or harm prevented. Van Alstyne points
out the lack of clarity in this regard with respect to regulat-
ions prohibiting billboards along highways. Van Alstyne, A.,
Modernizing Inverse Condemnation: A Legislative Prospectus,
p. 21, footnote 24 above.

47. Footnote 32, supra.

47a. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, 2 Cal 3d 29 (1970).
See generally, Shavelson, J., Gion v. City of Santa Cruz Where do
We go from Here?, 46 Cal. St. B. Journ. 415 (1972)

47b. Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251 (1971).

48. See Sax, Takings, Private Property and Public
Rignts, 81 Yale L. Journ. 149, 161 et seq. (1971). Thus, he ar-
gues, not only should a state be able to destroy cedar trees
which harbor parasites which threaten neighboring apple orchards,
but it should also be able to prevent the filling and dredging of
estuarine areas which provide fishery breeding grounds and nur-
series and the destruction or disturbance of areas of natural
scenic beauty, in which all of the public have an "interest."

259

Marsh

49. Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.W. 2d 761 (Wisc.,
1972); discussed in BOSSELMAN et al., THE TAKING ISSUE, p.
217 et seq., footnote 24 supra.

50. See also, Golden v. Board of Selectment of Falmouth,
265 N.E. 2d 573 (Mass., 1970), where the court upheld the denial
of a permit by a local agency to dredge a channel through a tidal
marsh; but see MacGibbon et al. v. Board of Appeals of Duxbury,
255 N.E. 2d 347 (Mass., 1970). See also ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE
ON OPEN SPACE LANDS, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, OPEN SPACE ZONING
HANDBOOK, p. 20 (1973) referring to the Sax article, footnote 48
supra, and the cases referred to generally in footnotes 49 and 50
above in finding that "[t]hese cases sustain directives by gov-
ernmental agencies to private land owners to leave their lands
in their natural state because to alter that condition would
adversely affect some aspects of the natural environment beyond
their property lines."

51. See footnote 17, supra and the accompanying text.

52. See footnote 21, supra.

53. See, e.g. Act of April 21, 1958, Stats. 1858, p.
198; Act of May 14, 1961, Stats. 1861, p. 363; Title VIII of the
Political Code of 1872; Act of March 28, 1868, Stats. 1867-68,
p. 716; and Act of March 27, 1872, Stats. 1871-72, p. 587. See
generally, Kimball v. McPherson, 46 Cal. 103 (1873); People v.
Morrill, 26 Cal. 336 (1864); Ward v. Mulford, 32 Cal. 365 (1867);
People v. Cowell, 60 Cal. 400 (1882); and Upham v. Hosking, 62
Cal. 250 (1882).

54. 166 Cal. 576 (1913); See Taylor, N., Patented
Tidelands: A Naked Fee? Marks v. Whitney and the Public Trust
Easement, footnote 21, supra.

55. It has been argued that a distinction should be
drawn between conveyances of lands which could be useful for
trust purposes and those which would not. In the latter case,
the conveyance would convey the lands free of the trust. In this
regard, however, the Marks v. Whitney decision, footnote 47b,
supra, holding that the permissible trust uses may be expanded to
include preservation for wildlife purposes would present a problem
with respect to the determination of the extent of trust purposes
at any particular time.

56. See, the Gion case, footnote 47a, supra.

57. See, e.g., Sibson v. State, 4 E.L.R. 200 (Sup. Ct.
N.H., 1973).

58. In this regard, see footnote 156 below, and the
accompanying text.

59. "'[T]he purpose of zoning is in general two-fold:
to preserve the existing character of an area for the development
of the general area in a manner consistent with the uses for
which they are suited. The regulations should be related to the
character of the district which they affect; and should be de-
signed to serve the welfare of those who are to occupy the land
in those districts.'" Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax
County v. Carper, 107 S.E. 2d 390, 395 (Va. 1959).

60. Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. Thatcher, 15 N.E.
2d 587, 591-592 (1938), area zoned residential unusable for that
purpose because of proximity to incinerator and sewage outlet.
Accord, William Murray Builders, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville,
254 S1. 2d 364 (Fla., 1971). See, also, Morris County Land Im-

260

Marsh

provement Co. v. Township of Parsipanny - Troy Hills, 193 A.2d
232 (N.J., 1963), invalidating zoning ordinance covering a 1,500
acre swamp while finding that the uses permitted (woods, herbace-
ous plants, fish and fish food, outdoor recreational uses operated
by a. government agency, conservation area, hunting and fishing
reserves, transmission lines and substations, antenna towers,
sewerage treatment plants, and water supply facilities) were
generally impractical; Hofkin v. Whitemarsh, 42 Pa. D. & C. 2d
417 (1967), permitted uses (including, e.g., cultivation and
harvesting of wild crops, game farms, fish hatcheries, wildlife
sanctuaries, sewage treatment plants, and utility transmission
lines) found by the trial court to be "impractical and completely
profitless," "fantastic;" Commission of Natural Resources v. S.
Volpe & Co., 206 N.E. 2d 666 (Mass., 1965); Skalko v. City of
Sunnyvale, 14 Cal. 2d 213 (1939), property zoned residential
adjacent to canneries in bordering industrial zone; and Bassey v.
City of Huntington Woods, 74 N.W. 2d 897 (Mich., 1956), property
fronting on a heavily travelled highway zoned for single family
residences. See also, Bartlett v. Zoning Commissions of Town of
Old Lyme 282 A 2d 907 (Conn., 1971).

61. Taschner v. City Council of City of Laguna Beach,
31 C.A. 3d 48 (1973), height limitation established by initiative
held void which recited that "the ecology of the City of Laguna
Beach is unique and dependent upon the preservation of the natural
contours of the hills and the integrity of the shoreline." But
see, San Diego Building Contractors Assoc. v. City Council of the
City of San Diego, 110 Cal. Rptr. 758 (1973).

62. See, generally, Lamm, R., and Davidson, S., The Le-
gal Control of Population Growth and Distribution in a Quality
Environment: The Land Use Alternatives, 49 Denver L. J. 1 (1972);
Bingham, W.,. & Bostick, C., Exclusionary Zoning Practices: An
Examination of the Current Controversy, 25 Vanderbilt L. Rev.
1111 (1972); Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton,
469 F. 2d 956 (1972); Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Township of
Madison, .283, A. 2d 353 (N.J., 1971); National Land and Investment
Company v. Kohn, 215 A.2d 597 (Pa., 1965, rehearing denied 1966);
Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Carper, 107
S.E. 2d 390 (Va., 1959); Appeal of Kit-Mar Builders, Inc., 268
A.2d 765 (Pa., 1970); Appeal of Girsh, 263 A.2d 395 (Pa., 1970);
Norbeck Village Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council,
254 A.2d 700 (Md., 1969); Kavanewsky v. Zoning Board of Appeals
of the Town of Warren, 279 A.2d 567 (Conn., 1971). But see,
Confederacion de la Raza Unida v. City of Morgan Hill, 324 F.
Supp. 895 (N.D. Cal., 1971), where the court upheld hillside
zoning over objections that the regulatory scheme was exclusion-
ary, noting, however, that the general plan of the city with
respect to housing had not been attacked as exclusionary.

63. See, for example, Southern Alameda Span. Sp. Org.
v. City of Union Hill, Cal., 424 F.2d 291 (9th Cir., 1970). See,
generally Freilich, R. & Bass, G., Exclusionary Zoning: Sug-
gested Litigation Approaches, 3 Urb. L. 344 (1971); and Sager,
Tight Little Islands Exclusionary Zoning, Equal Protection and
the Indigent, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 767 (1969).

64. 469 F.2d 956 (lst Cir., 1972).

65. Id at 961, quoting from Note, in 57 Iowa L. Rev.
126 at 140 (1972); See also Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Township
of Madison, at 356, footnote 62, supra.

66. Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties,
Inc., 108 Cal. Rptr. 271, 287 (1973).

67. "The test must be whether it [the zoning ordinance]
promotes reasonably a balanced and well-ordered plan for the en-

261

Marsh

tire municipality." Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Township of
Madison, 283 A.2d 353, 357 (N.J., 1971).

68. See, generally, Oakwood at Madison v. Township of
Madison, at 357, footnote 62, supra; Student Note, Zoning --
Municipal Corporations -- General Welfare as a Zoning Purpose Held
to Encompass Local and Regional Housing Needs, 26 Rutgers L. Rev.
401 (1973);

68a. See, e.g., Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of
Ramapo, 285 N.E. 2d 291 (1972). See generally, Bosselman, F.,
Can the Town of Ramapo Pass a Law to Bind the Rights of the
Whole World, 1 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 234 (1973); and Freilich,
Interim Development Controls: Essential Tools for Implementing
Flexible Planning and Zoning, 49 Urb. L. 65 (1971). See also,
footnotes 82 et seq. and the accompanying text.

69. See, e.g., Morris County Land Improvement Company
v. Parsippany - Troy Hills Township, 193 A.2d 232 (N.J., 1963),
restriction of swampland to some agricultural uses, wildlife
sanctuaries and outdoor recreation, held to constitute a taking;
Dooley v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Fairfield,
197 A. 2d 770 (Conn., 1964); Commissioner of National Resources
v. S. Volpe Co., Inc., 206 N.E. 2d 666 (Mass., 1965); Candle-
stick Properties, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Construction and
Development Commission, 11 Cal.App. 3d 557 (1970); Consolidated
Rock Products Co., v. The City of Los Angeles, 57 Cal. 2d 515,
appeal dismissed, 371 U.S. 36 (1962). See also, McCarthy v.
City of Manhattan Beach, 4 Cal. 2d 879 (1953).

70. See, e.g., National Land and Investment Company v.
Kohn, 215 A.2d 597, 608 (Pa., 1966). See, generally,
Krasnowiecki & Strong, Compensible Regulations for Open Space,
Journ. of the Am. Inst. of Planners 87, 89 (1963).

71. Sibson v. State, 4 E.L.R. 200 (Sup. Ct., N.H.,
1973).

72. BOSSELMAN et al. THE TAKING ISSUE, p. 208 et seq.
footnote 24, supra.

73. See, e.g., Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.W. 2d
761 (Wisc. 1972), in which the court stated: "An owner of land
has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential
natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for
which it is unsuited in its natural state and which injures the
rights of others" p. 768. This decision should be compared with
other recent decisions which on various bases support regulatory
or other schemes deny the owner of lands the right to develop
then, including, Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251 (1971), tide
and submerged lands; State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, 462 P.2d
671 (Ore., 1969), beach lands; Gion v. City of Santa Cruz,
2 Cal. 3d 29 (1970), public access to beaches; Turner v.
County of Del Norte, 24 Cal. App. 3d 311 (1972), flood plain
zoning; Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962);
Zabel v. Tabb, 430 2d 199 (1970), navigable waters; and Wilbour
v. Gallagher, 462 P.2d 232 (Wash., 1969) cert. denied, 400
U.S. 878 (1970), inland lake.

74. Michaelman, Property, Utility and Fairness:
Comments on the Ethical Foundations of "Just Compensation" Law.
supra, p. 1234, footnote 24, suggests that it may be a method
to determine that the needs of the group are sufficiently great
to demand the sacrifice on the part of the individual.

75. Sirocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853).

262

Marsh

76. PROSSER, TORTS, p. 126 (4th ed, 1971).

77. Justice Holmes in Mahon, footnote 35, supra, es-
poused the concept of "an average reciprocity of advantage."

78. Footnote 32, supra.

79. Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek,
4 Cal. 3d 633 (1971), upholding requirement of fee in lieu of
dedication of land for park and recreational purposes.

80. Michaelman, Property, Utility and Fairness:
Comments on the Ethical Foundations of "Just Compensation" Law,
p. 1193, footnote 24, supra.

81. See, generally, Heyman, I., Innovative Land Regula-
tion and Comprehensive Planning, footnote 24, supra; Newark Milk
and Cream Co. v. Parsippany - Troy Hills, 135 A.2d 682, 695
(1957). See also, Smith v. County of Santa Barbara, 243 Cal. 2d
126 (1966), upholding zone change from residential to design in-
dustrial covering land under an airport approach on the basis
that it was part of a "comprehensive zoning scheme" and that the
landowner was entitled to relief only if the regulation deprived
him of all reasonable use of his land. Zahn v. Board of Public
Works, 195 Cal. 497 (1925), affirmed 274 U.S. 235 (1927); Miller
v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 (1925), appeal dismissed,
273 U.S. 781 (1927); Magruder v. Redwood City, 203 Cal. 665 (1928);
Feraut v. Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687 (1928); Beverly Oil Co. v. Los
Angeles, 40 Cal. 2d 552 (1953); Clemons v. Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 2d
95 (1950); McCarthy v. Manhattan Beach, 4 Cal. 2d 879 (1953); and
Harr, C. In Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan, 68 Harv. L. Rev.
1154 (1955).

81a. Ordinance 38.235 adopted by the City Council of the
City of Milpitas December 5, 1972.

81b. Standard Pacific Corp. v. City of Pleasanton, (Ala-
meda County Super. Ct.; No. 423602, filed May 1, 1972).

81c. See footnote 68a, supra.

81d. Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay
v. City of Livermore, (Alameda County Super. Ct., No. 425754,
December 29, 1972); CRANSTON, M., GARTH, B., PLATTNER, R., and
VARON, J., A HANDBOOK FOR CONTROLLING LOCAL GROWTH, Stanford
Environmental Law Society (1973) pp. 90 et seq. Since that time
interim ordinance number 813 was adopted by the City on March 15,
1973 to rezone certain residentially zoned property to agricul-
tural zones clearly as holding zones pending the revision of the
City's general plan.

81e. CRANSTON et al., A HANDBOOK FOR CONTROLLING LOCAL
GROWTH, pp. 103 et seq. footnote 81b, supra.

82. Urgency Interim Ordinance adopted by the City
Council of the City of Irvine December 18, 1973, �12.

83. Footnote 68a. See also accompanying text.

83a. Resolution 6113 N.C.S. adopted by the City of
Petaluma City Council August 21, 1972.

84. Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County
et al v. City of Petaluma, (Sonoma Cty. Super. Ct. No. 73-0663-LHB).
See footnote 68a, supra. See also, Edwards v. California, 314 U.S.
160 (1940), criminal penalty for bringing an indigent non-resident
into State enacted by California to stand the influx of indigents

263

Marsh

from the "dust bowl;" Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969),
requirement that persons reside within state or the District of
Columbia for one year before being eligible for welfare payments;
Dunn v. Blumstein, 92 U.S. 995 (1972), requirement of one-year
residency in State and three-month residency in the county before
eligibility to vote for various elected officials; Cole v. Housing
Authority, 435 F.2d 807 (1st Cir., 1970), two-year residency in
city requirement for access to federally assisted housing program;
King v. Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F.2d 646 (2d
Cir., 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 863 (1971), similar result,
the court acknowledging right to travel includes right to travel
within a state; and Student Note, Depression Migrants and the
States, 53 Harv. L. Rev. 1031 (1940); Student Comment, State
Control of Interstate Migration of Indigents, 40 Mich. L. Rev.
711 (1942); Boudin, The Constitutional Right to Travel, 56 Colum.
L. Rev. 47 (1956); Student Note, Residence Requirements After
Shapiro v. Thompson, 70 Colum. L. Rev. 134 (1970); Student Note,
Shapiro v. Thompson: Travel, Welfare and the Constitution, 44
N.Y.U. L. Rev. 989 (1969); Student Comment, The Right to Travel
and its Application-to Restrictive Housing Laws, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev.
635 (1971); Student Comment, The Right to Travel -- Its Protection
and Application Under the Constitution, 40 U.S. 137 (1971).

84a. CRANSTON, et al., A HANDBOOK FOR CONTROLLING LOCAL
GROWTH, footnote 81b, supra.

85. Harris, C., Environmental Regulations, Zoning, and
Withheld Municipal Services: Takings of Property by Multi-
Government Action, 4 Unis. of Fla. L. Rev. 635 (1973).

86. See, generally, ECKBO, DEAN, AUSTIN & WILLIAMS,
STATE OPEN SPACE AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CALIFORNIA,
prepared for the California Legislature Joint Committee on Open
Space Land (1972); CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT COMMITTEE ON OPEN
SPACE LAND, FINAL REPORT (1970); ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON OPEN
SPACE LANDS, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, OPEN SPACE ZONING HANDBOOK
(1973).

87. Cal. Stats of 1970, Chapter 1590, p. 3315, Section
15.

88. Cal. Gov. Code �551200-51294; Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code
��402.1, and 421-25. See, generally, OPEN SPACE AND THE LAW
(HERRING, F., ed., 1965).

88a. Cal. Gov. Code �65302.

88b. Cal. Gov. Code 565563.

89. Cal. Gov. Code �65860.

90. Selby Realty Company v. City of San Buenaventura,
10 Cal. 3d 110 (1973).

91. In this regard, the Los Angeles Superior Court
recently was reported to have held that the Environmental Develop-
ment Guide of 1970, adopted by the Los Angeles County Regional
Planning Commission as part of the General Plan of the County is
not regulatory and until a building permit or tentative tract map
is denied, no taking occurs.

92. Cal. Gov. Code �65560.

93. Cal. Gov. Code �65566.

94. Cal. Gov. Code �65567.

95. Cal. Gov. Code �65910.

264

Marsh

96. P. 24, cited in footnote 86, supra.

97. Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (County of Santa
Clara Super. Ct., No. 282965), dismissed March 26, 1973,
upon the sustaining of a demurrer; Beyer v. City of Palo Alto,
et al. (County of Santa Clara Super. Ct., No. P22974), dis-
missed June 27, 1973, upon the sustaining of a demurrer; and
Arastra Limited Partnership v. City of Palo Alto (U.S. District
Ct., N.D. Cal., No. C-27 - 2305 - RHS) pending.

98. Turner v. Del Norte County, 24 Cal. App. 3d 311
(1972), upholding flood-plain zoning; California participates in
the Federal flood plain insurance program. See, National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. ��4001 et seq.; The Federal
Disaster Prevention Act of 1973, footnote 5, supra; and Cal. Wat.
Code ��8325 et seq. See generally Student Comment, Flood Plain
Zoning in California -- Open Space by Another Name: Policy and
Practice, 10 San Diego L. Rev. 381 (1973).

99. See, e.g., Confederacion de la Raza Unida v. Morgan
Hill, 324 F. Supp. 895 (N.D. Cal., 1971).

101. See e.g., on the state level the regulatory schemes
administered by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission with respect to San Francisco Bay (Cal. Gov. Code
��66600 et seq.), the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency with respect
to the Lake Tahoe area (Cal. Gov. Code ��66801 et seq.; and the
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission with respect to the coastal
zone (Cal. Pub. Res. Code ��27000 et seq.). See, generally, Note,
Regional Government for Lake Tahoe, 22 Hast. L. Journ. 705 (1971).
California entered into an interstate compact with Nevada which
was approved by Congress (pub. Law 91-148, 83 Stat. 360) estab-
lishing the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency with powers to make
and enforce a comprehensive plan. The constitutionality of the
Agency was upheld in People Ex Rel Younger v. County of El Dorado,
5 Cal. 3d 480 (1971). In that case the Califorhia Supreme Court
stated that "[T]here is good reason to fear the region's national
wealth contains the virus of its ultimate impoverishment. A
staggering increase in population, a greater mobility of people,
an affluent society and an incessant urge to invest, to develop,
to acquire and merely to spend--all combined to pose a severe
threat to the Tahoe region." Id at 482. See also, ODELL, R.,
THE SAVING OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY (Conservation Foundation, 1972);and
Jackson, H., & Baum, A., Regional Planning: The Coastal Zone
Initiative Analyzed in Light of the BCDC Experience, 47 Cal. St.
B. Journ. 426 (1972).

102. See, County of Los Angeles General Plan, p. 119,
adopted June 28, 1973, which supplemented the Environmental
Development Guide, adopted in October of 1970.

104. See, Second Draft, Resource Management Ordinance,
Orange County, California, dated March 19, 1973, prepared by
Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams with Ira Michael Heyman as legal
consultant. The proposed ordinance would establish the following
management districts: natural resources, agricultural resources,
cultural resources, water resources and hillside and soils re-
sources. With respect to regulatory schemes in other states
established with regard to wetlands, and mountain and scenic areas,
see, generally, BOSSELMAN and CALLIES, THE QUIET REVOLUTION IN
LAND USE CONTROLS, footnote 24, supra; OPEN SPACE ZONING HANDBOOK,
p. 17, footnote 50, supra; Binder, Taking Versus Reasonable Regu-
lation: A Reappraisal in Light of Regional Planning and Wetlands,
footnote 5a, supra; Heath, Estuarine Conservation Legislation in
the States, footnote 5a, supra; and Student Note, State and Local

265

Marsh

Wetlands Regulation: The Problem of Taking Without Just Compen-
sation, 5b Va. L. Rev. b76 (1972).

105. See, e.g., Colberg, Inc. v. State of California,
67 Cal. 2d 408 (1967), holding that there is no compensation
required where a state exercises its authority with respect to
navigable waters to construct a bridge which interferes with
navigable access to private uplands. See, generally, Krueger,
Coastal Zone Management: The California Experience, 47 Cal.
State Bar J. 403 (1972); Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in
Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich.
L. Rev. 471 (1970);

106. Cal. Const., Art. 15.

107. See, e.g., County of Orange v. Heim, 30 Cal. App.
3d 694 (1973).

108. Including preservation for "ecological units,
for scientific study, as open spaces, and as environments
which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and
which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area."
Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 259-60 (1971)

109. Cal. Pub. Res. Code ��6300 et seq.

110. E.g., Marks v. Whitney, footnote 108, supra, and
County of Orange v. Heim, footnote 107, supra.

111. See footnote 34, supra.

112. City of Oakland v. Oakland Waterfront Co., 118
Cal. 160 (1897).

113. 33 U.S.C. ��401 et seq.

114. 430 2d 199 (1970).

115. See, proposed regulations regarding permits for
activities in navigable waters, 33 C.F.R., Part 209, �209.120;
38 Fed. Reg. 12217, May 10, 1973; and definitions of navigable
waters, 33 C.F.R., Part 209, �209.260; 37 Fed. Reg. 18289,
September 9, 1972.

116. 16 U.S.C. �662.

117. See, Marks v. Whitney, footnote 108 supra.

118. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, footnote 47a, supra,
which expressly overruled the earlier decision of F. A. Hihn
v. City of Santa Cruz, 170 Cal. 436 (1915).

119. Cal. Civ. Code �1009(f), provides as follows:

"No use, subsequent to the effective
date of this section, by the public
of . . . [generally, any coastal
property within 1,000 yards of the
mean high tide line] shall constitute
evidence or be admissible as evidence
that the public or any governmental
body or unit has any right in such
property by implied dedication . . ."

provided the owner posts certain signs, publishes a certain
notice, records a notice pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code �813 or
enters into an agreement with a Federal, state or local agency
providing for the public use of such property.

266

Marsh

120. Footnote 107, supra.

121. Cal. Gov. Code �12606.

122. Ibid.

123. Footnote 32, supra.

124. Cal. Gov. Code �65850.

125. See, generally, Ellickson, Alternatives to Zoning:
Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls,
40 Univ. of Chi. L. Rev. 681 (1973); and Student Comment, Land
Use Control in Metropolitan Areas: The Failure of Zoning and
a Proposed Alternative, 45 So. Calif. L. Rev. 335 (1972).

126, See, e.g., footnote 96, supra.

127. 42 U.S.C. ��4321 et seq.

128. Cal. Pub. Res. Code ��21000 et seq.

129. 42 U.S.C. �1457.

130. Established by directive of the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget, Office of Management and Budget (Circular
Number A-95, October, 1968, as revised February 9, 1972).

131. Cal. Stats. of 1965, ch. 1880.

132. Cal. Gov. Code �65302.

133. Cal. Stats. of 1970, ch. 1590.

134. See footnote 90, supra.

135. Footnote 88b, supra.

136. See, for example, the letter from Assemblyman Frank
Holoman, Chairman of the Joint Subcommittee of the California
Legislature on Community Development, dated April, 1974, to
interested persons requesting testimony on various topics in-
cluding the question of whether the State should require cities
to develop a "community development process" which would require
the identification of community needs and strategies to meet
those needs, acknowledging that "the regulatory and budgeting
process should be brought together in an identifiable way so
that they can be directed toward community needs."

137. Cal. Gov. Code �65451.

138. E.g., see City of Cerritos Ordinance Number 425.

139. Proposed Ordinance No. 9386.

140. See, A Handbook for Controlling Local Growth,
footnote 81b, supra.

141. Footnote 114, supra.

142. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1 E.L.R. 20346 (D.C. Cir., 1971).

143. For example, recently, the Manhattan Beach School
District, Manhattan Beach, California stated its intention to
sell excess school lands shown as open-space on the city's open-
space plan, rejecting the arguments that it had any duty in this

267

Marsh

regard other than to provide educational services and facilities
for the students.

144. Footnote 5, supra, together with the executive
orders referred to in that footnote.

144a. Footnote 128, supra.

145. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, footnote 142, supra.

146. See, generally, Cal. Adm. Code, Title 14,
Section 13210.

147. For example, Russell D. Earnest, then Field
Supervisor, Southern California Office, Division of River Basin
Studies, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, at a recent
conference on dredging stated that: "Although the proposed EPA
criteria state that the selection of disposal sites will be
based on considerations of the need for disposal, economic costs
involved, available alternatives and the extent of the environ-
mental impact, the Bureau will continue to evaluate dredging
projects only from the standpoint of the impact on fish and wild-
life resources. Decisions of the Bureau will not be swayed by
economic considerations." SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, ECOLOGY, ECONO-
MICS & DREDGING, A BALANCING POINT FOR NAVIGATION, with respect
to the California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference held
October 13, 1973 in San Diego, California.

148. Footnote 145, supra, and the accompanying text.

149. See, footnote 4, supra.

150. Footnote 4, supra.

151. See Student Comment, Regional Government for
Lake Tahoe, footnote 8, supra.

152. See, generally, Muys, Interstate Compacts and
Regional Water Resources Planning and Management, footnote 8,
supra, above.

153. See BOSSELMAN, F., & CALLIES, D., THE QUIET
REVOLUTION IN LAND-USE CONTROLS, footnote 4, supra; NATIONAL
LAND USE POLICY LEGISLATION, footnote 5a, supra.

154. Speech by Brigadier General George Fink, Division
Engineer, South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, at the
Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference, Ecology, Economics
& Dredging, A Balancing Point for Navigation, held Saturday,
October 13, 1973, in San Diego, California.

155. See, footnote 137, supra.

156. See, the text accompanying footnote 58, supra.

157. See, the text accompanying footnote 148, supra.

158. See, the text preceding footnote 151, supra.

159. See, the text preceding footnote 146, supra.

160. See, for example, student comment, Development
Rights Transfer in New York City, 82 Yale L. Journ. 338 (1972).

161. See, e.g., Svirsky, P., San Francisco: The Down-
town Development Bonus System, In THE NEW ZONING: LEGAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND ECONOMIC CONCEPTS AND TECHNIQUES, p. 139,
(Marcus, N., & Groves, M., eds, 1972).

268

Marsh

162. See, text accompanying footnote 80, supra.

163. See, footnote 77, supra.

164. It is the intent of the author to further refine
the ideas set forth in a second article. Accordingly, he would
appreciate receiving comments or suggestions with respect to the
ideas presented.

269